Merged Bigfoot follies

[Cleon]

I wouldn't want the job of classifying it, or even naming it. Should it be Gigantopithecus krantzii, Australopithecus sandersonii, or even Ardepithecus takethatmichaeldennettii?

Again, this is one of those things that makes it hard to take bigfoot seriously.

Even assuming the evidence for Bigfoot's existence is valid and substantial--which I don't concede--there's not a shred of reason to consider that he'd fall into any of the above genii.

In fact, gigantopithecus is probably out completely, as he probably wasn't bipedal. Australopithecines and ardepithecus were much smaller than human beings. Any attempt at classification at this point is purely guesswork and distracts from the need of Bigfootologists to get enough evidence to prove it even exists!

 

[LTC8K6]

I've given you the names of several well-respected scientists who have reached the conclusion they're a real animal based on the evidence.

The lifespan is a good guess based on the lifespans of other great apes.
Does the Patterson creature look like a juvenile?

What evidence? I haven't seen anything I would call good evidence. Certainly nothing to justify saying Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus Blacki, and claiming GB was bipedal so it could fit the story. I have seen precious little to justify any scientist doing any more than continuing to look on sceptically.

Though no skeletal remains had been found, Dr. Krantz proposed that the North American footprints alone could be used to describe this species, and cited other non-skeletal material used to describe fossil species as precedent. He further proposed that the footprints found and cast be referred to as Gigantopithecus blacki, with the caveat that classification could be adjusted as needed should future evidence suggest it.

How would anyone know anything about what a juvenile looked like, or what the lifespan was? I have absolutely no idea if the creature in the P/G film looks like a juvenile.

It looks female.

If you had never seen a Giraffe before, you might well think a juvenile was an adult, until you saw mom & child together.

Some humans are quite big & tall early on. They are not adults, and you might not be able to tell an adult from a juvenile in a film, since the juvenile can be bigger and taller than the adult.

 

[LAL]

Again, this is one of those things that makes it hard to take bigfoot seriously.

I wasn't being serious.

Even assuming the evidence for Bigfoot's existence is valid and substantial--which I don't concede--there's not a shred of reason to consider that he'd fall into any of the above genii.

In fact, gigantopithecus is probably out completely, as he probably wasn't bipedal. Australopithecines and ardepithecus were much smaller than human beings. Any attempt at classification at this point is purely guesswork and distracts from the need of Bigfootologists to get enough evidence to prove it even exists!

George Schaller has a problem with a specialized bamboo-eater making it over the Bering Strait.

Krantz thought Gigantopithecus blacki (there was a smaller species as well) was bipedal based on the width of the jaw (wide to allow the passage of a vertical spinal column). It's now thought they were related to Orangutans, but there's really not enough in the way of fossils to establish the mode of locomotion one way or the other. The size seems to match, and it's possible they're an ancestor or a relative, if Sasquatches are not a remnant population.

Napier thought Sasquatches could have been descended from A. robustus. There are other possible bipedal ancestors that have been discovered since then. We don't even knoe our own lineage for certain. The consensus (according to Chris Stringer) is that bipedalism was first, k-w a later adaptation in the Great Apes. The size could be an adaptation for cold.

As for them evolving from a smaller bipedal ancestor, why not? We did.

I don't know of any serious attempts at classification at this point. I personally hate the term "Bigfoot". It's journalese.
"Sasquatch" is a corruption of a Salish Indian name for them and is the preferred term in Canada. It's much more dignified, IMO.

Since there is no field of "Bigfootology", how are there "Bigfootologists"? I know of no one who's spending full time on this.

 

[LAL]

How would anyone know anything about what a juvenile looked like, or what the lifespan was? I have absolutely no idea if the creature in the P/G film looks like a juvenile.

It looks female.

The figure in the MD film looks like a juvenile. It's slim and is running in the first part. It has a kind of lithe, teen-aged look to it.

The figure in the Patterson film is solid, heavily muscled, a bit beat up.

If you had never seen a Giraffe before, you might well think a juvenile was an adult, until you saw mom & child together.

Some humans are quite big & tall early on. They are not adults, and you might not be able to tell an adult from a juvenile in a film, since the juvenile can be bigger and taller than the adult.

Juvenile animals are, hm.........softer, finer. Kind of hard to describe, but it's easy to spot an immature individual

 

[Cleon]

Krantz thought Gigantopithecus blacki (there was a smaller species as well) was bipedal based on the width of the jaw (wide to allow the passage of a vertical spinal column). It's now thought they were related to Orangutans, but there's really not enough in the way of fossils to establish the mode of locomotion one way or the other. The size seems to match, and it's possible they're an ancestor or a relative, if Sasquatches are not a remnant population.

It's also possible that Sasquatches came off the mothership. Evidence? Zilch.

Napier thought Sasquatches could have been descended from A. robustus. There are other possible bipedal ancestors that have been discovered since then. We don't even knoe our own lineage for certain. The consensus (according to Chris Stringer) is that bipedalism was first, k-w a later adaptation in the Great Apes. The size could be an adaptation for cold.

Which is why theorizing about Bigfoot's lineage is about as logical as theorizing about what makes the Enterprise's warp drive tick.

I don't know of any serious attempts at classification at this point. I personally hate the term "Bigfoot". It's journalese.
"Sasquatch" is a corruption of a Salish Indian name for them and is the preferred term in Canada. It's much more dignified, IMO.

Dignified? You're kidding, right?

