UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
Feh. Romulan sympathizer.
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
Feh. Romulan sympathizer.
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 5,260
So what year is it..?Flattery will get you everywhere...once every seven years.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
You guys are totally geeking out. 
Yes, Metullus, you're quite right about anthropologists doing a lot of speculating into the big end of the size of hominids. OK, a few assertations. 1. Bigfoot as it's reported (globally) is highly unlikely. 2. A creature fitting the commonly held description of BF (large, hirsute, upright, bipedal primate) has most certainly existed. 3. Prior to the discovery of the Hobbits, such a creature was unexpected. Now, one (BIG) supposition. Like the Hobbits having possibly survived to the time of the arrival of the Dutch in the 16th century (and with further supposition, beyond that), is it really so inconsiderable the elsewhere a conversely large, but also hirsute, upright, bipedal primate could have existed in isolation and to have also survived into historical, possibly modern times? Maybe my critical thinking is impaired (and if so, I'm sure I'll be quickly shown how) but this just seems absolutely fair to consider. I won't abusively quote Henry Gee here, and I think he was being a little premature when saying that "cryptozoology can come in from the cold" but I am compelled to agree with him when he asserts "I don't think the likelihood of finding a new species of human alive is any less than finding a new species of antelope, and that has happened." I think this can also be applied to BF, as it's described.
Yes, Metullus, you're quite right about anthropologists doing a lot of speculating into the big end of the size of hominids. OK, a few assertations. 1. Bigfoot as it's reported (globally) is highly unlikely. 2. A creature fitting the commonly held description of BF (large, hirsute, upright, bipedal primate) has most certainly existed. 3. Prior to the discovery of the Hobbits, such a creature was unexpected. Now, one (BIG) supposition. Like the Hobbits having possibly survived to the time of the arrival of the Dutch in the 16th century (and with further supposition, beyond that), is it really so inconsiderable the elsewhere a conversely large, but also hirsute, upright, bipedal primate could have existed in isolation and to have also survived into historical, possibly modern times? Maybe my critical thinking is impaired (and if so, I'm sure I'll be quickly shown how) but this just seems absolutely fair to consider. I won't abusively quote Henry Gee here, and I think he was being a little premature when saying that "cryptozoology can come in from the cold" but I am compelled to agree with him when he asserts "I don't think the likelihood of finding a new species of human alive is any less than finding a new species of antelope, and that has happened." I think this can also be applied to BF, as it's described.
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
Well, now we're going at two different propositions. There's "Perhaps there was a large bipedal primate that went extinct in ecologically recent times," and "perhaps there's a large bipedal primate wandering through the Pacific Northwest right this minute."
The first supposition is a fair question, and it's not one I'd dismiss out of hand. There may well be some yet undelved corner of the world that'll turn up some snazzy fossils. Contrary to what many people like to claim, such a discovery probably wouldn't turn scientific thinking on its ear, though. Science would go "Ooo! Wicked cool!" but the existence of an unknown large primate fossil would be just one more twig on a very large evolutionary bush.
But there's a huge, massive, considerable, gargantuan difference between potentially teasing an interesting fossil out of a notoriously cranky fossil record, in the backside of Indonesia, and the claim that there's something alive right now in the Pacific Northwest that never gets hit by cars and never photographs very well. Which is usually the standard Bigfoot claim. The only fossils that would make THAT scenario more plausible would have to be fossils in the Pacific Northwest, of Bigfoot itself, and if you dig back through the thread a ways (and god, you might wanna spare yourself) there's a lot of arguing about what exactly fossilizes in the PNW, and whether or not the paucity of bear fossils excuses the lack of Bigfoot fossils, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
As for the likelihood of humans and antelopes...mmm. It sounds good, but I have my doubts. But the state of cryptozoology is probably another post entirely.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Bigfoot is now a "new species of human"?
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Hey UrsulaV,
Excellent post and excellent points. This is why I joined JREF instead of the BFF.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That said, jmho I can't quite shut the totally on the idea of a large, hairy, unclassified primate in the PNW.
