kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Is there any reason to believe that when that critter was extant it was hard to find or that its existence would have been doubtful to a contemporary?
desertyeti
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 835
None that I can determine.
There's also the distinct possibility that this relative of the modern orangutan was about the same size as a modern orang (3.5-5 feet tall) and simply had enormous jaws.
The point I was trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to make is that Bigfooters like to throw around G. blacki as a candidate for their creature, yet also want to keep it within the shorter spectrum of things. Evidentally, Gogantopithecus is NOT therefore the best candidate. Cherry picking of anecdotal data (the worst kind) is guaranteed to result in complete and absolute nonsense when the final analysis is completed.
And had to add: No one KNOWS that they were 10 feet tall (see above). They might have been pygmies like Paranthropus. And also, very few good fossils have been found from Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits in China, so it's not at all surprising that so little is known of the hominoids.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
You link it and I'll give you 10 to 1 odds I've read it.
ETA: That was a number and it came right out my butt.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Native American thread. Rode it like a pony.
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
I'm pretty sure Ninjas perfected their stealth techniques by studying how Gigantopithecus blacki moved without being seen.
Hitch
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2005
- Messages
- 834
desertyeti
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 835
A bamboo-eating, dung-dropping, orangutan or larger-sized, possibly social primate would have a very difficult time staying obscure in any environment for very long.
Alice Shortcake
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,134
Is anyone in the market for a new sig?
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Way out 1:
Who says they are remaining obscure? What about the thousands of sightings, footprint casts, buttprint casts, hair samples, DNA analisys and the PGF?
Way out 2:
That's because they can shapeshift, become "invisiable" and travel between dimensions after stealing bean cans and screw drivers. They only poo in other dimensions!
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Gee I love it when we get such precise information ...
desertyeti
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 835
Way out 1:
Who says they are remaining obscure? What about the thousands of sightings, footprint casts, buttprint casts, hair samples, DNA analisys and the PGF?
Way out 2:
That's because they can shapeshift, become "invisiable" and travel between dimensions after stealing bean cans and screw drivers. They only poo in other dimensions!
I love it!
Shapeshifting, interdimensional poo-making, bean can stealing fiends from another space-time continuum. It all makes sense now! I've been a fool! Well, that's about enough Bigfootery for me for 2009.
I'll check back in 2010 to see what's what.
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
But you've learnt so many so well.
Based on what evidence? There's a number of people you can speak with over at BFF who've claimed to encounter the beasts a number of times now. Are they crazy liars?
Makaya -- A lot of the gigantopithecus teeth were discovered in Chinese medicine suppliers' wares -- they were considered dragon's teeth and ground up for use in "potions." So an unknown, but projectably fairly large, number of giganto teeth were destroyed and injested by paying customers. Even so, they have remained easy enough to find that we still get leads to dig sites from tracing ones that are identified and traced back through the supply chain.
Also, the dating is from more that a million to 400,000 years ago, and spread across quite a wide range. Much of it is not "fossilization heaven." Yet so far we have not one BF tooth, fossilized or not. We have not one BF ancestor tooth in North America. Not one. Do you see the problem here?
We have lots of pawprints, droppings, teeth, bones, fur, and occasional nearly-intact bodies of the other large carnivores in North America. We have fossilized remains of same from their immediate ancestors, and their further ancestors. We can draw some conclusions about when and where they were present in the last 400,000 years.
Yet somehow, BF and his cryptozoological kin have managed to produce exactly zero physical evidence (that has not been fraudulent). Compound that with the fact that there are Sightings! every year, but no physical evidence to back up the sightings. If there is a large enough population to support a visual contact every two or three years in an area, there should be copious evidence of that population. Their inputs (or remains thereof) and outputs, trail sign, hair, etc. should be present; but they're not.
That's why it's reasonable to be highly skeptical. People have been looking for decades, and they keep finding nothing--or things that make no sense (I'm thinking here of the 'back wallow') and have no related signs, or things that are shown to be fraudulent.
BF backers are implicitly arguing that sasquatch exists, but he's hiding himself from modes of detection he can't know about. He's burying his poo; he's covering his trail; he's hiding or burying his dead. Yet he can't seem to see, smell, or hear a couple of drunk fishermen walking on a back road late at night...It just doesn't add up.
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,528
No, thats another fallacy of BFdom "logic". Very few people here doubt the POSSIBILITY of BF being a real live breathing animal. The doubt comes in when the question then shifts to PROBABILITY.
There is no preconception- theres simply no reliable evidence that supports the existance of such an animal so based on that theres a very high degree of probability that they ARE in fact lies, hoaxes or misidentifications.