• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Bigfoot" **Impossible** and not just non-existent?

mike3

Master Poster
M
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
2,466
Hi.

I saw this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus

Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favors bipedal locomotion, most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine as in modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, as in the other great apes.

The majority view is that the weight of such a large, heavy animal would put enormous stress on the creature's legs, ankles, and feet if it walked bipedally; while if it walked on all four limbs, like gorillas, its weight would be better distributed over each limb.
Click to expand...

IOW, not only did Giganto not walk bipedally, he couldn't have done so, at least not if he was of Bigfootian proportions. This suggests Bigfoot might in fact be impossible and not just non-existent; regardless of whether one thinks it's a Giganto relic or not, the same considerations about weight, joint, and bone strength would seem they could apply to any primate, known or unknown, "living fossil" or not. Bigfoot is described to be bipedal -- it's a defining characteristic of the thing. It's also described to be a primate. It's also described to be HUGE. Yet here we have something to suggest that a creature meeting all three criteria (bipedal, primate, HUGE) simply can't work. Not only does Bigfoot not exist -- it could not exist.
 
Last edited:
mike3 said:
Hi.

I saw this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantopithecus
Quote:
Gigantopithecus's method of locomotion is uncertain, as no pelvic or leg bones have been found. The dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas and chimpanzees; however, a minority opinion favors bipedal locomotion, most notably championed by the late Grover Krantz, but this assumption is based only on the very few jawbone remains found, all of which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine as in modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, as in the other great apes.
Click to expand...

The majority view is that the weight of such a large, heavy animal would put enormous stress on the creature's legs, ankles, and feet if it walked bipedally; while if it walked on all four limbs, like gorillas, its weight would be better distributed over each limb.



IOW, not only did Giganto not walk bipedally, he couldn't have done so, at least not if he was of Bigfootian proportions. This suggests Bigfoot might in fact be [b]impossible[/b] and not just non-existent; regardless of whether one thinks it's a Giganto relic or not, the same considerations about weight, joint, and bone strength would seem they could apply to any primate, known or unknown, "living fossil" or not. Bigfoot is described to be bipedal -- it's a defining characteristic of the thing. It's also described to be a primate. It's also described to be HUGE. Yet here we have something to suggest that a creature meeting all three criteria (bipedal, primate, HUGE) simply can't work. Not only does Bigfoot not exist -- it could not exist.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in any of the stuff you quote does it say what you claim it says, (that it was impossible for giganto to walk bipedally).

There are a number of other hypotheses for BF other than giganto, of course.

No amount of speculation or analysis is EVER going to prove a negative.

There are plenty of humans who most certainly have lived who are or were within the height range of reported BF. They all seemed to manage bipedalism OK, although Robert Pershing Wadlow (8'-11.1") did need the aid of sticks.

http://melayukini.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Robert-Pershing-Wadlow.jpg

None of which suggests that I am backing the existence of BF. Just the flaws in your post were too huge to overlook.

Mike


Edited by zooterkin: 
Changed hotlink to regular link. Please see Rule 5.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeG said:
Nowhere in any of the stuff you quote does it say what you claim it says, (that it was impossible for giganto to walk bipedally).

There are a number of other hypotheses for BF other than giganto, of course.

No amount of speculation or analysis is EVER going to prove a negative.

There are plenty of humans who most certainly have lived who are or were within the height range of reported BF. They all seemed to manage bipedalism OK, although Robert Pershing Wadlow (8'-11.1") did need the aid of sticks.

[qimg]http://melayukini.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Robert-Pershing-Wadlow.jpg[/qimg]

None of which suggests that I am backing the existence of BF. Just the flaws in your post were too huge to overlook.

Mike
Click to expand...

OK. What about the following version, then?:

"If the majority view is correct, and weight concerns do indeed prevent an animal of such size from being able to walk bipedally, then it stands to reason similar concerns would also apply to Bigfoot, and so could make its existence impossible."

Is this true? You highlighted in the post "majority view", suggesting I jumped to "one true view". So I added a qualifier in the revised version.

Is the revised statement true or not, and if not, why not?

Also, is the comparison to the "world's tallest humans" totally valid, considering Bigfoot and Giganto would likely be bulkier? Also, wouldn't those experts in that majority be aware of the existence of super-tall humans?