Excellent post and excellent points. This is why I joined JREF instead of the BFF.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Hmm, while those are two separate speculations, I am trying to imply a possible connection. Something like "Perhaps there was a large bipedal primate that went extinct in ecologically recent times or has even survived to this day and maybe it wandered/is wandering in the PNW."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Totally agree. I think this also applies to the idea of finding BF fossils in NA or even alive today. It would absolutely be "Ooo! Wicked cool!" but not "That's it! We give up! We dunno JACK!" Anyone who thinks otherwise is just misguided and misinformed.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Oh, I was there and it added a lot of nauseum.
That said, jmho I can't quite shut the totally on the idea of a large, hairy, unclassified primate in the PNW.kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
I'm not trying to imply BF is a species of human or not, which is a conversation for the BFF. However, we all (hopefully) agree that BF, as it's commonly described is human-like in form.
The fact that humans and BF are similar in form is not the point. I only meant that we should be able to extend the same level of likeliness to the chance of finding BF.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I agree that the suits worn so far looked somewhat human.
I don't agree that we should extend the same level of likeliness to finding a bigfoot just because we have found other new species.
I don't agree that we should extend the same level of likeliness to finding a bigfoot just because we have found other new species.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
And I agree that in many of the cases of presented images of BF a suit was undoubtedly being worn. I don't agree that in every case a suit was undoubtedly proven to be worn. I will say that none of those cases did anything to prove or disprove whether or not BF exists. (Oh man, here we go. Apologies in advance.)
I genuinely would like to know why not?
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There is zero evidence for a 1,000 pound bipedal hominid, past or present.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
1,000 pounds? I agree. Very large bipedal hominids on the other hand...
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Such as.....
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 5,260
Given that here is no dependable evidence supporting its existance I would agree.You guys are totally geeking out.
Yes, Metullus, you're quite right about anthropologists doing a lot of speculating into the big end of the size of hominids. OK, a few assertations. 1. Bigfoot as it's reported (globally) is highly unlikely.
I'm not sure that I can agree here. Large as in 9+ feet tall? Large as in 800 - 1000lbs? Primarily bipedal? I know of no such creature.
I will agree that few people were expecting to find a species of dwarf homo. I do not agree that the discovery of a new species of homo is particularly surprising, as I have said.
A huge leap, I think. It is one thing for a small population of a dwarf species to have survived until 13,000 YBP in a location that was biologically isolated for a long time; it is quite another to suggest that this makes more likely the existance and survival into historical times of a giant bipedal ape.
The point is that we have found new species of antelope, and a great many other critters as well, and never once have we found anything that even resembles a "new species of [living] human". We can find and have found the fossils and the remains of extinct hominids; we have found where they have been buried by nature and by their own kind; we have found their tools and where they lived; we have found their art work. We have found all these things, most of them very well hidden, yet we have never found anything to suggest that they still live. Yet we can locate and positively identify a previously unknown (to science) 40lb antelope in the forests on southeast asia, we can track down one of only 50 or so living asian cheetahs - neither of which is quite as large or easy to identify as a 1000lb apeman.
But there is fossil evidence of a 1,000 pound or so primate in the past (that cannot be ascertained whether it was bipedal or quadrapedal), and there is evidence (that you clearly reject) that a 1,000 pound or so bipedal hominid exists in the present.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, but you still can't produce any such evidence. You also left out the word bipedal.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, but you can't produce this evidence either.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Do not the specimens that result in the naming of Meganthropus indicate the existence of a large bipedal hominid? If I am wrong then I will retract my previous assertation. Regardless, 9+ ft and 800 - 1000lbs for a bipedal primate sounds extreme to me.
Let's establish right away that we agree future additions to our genus are not unexpected. IMO, the sum of the specimens on hand, the circumstances involved in the finding of each, and the nature of the fossil record itself paint a picture that is at best an incomplete picture of our history as a species.
Again, it has by no means been established if HF's dwarfism occured on Flores or happened prior to their arrival. Adding in what we call Meganthropus, this makes me very interested in Homo Erectus' history in SE Asia.
Ask yourself, what were the circumstances involved in finding that antelope?
Here's the crux- it's not "yet we CAN" rather "yet we HAVE." IMO, those are two very different things. Which then makes me reflect upon the circumstances of the finding and what that says about future findings of a great many things.
Last edited:
I left the word "bipedal" out because there is not evidence of a 1,000 pound or so bipedal primate in the past, but there is fossil evidence of a 1,000 pound or so primate in the past.
Further, there is no evidence to establish whether that particular ape was bipedal or quadrapedal.
Last edited:
Last edited:
- Status