or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finding Bigfoot - Page 28

post #406 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

My intention was never to suggest interbreeding, only that a very large relative of ours is possible. And that an ape that size lived along side us. The point being that if it was that large, then there had to be an ancestry which allowed for that size. I'd speculate that the common ancestor is yet undiscovered.

It's true that there is no hip or leg bone to further establish the size, but come on, 6 feet with a monster skull like that? No way. A gorilla can stand 6 ft.



Who said anything about interbreeding?

Nobody disputes that Gigantopithecus was contemporaneous with modern humans, so what? Just because they lived at the same time as humans doesn't mean they are closely related. They are at least 13 million years divorced from the line that sprouted Homo Sapiens and our extinct homonin ancestors and cousins.

You do realise that "monster skull" is an extrapolation that sits at the high end of the estimated range? Gigantopithecus fossil skulls have never been discovered. Far from "proven to be 10 feet tall".

What bearing does this have on the existence of Big Foot anyway? Gibbons for example are about as closely related to homonins as Gigantopithicus and they are only around 3 feet tall, is that evidence for Leprechauns?
post #407 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

Who said anything about interbreeding?

Nobody disputes that Gigantopithecus was contemporaneous with modern humans, so what? Just because they lived at the same time as humans doesn't mean they are closely related. They are at least 13 million years divorced from the line that sprouted Homo Sapiens and our extinct homonin ancestors and cousins.

You do realise that "monster skull" is an extrapolation that sits at the high end of the estimated range? Gigantopithecus fossil skulls have never been discovered. Far from "proven to be 10 feet tall".

What bearing does this have on the existence of Big Foot anyway? Gibbons for example are about as closely related to homonins as Gigantopithicus and they are only around 3 feet tall, is that evidence for Leprechauns?

The only bearing is that it tends to lean to the idea that large ape/homonid species may currently exist. By the way, there is not formal proof that BF is human yet. Just a DNA study which claims it.

It may very well be an ape, in which case Gigantopithecus may not be extinct. After a bottle of wine, I am not writing my points very well. That is my point. Maybe BF = Gigantopithecus. Since a potentially huge ape-like creature existed about 100k years ago, its possible its still with us, no?
post #408 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

The only bearing is that it tends to lean to the idea that large ape/homonid species may currently exist. By the way, there is not formal proof that BF is human yet. Just a DNA study which claims it.

It may very well be an ape, in which case Gigantopithecus may not be extinct. After a bottle of wine, I am not writing my points very well. That is my point. Maybe BF = Gigantopithecus. Since a potentially huge ape-like creature existed about 100k years ago, its possible its still with us, no?

No more so than the fossil remains of Diprotodon tend to lean to the idea that giant wombats may currently exist. Also you mean to say that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that BF even exists, right?
post #409 of 745
Thread Starter 
No, what I am saying is there is no scientifically corroborated evidence showing BF DNA proving an unknown hominid.
post #410 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

No, what I am saying is there is no scientifically corroborated evidence.

Fixed.
post #411 of 745
Thread Starter 
post #412 of 745
^Those tracks looks very similar, if not identical, to the ones Jerry Crew "found" around his construction equipment in Northern California back in 1958. They were fakes, and I'd be willing to bet so are these.
post #413 of 745
ifdnl, do you find those to be credible?
post #414 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

^Those tracks looks very similar, if not identical, to the ones Jerry Crew "found" around his construction equipment in Northern California back in 1958. They were fakes, and I'd be willing to bet so are these.

The difference between the norcal fakes and those is that those footprints are mostly in a strait line, humans walk side to side with a spread between their left and right foot. A characteristic of a set of real Sasquatches prints are how they move in a strait line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by imatlas View Post

ifdnl, do you find those to be credible?


Noooo, ambiguous at best. What fun would this be if they found it?
post #415 of 745
^And how do we know that the footprints in a straight [correct spelling] line are the straight goods and not also the work of fakers?
post #416 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

The difference between the norcal fakes and those is that those footprints are mostly in a strait line, humans walk side to side with a spread between their left and right foot. A characteristic of a set of real Sasquatches prints are how they move in a strait line.
Noooo, ambiguous at best. What fun would this be if they found it?


lol8[1].gifcrackup[1].gif
post #417 of 745
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

^And how do we know that the footprints in a straight [correct spelling] line are the straight goods and not also the work of fakers?

We do not, thus ambiguous. There are other signals that make is seem more realistic to me. The mid-tarsal break, for one. Fake prints all look the same, those have variations in them.
post #418 of 745
The "Neanderthal DNA in Modern Humans" speculation was actually limited to Asian and Europeans and estimated at no more than 5%.
post #419 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLMountainMan View Post

The "Neanderthal DNA in Modern Humans" speculation was actually limited to Asian and Europeans and estimated at no more than 5%.

I thought it was all non-African humans.
post #420 of 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

I thought it was all non-African humans.

Yeah, I meant European and Asian in a racial sense, not a present-day sense. So non-Subsaharan. I'd be curious to see if the Aborigines and Miconesians have it; due to their low numbers they typically aren't included in studies like this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Finding Bigfoot