 

[LAL]

It's also possible that Sasquatches came off the mothership. Evidence? Zilch.

There's less evidence for the mothership.

Which is why theorizing about Bigfoot's lineage is about as logical as theorizing about what makes the Enterprise's warp drive tick.

If Krantz was correct, there's good reason to assume a relationship. If nothing else, Giganto proves primates can get that large. Primates come in all sorts of weird shapes and a variety of sizes and lifestyles. The Bili apes are huge, and though they're chimpanzees (according to Sarmiento, et al) they seem to have a Gorilla-like lifestyle. Not many were expecting a new Great Ape species in Africa. Gorillas were thought to be a native myth until they were discovered by whites.

Dignified? You're kidding, right?

As I said, it's more dignified than "Bigfoot". That's not to say it's dignified. How about the Cree name for them? It's "mamemgishe", but who can spell it?

 

[Bronze Dog]

If Krantz was correct... <snip>

Is Krantz correct?

 

[Cleon]

There's less evidence for the mothership.

Not by a whole lot.

If Krantz was correct, there's good reason to assume a relationship.

That's a mighty big "if."

As I said, it's more dignified than "Bigfoot". That's not to say it's dignified. How about the Cree name for them? It's "mamemgishe", but who can spell it?

Who gives a dingle-dong about "dignified?" "Dignified" should not enter into discussions of what are probably mythological beings. Even if he was real, who cares? Call him Bigfoot, call him Sasquatch, or call him what homo erectus probably said when they ran into gigantopithecus. ("Oh, $%^&!"--at least, according to paleoanthropologist Alan Walker.)

(And mangling a Native language might be more dignified for the Big Guy, but not so much for the Salish.)

 

[LTC8K6]

The figure in the MD film looks like a juvenile. It's slim and is running in the first part. It has a kind of lithe, teen-aged look to it.

Lithe, teen aged look? Like Lance Armstrong? Gwen Stefani?
Not like Shaquille O'neill, then?

There are all sorts of differently shaped and sized adult and juvenile humans. Tall, short, chunky, skinny, petite, etc.

 

[erikbeckjord]

edit

edit

 

[erikbeckjord]

"We are the Galileo, Louis Pasteur,Wright Bros, Columbus of the Bigfoot world."

It's been my experience that anyone who compares himself to Galileo can safely be bet against.

Well my dear, I do have a compliment for you.

(first, though, what IS your experience? You could be 14.)

Compliment --- you stated that maybe photos are sharp, but of
a fuzzy thing... this is RIGHT ON! BF as a shapeshifter,
is shifting alla time,,, and maybe 100,000 times per sec.

So, BRAVA!!!!!!!

EB

NOW GO SEE NEW BF TOPIC ABOVE IN LIST.

 

[erikbeckjord]

edit

[edit

 

[Cleon]

Re: Reply from he who was attacked

yes, cameras may get good photos of a FUZZY BEING..

as shapeshifters, they may shift at 100,000/sec
and so appear fuzzy
to us

This merits only one reasonable response.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Since I'm BronzeDog, and haven't used that emoticon yet, I think I'll go ahead and follow in Cleon's footsteps:



*Attempts to regain composure*

Prove he exists before you speculate about his alleged shapeshifting abilities.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Since I'm BronzeDog, and haven't used that emoticon yet, I think I'll go ahead and follow in Cleon's footsteps:



*Attempts to regain composure*

Prove he exists before you speculate about his alleged shapeshifting abilities.

Let's use some sense and some science.


You cannot prove a supernatural being exists
for there are no tests for that.

All you can do is to note
WHAT IT DOES that is supernatural

Like going invisible (happened to me)
Like having trtacks start and stop in snow (to me and five others)
Like telepathy (to me and three others or more)

As for your mien, which are you, Curley or Moe?

(of the three stooges)

(for the prize, tell me the third stooge)

email me.

EB

 

[Bronze Dog]

Let's use some sense and some science.


You cannot prove a supernatural being exists
for there are no tests for that.

All you can do is to note
WHAT IT DOES that is supernatural

You're asking me to use science, but you also say I can't test for the existence of Bigfoot?

You can hypothetically prove the existence of a supernatural being: Pass the James Randi Educational Foundation Paranormal Challenge. But you're probably too close-minded to be interested in testing.

As for invisibility: Pink unicorns can do the same. I've seen one in my back yard do it. Same for telepathy.

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Let's use some sense and some science.

*snip*
Like going invisible (happened to me)
Like having trtacks start and stop in snow (to me and five others)
Like telepathy (to me and three others or more)

Oh my.

As for your mien, which are you, Curley or Moe?

(of the three stooges)

(for the prize, tell me the third stooge)

{INSERT JOKE HERE}

 

[Cleon]

Come, Ripley, join the Holy Order of the Laughing Dog...You know you want to.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Davoman needs glasses.

While searching for this video, I came accross a brilliant example of how people are already reading into stills of the footage & making up woo explanations for what they see:

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/sulphurbf.html

Please do not talk as if you were an expert on this.

You never saw the video, you never visited me, you never
saw the photos from the video nor the digital info on a high value screen.

Also I note you are criticising me without telling of this forum.In essence, talking behind my back.

eb
.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Skimmed some of the websites and I'm underwhelmed by all the photos. Even with stuff circled, I don't see anything that can't be explained by pareidolia. Maybe you should get some higher resolution pictures, so the close-ups will be something other than indistinct blobs.