Bigfoot, an evolutionary argument for it's non-existence.

Drewbot said:
Parcher, you still don't think he is contradicting himself by saying Giganto was too big to be a knucklewalker?
Click to expand...


You will show that he is self-contradictory when you show where he has previously said that Gigantopithecus was a knuckle-walker.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Interesting, but apparently no evidence. How is this acceptable in the scientific community?
Click to expand...


I don't know what the scientific community thinks of Ciochon et al's estimate of 1200 lbs for Giganto.

I guess we also don't know what the scientific community thinks of "evolution could never produce a 450 lb bipedal ape."
 
Meldrum: You can't have a 1000 lb knuckle-walking ape.

Drew: You can't have a 450 lb bipedal ape.


Where is the evidence to support either or both of those proclamations?
 
It's kinda funny to think that I would be more likely to believe in Bigfoot if they changed their estimates of it's size.

I mean, it's much easier to believe in an undiscovered 3'-4' tall opportunistic omnivore going unnoticed for a long time. Bipedal or not that's a critter you could slip into an ecosystem with a lot fewer ripples.

I wonder...Given all the descriptions and the size estimates is there a chance that "Bigfoot" might actually be a grizzly bear with mange? They look pretty weird without their fur and can walk on their hind legs for short periods of time.
 
Drewbot said:
i did above, page 99 of LMS
Click to expand...


Where does he say that Gigantopithecus was a knuckle-walker?


Jeff Meldrum said:
Given Gigantopithicus's large size, activity in the treetops was virtually prohibited, and tropical fruits out of reach. It was most likely ground-dwelling, or terrestrial. Once restricted to the ground by it's bulk, there would be only two locomotor options- either quadrupedalism (including a possible form of knucklewalking or perhaps fist-walking) or bipedalism.
Click to expand...
 
Weak Kitten said:
I mean, it's much easier to believe in an undiscovered 3'-4' tall opportunistic omnivore going unnoticed for a long time. Bipedal or not that's a critter you could slip into an ecosystem with a lot fewer ripples.
Click to expand...


IMO, after 400 years in North America without a specimen... your 4 footer is no more likely than a 7 footer.
 
Drewbot said:
he says he was possibly a knuckle walker in that quote, now he says it would be impossible due to weight.
Click to expand...


I have examined the Homo sapiens skeleton and determined that it is ground-dwelling, or terrestrial. Once restricted to the ground by it's anatomy, there would be only two locomotor options- either quadrupedalism (including a possible form of knucklewalking or perhaps fist-walking) or bipedalism. From the examination of the skeleton, I have determined that quadrupedalism is not feasible for Homo sapiens; it is a biped.

Did I commit any self-contradictions in the above set of statements?
 
Last edited:
No, but Meldrum hasnt examined Gigantopithecus. Sapiens' skeleton is not suited for quad. locomotion, however, Gigantos could be. How is he reaching his conclusion?
 
What kind of a timeline would you put on the Sasquatch’ foot evolution? How long would it take for a species to develop a mid-tarsal break combined with bipedal qualities in a foot?
For example, if the Sasquatch foot is built for climbing rocks and mountains, the sasquatch foot probably would have developed in a mountainous region, do you think the foot evolved here in North America? Or do you think it came out of Africa in the form it is in? It seems the ideal foot for spreading out of Africa in human-type people would be the bipedal foot. Especially when you consider the long treks over tundra, and the steppes of Asia.
 
Drewbot said:
No, but Meldrum hasnt examined Gigantopithecus. Sapiens' skeleton is not suited for quad. locomotion, however, Gigantos could be. How is he reaching his conclusion?
Click to expand...
At this point it would not be a bad idea to remind lurkers and new comers that gigantopithecus' remains are pieces of jaws and teeth.

Hey, maybe it was just a small ape with a BIG mouth...

Given the available evidence, my "bigmouth theory" is as good as Meldrum's.
 
Look Drew, Meldrum theorizes Bigfoot as a bipedal ape with a mid-tarsal break. I don't know that you can come up with a silver bullet argument against him. Maybe he would speculate that the ancestor of Bigfoot evolved bipedalism in Asia, not Africa. It's bipedal yet still has a MTB that is modified to allow for walking.
 