How do you manage to avoid making any posts with such big flaws?
 
I see no biomechanical reason why something like a bigfoot could not exist, with the exception that claims of outlandish size (maybe 8-footers and above) probably would reach some limit of bone/tendon strength that would make athletic bipedal locomotion untenable. Given the size of certain NBA/NFL/pro wrestling athletes, 7 and a half feet and 300–400 lbs is not yet too big to be bipedal and amazingly active. That size would certainly be well within the reported range of bigfoot height and apparent mass.
 
We should talk about the possibility of the elephant sea slugs which have mutated into the thing. (a 10 foot sea slug) It's totally possible for such a slug to reach this size.

Oh, we should add the lobstertropicus to the list, with its 12 foot long claws. Totally possible for such an animal to exist on this planet. No reason why it cant.


Oh yeah, we should also include the unicorn. They are huge, with a big long horn in the middle of their heads. No reason why unicorns cant exist.


.................

yea........


I get tired of people postulating about how something could be, may be, might have been at some time. It's all ********. It either is or isnt, and in bigfoots case, it isnt. Not out there, never was.

I don't need a phd to figure that out, and those that endorse the theories that do, well you can probably guess what my opinion of them is. Credentials, abused for the bilking of fools. Seems like the bigfoot theme.
 
Who says bigfoot has to be a primate?

Either bigfoot exists, in which case clearly it's not impossible whether it's a primate or not. Or it doesn't exist, and therefore isn't a primate. Either way, the argument that it could exist because primates can't be that big doesn't hold up.
 
River, we should be careful and hone our arguments to avoid footers and other woos distorting and/or cherry-picking them. We must try to avoid fallacies.

When one says "this cryptid is impossible" but the said cryptid is not actually physically impossible, well, its an error. Note that being impossible from the physical and/or biological point of view (becoming invisible, eyes emmiting beams of red light, etc.) is not the same thing as being impossible because if it were real, we would have reliable evidence of it by now (ex.: "backyard bigfoot").

Footers and woos in general, unfortunately, have very low standards regarding the quality of the evidence they present to back their beliefs but require much higher standards when it comes down to arguments countering them. That's why we need this honing of arguments.
 
Correa Neto: I agree the arguments should be honed. However, I think skeptics play an important part in playing along with the footers games too. Instead of playing along with the silly games of "what if" we should be instead showing what is. I don't play along with the "it could be out there" because it's not. No matter how many ways it "could" be supported by the ecological system, or how it "could" survive winters etc ad nauseam...


The sea "could" support huge serpents. The land "could" support human reptiles with bat wings....

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Let' stick to what is, instead of playing the stupid/silly game of what if, or it "could be".
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
Who says bigfoot has to be a primate?

Either bigfoot exists, in which case clearly it's not impossible whether it's a primate or not. Or it doesn't exist, and therefore isn't a primate. Either way, the argument that it could exist because primates can't be that big doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

And herein we come to the problem of trying to define something that doesn't exist.

Bigfoot doesn't exist because of X.
Well how do you know Bigfoot would exhibit trait X?
Well since he doesn't exist I can't provide evidence that he would have the traits that would provide evidence of his existence.
Oh God Now I've Gone Crosseyed.

Bigfoot is just an invisible dragon in the garage.
 
These conclusions are based off of speculation on wikipedia and are not backed up by real science. I guarantee you there's nothing impossible about a 7 or 8 foot tall hominid that uses a bipedal locomotion. If someone is saying it is, then chances are they just aren't comfortable with the idea.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I guarantee you there's nothing impossible about a 7 or 8 foot tall hominid that uses a bipedal locomotion. If someone is saying it is, then chances are they just aren't comfortable with the idea.
Click to expand...
. . . And that they're missing the NBA playoffs.

Biomechanics isn't the reason there is no bigfoot. Biomechanics is only one reason why there aren't 12-foot-tall bigfoots.
 
I think that's a good point about the NBA. Some of those guys are over 7 feet tall and 300 pounds.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
I think that's a good point about the NBA. Some of those guys are over 7 feet tall and 300 pounds.
Click to expand...

Yep. No nine to fifteen-footers though, with 600+ pounds on them.

Then again, none of those in the piney woods either.
 
I'm curious: if these concerns don't make Bigfoot impossible, then how is it that they can be used to argue against a bipedal Gigantopithecus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom