1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Finding Bigfoot

Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by idfnl, Jan 30, 2012.

  1. Fang66

    Fang66 Senior member

    Messages:
    10,701
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Nihon
    

    A) Gigantopithecus were not hominins so they are hardly relevant, and
    B) estimates of their height come mainly from fossilised teeth and jaws and range from as low as 6 feet up to around 10 feet so it is simply not true that they are "proven" to be "10 feet tall", and
    C) they may have existed as recently as 100,000 years ago but that says nothing about their evolutionary history or closeness with modern humans or "Big Feetses". Our most recent common ancestor would have lived at least 13 million years ago when the rest of the great ape's ancestors speciated from the ancestors of the orangutan. The orangutan being the nearest living relative of Gigantopithecus. Not "yesterday in evolutionary terms".
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  2. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    

    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.


    [​IMG]
     
  3. JLibourel

    JLibourel Senior member

    Messages:
    8,602
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Yeah, but 6 feet is pretty much top-end for a gorilla, and 5'4" to 5'6" is more common. A man 6' is unremarkable, and one 5'4" is pretty runty (at least in America), yet look how much bigger the gorilla skull is. Do we even have a complete giganto skull anyway or is that thing an imaginative restoration?
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  4. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    

    AFAIK, not complete.

    Its pretty unrealistic to imagine a skull that much larger is shorter. Especially since its narrower than a gorilla. It makes sense its huge.
     
  5. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    

    AFAIK, not complete.

    Its pretty unrealistic to imagine a skull that much larger is shorter. Especially since its narrower than a gorilla. It makes sense its huge.
     
  6. Fang66

    Fang66 Senior member

    Messages:
    10,701
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Nihon
    

    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?
     
  7. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    

    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?
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2013
  8. Fang66

    Fang66 Senior member

    Messages:
    10,701
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Nihon
    

    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?
     
  9. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    No, what I am saying is there is no scientifically corroborated evidence showing BF DNA proving an unknown hominid.
     
  10. Gibonius

    Gibonius Senior member

    Messages:
    11,117
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Location:
    Suburban Sprawl Sector 3, Maryland
    

    Fixed.
     
  11. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    [VIDEO][/VIDEO]
     
  12. JLibourel

    JLibourel Senior member

    Messages:
    8,602
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    ^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.
     
  13. imatlas

    imatlas Senior member

    Messages:
    8,518
    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Location:
    El Barrio
    ifdnl, do you find those to be credible?
     
  14. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    

    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?
     
  15. JLibourel

    JLibourel Senior member

    Messages:
    8,602
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    ^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?
     
  16. Fang66

    Fang66 Senior member

    Messages:
    10,701
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Nihon
    


    :lol: :crackup:
     
  17. idfnl

    idfnl Senior member

    Messages:
    14,340
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Location:
    VA
    

    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.
     
  18. FLMountainMan

    FLMountainMan Senior member

    Messages:
    13,923
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Location:
    McAnally Flats
    The "Neanderthal DNA in Modern Humans" speculation was actually limited to Asian and Europeans and estimated at no more than 5%.
     
  19. JLibourel

    JLibourel Senior member

    Messages:
    8,602
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    

    I thought it was all non-African humans.
     
  20. FLMountainMan

    FLMountainMan Senior member

    Messages:
    13,923
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Location:
    McAnally Flats
    

    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.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by