William Parcher said:
Look Drew, Meldrum theorizes Bigfoot as a bipedal ape with a mid-tarsal break. I don't know that you can come up with a silver bullet argument against him. Maybe he would speculate that the ancestor of Bigfoot evolved bipedalism in Asia, not Africa. It's bipedal yet still has a MTB that is modified to allow for walking.
Click to expand...

I asked him, we will see how your predictive powers operate.
 
Correa Neto said:
Hey, maybe it was just a small ape with a BIG mouth...

Given the available evidence, my "bigmouth theory" is as good as Meldrum's.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's got more weight than the crap Meldrum puts out there. There are some who envision Gigantopithecus as a gorilla-sized creature with enlarged jaws to help it process tough, fibrous bamboo as an important food source.
 
Oh, well, then let me make it more absurd...

Small apes with big mouths and could talk.

Better now?
 
Hi all, first time poster here and excellent discussion. I can't say where I stand on cryptozoology, but for the most part I want to believe, but cannot without valid data.
I have long told myself for 30 years, if the PG Film is not real, then Bigfoot, simply does not exist. That is off subject, but to let you know where I stand. Here are a few thoughts (using common sense, or I'll at least try). Also, I'm new here and don't beat me up too bad if I put something, some of you do not agree with. Remember, I'm just a dummy trying to use common sense to prove/disprove things that may or may not exist.

Here goes.
I got to thinking if Bigfoot exists in the USA, where would he be? I found an article on line about the percentage of forest that is in the US. (I will put the link to the article and not sure what the rule is posting links, someone can correct me if I do it wrong so I learn).

"In 1997, 302 million hectares—or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—was in forest land."
fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf

33 percent. To me, it is saying only about a small percentage of the US is "unexplored" at best. Given that unexplored, does not include details as forest workers, hunters, hikers, and so forth are in some of these areas day in and out. For a sustainable population to exist in such a small area and has never been proven to exist, puzzles me? Also, I can't tell you the times I have been in the woods, with a high powered rifle while large game eludes me. They seem to have a second sense of when you are hunting them. Would not a big beast, making noise, smelling horrible, with no hunting weapons, have a tough time eating?

The next thing might disturb some of you what I did, but I was trying to prove a point. I reported an online submission to BFRO about a "Bigfoot" sighting that I had in Lawrenceburg, KY. If that name rings a bell, Monster Quest came here to film "Bigfoot", The Hill Billy Beast episode. I will give BFRO credit, as they tried to contact me several times from my "sighting" at Wild Turkey, about 4 miles from where I lived and to my knowledge, never validated the sighting. I never returned the messages. I just thought strange, that Monster Quest was here no more then 4 months after that filming, by Wild Turkey, I might add. Coincidence, you decide? I know what I did was wrong, but I was testing to see if they published any report. I am not fond of Matt's site at all and the way they run the site. The only credit I can give them, is not publishing the sighting.

Last, but not least, I spoke to Grover Krantz in about 1992-93? I spoke to him over the phone several times about the PG film and what he really believed. He was in Seattle, I think, at the time teaching. Very intelligent man. He did believe in the creature, but had doubts about some evidence. I'm not sure if I should be telling you what a deceased man told me as hearsay? I don't know if the forum rules allow me to say or if it even correct as we were the only two witnesses. He told me, of the PG film, two things. He said either the creature or the footprints were real, but not both as they did not match up. I have no idea if he ever talked about that in an article or in his books or whatever, but that is what he told me over the phone on one of our conversations.

I have had a strong interest in Bigfoot forever. I am simply an armchair researcher who has looked into this topic for 30 years, I'm 41. I also talked to John Green on an occasion or two. I put all that in to say, I'm not a newb that's a wanna be, like some other names I have seen in these forums (most appear to have been banned, hehe).
This is just my two cents worth, to see what others think of what I know as truths.
P.S. If I volated a rule, don't shoot me and let me know so I can correct it.
Scott.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom