billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 11, 2013 22:09:00 GMT -5
I guess you missed the (physical evidence) part in my statements No worries, you have your answer and now you are making a question to fit it. When you find fossil evidence of G-blackie in North America When you find physical evidence of G-blackie in modern times I may then believe that Occams razor would indicate that sasquatch is G-blackie (or descended from it)
Until that happens you have nothing, it is pure and simple When you have no physical evidence of of G-blackie in North America AND no evidence of G-blackie living anywhere in the world for the last 100,000 years Occams razor would dictate the answer is that they just aren't here.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 12, 2013 1:05:58 GMT -5
I am sorry, but I did not mean to make you believe anything one way or the other .... I said that I understood the connection that Green speaks of. Heck, until 1935, we didn't know that there even was a giant primate that lived on the earth. Since then there have been other fossils of the same found in India and Vietnam if I remember correctly. So it appears that Gigantopithecus covered a lot of territory. I am not one who thinks that they would not cross the landbridge when they were able to have done so.
I'll take your points in reverse. If there has only been three jawbones found and they show a much greater time span of 100,000 years between them, then are we to believe that only three such large primates existed and each had life spans of more than 100,000 years .... of course not! In other words, the more recent time stamped Jawbone of one doesn't mean that there are not others that may date back to a much more recent time - they just haven't been found anywhere. The Coelacanth was said to be extinct what ... 2 million years according to the fossil record ... and then someone saw one in modern times.
So let us work backwards ... a giant primate is being seen countless witnesses, one such specimen believed to have been filmed in Northern California in 1967, that fits the description attributed to that of a Gigantopithecus. But yet we only know of just one such larger primate that at least had access to North America. And with only three fossils found to date in a part of the world where they obviously lived and must have flourish, it's not unexpected that they could have migrated to North America and that such a fossil is hidden somewhere on this side of the world waiting to be discovered. To invent yet another species that there is no evidence to support - Occams razor any many people minds says to look for the most likely scenario which is often times the correct one.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 12, 2013 1:07:36 GMT -5
John Green also writes: Look up "The Upright Ape" on Amazon. The author, Aaron Filler, took a PhD in anthropology, during which he studied a vertabrae almost identical to its human counterpart that was found in an archeological dig in material firmly dated at 21 million years. Later he studied medicine and became a spine surgeon, an unusual and perhaps unique combination of qualifications. He also researched the history of theories before Darwin's about how living things evolved. His book deals with that history and he presents a theory that all major changes resulted not from accumulated gradual adaptions but from extreme individual mutations. That is what most of the book is about, and it would be hard going for the average Sasquatch enthusiast.. However: In the last two chapters he deals with what I have mentioned, that there is no fossil evidence that any higher primates were ever quadrupeds. All the fossil evidence shows that they all walked upright. There are no fossils leading to the chimpanzee, bonobo and gorilla, which walk half upright today, and their spines prove that they were originally bipedal. Remember that not long ago humans were believed to have split off from the gorillas and chimpanzees some millions of years ago, but then immune reactions and DNA established that gorillas split off from the basic stock first, while chimpanzees and bonobos remain very closely related to humans, not to.gorillas. This cuts short the time that humans were supposed to have had to come down from the trees and evolve into bipeds. The evidence is plain that Homo Sapiens as well as the others arbitrarily called Homo or Australopithicus or Gigantopithecus etc. follow the basic upright pattern and it is the gorillas and the chimps that are evolving a new way of walking. Both are called knucklewalkers, but the adaptions that allow them to use their arms in walking are not the same, while the orangs, even though they are much more evolved to be tree dwellers, follow a very different pattern which includes considerable bipedalism and the gibbons, although always in the trees, are fully bipedal. Someone many years ago came up with the theory that humans were quadrupeds that became upright through living in trees and then came down to earth, continued to walk upright and evolved feet adapted for walking on two legs. That theory became almost universally accepted a long time ago and is considered by most scientists dealing with such matters to be established fact. I expect Filler isn't the only sceptic, but he is the one with unique qualifications and the guts to challenge the prevailing belief in a book. I happen to have an atlas of primate anatomy with detailed drawings of vertebrae of baboon, chimpanzee and human. It showed immediately that human and chimp vertebrae are almost the same while those of the baboon, a real quadruped, are basically different. Since humans and chimps are designed to support their weight with a stack of vertebrae that rest on top of each other they have no attachments on the main bone column for locking the spine together in a horizontal position. You don't need an atlas, you can look up illustrations on the Internet.
|
|
|
Post by westerncanadian on Feb 12, 2013 12:51:48 GMT -5
I do not for one second believe that G. Blacki is the only candidate for sasquatch. There in fact two species of Gigantopithecus. There are three species of Gigantopithecus not one. There are blacki, bilaspurensis and giganteus. Despite it's name giganteus was only half a big as blacki and bilaspurensis somewhere in the middle. Nothing is known about them except for teeth and bones. It is so easy to take a theory like Filler's and make it fact. His view is interesting, might be viable, but at this time totally unproven. To take the theory and then make a huge construct of it and apply it tot he sasquatch enigma is a stretch of gargantuan proportions. I am not even going to discuss Occam's razor here, because it is irrelevant. Until someone produces Giganto bones and shows that it was adapted in any way to bipedalism the argument that Krantz and Green espouse for the sasquatch being Giganto is mere theory. In some ways it is akin to try and making a square peg fit a round hole. Or maybe nothing fits into nothing because there is nothing to carry out the experiment with. The notion that we can determine Gigantos were bipedal based on their jaws is ludicrous. I actually heard Krantz try to make the theory work, but he did not convince me. We need vertebrae, leg and foot bones as well as a whole intact pelvis to make such a determination Krantz and the Giganto as sasquatch advocates have nothing to show that proves their theory. While it is evolutionarily possible for the sort of thing Filler describes, there is nothing in the fossil record to prove that gorillas and chimpanzees ever walked upright and then dropped to the knuckle walking form of bipedalism. This is SPECULATION on Filler's part and I don't see people like Russell Ciochon agreeing in any way with Filler's argument. Believe you me, no one knows more about Gigantos than Ciochon. I for one am going to file Filler's theory in the cabinet until such times - if ever - secondary evidence is adduced to support it in even the remotest way. I strongly suggest that any determination on what sasquatch really is wait until a specimen is obtained. Until then it is all a waste of time speculating. Turning sasquatch into a non-human ape because that makes it easier to kill one to prove to the world sasquatches exist is facile. There is no homicide, no killing of one of our own species or a very near relative if sasq is just an ape. It's just an ape so it's okay to kill one just like a deer, bear or cougar. If you believe that then give your head a shake. Bob Gimlin and so many others did not shoot the damn things because they are a hell of a lot more like us than gorillas or chimps. If you want to use Occam's razor then if it walks like a human then it's a human.
|
|
|
Post by westerncanadian on Feb 12, 2013 12:52:59 GMT -5
Sorry I meant to say three not two species of Giganto. My apologies for the typo.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Feb 12, 2013 14:08:57 GMT -5
I do not for one second believe that G. Blacki is the only candidate for sasquatch. There in fact two species of Gigantopithecus. There are three species of Gigantopithecus not one. There are blacki, bilaspurensis and giganteus. Despite it's name giganteus was only half a big as blacki and bilaspurensis somewhere in the middle. Nothing is known about them except for teeth and bones. It is so easy to take a theory like Filler's and make it fact. His view is interesting, might be viable, but at this time totally unproven. To take the theory and then make a huge construct of it and apply it tot he sasquatch enigma is a stretch of gargantuan proportions. I am not even going to discuss Occam's razor here, because it is irrelevant. Until someone produces Giganto bones and shows that it was adapted in any way to bipedalism the argument that Krantz and Green espouse for the sasquatch being Giganto is mere theory. In some ways it is akin to try and making a square peg fit a round hole. Or maybe nothing fits into nothing because there is nothing to carry out the experiment with. The notion that we can determine Gigantos were bipedal based on their jaws is ludicrous. I actually heard Krantz try to make the theory work, but he did not convince me. We need vertebrae, leg and foot bones as well as a whole intact pelvis to make such a determination Krantz and the Giganto as sasquatch advocates have nothing to show that proves their theory. While it is evolutionarily possible for the sort of thing Filler describes, there is nothing in the fossil record to prove that gorillas and chimpanzees ever walked upright and then dropped to the knuckle walking form of bipedalism. This is SPECULATION on Filler's part and I don't see people like Russell Ciochon agreeing in any way with Filler's argument. Believe you me, no one knows more about Gigantos than Ciochon. I for one am going to file Filler's theory in the cabinet until such times - if ever - secondary evidence is adduced to support it in even the remotest way. I strongly suggest that any determination on what sasquatch really is wait until a specimen is obtained. Until then it is all a waste of time speculating. Turning sasquatch into a non-human ape because that makes it easier to kill one to prove to the world sasquatches exist is facile. There is no homicide, no killing of one of our own species or a very near relative if sasq is just an ape. It's just an ape so it's okay to kill one just like a deer, bear or cougar. If you believe that then give your head a shake. Bob Gimlin and so many others did not shoot the damn things because they are a hell of a lot more like us than gorillas or chimps. If you want to use Occam's razor then if it walks like a human then it's a human. don't even try to suggest that a sasquatch would be human. what do you mean "non-human" ape? there's no "human" ape. if sasquatch exists it IS an animal, and there'd be no moral issues with killing one. one has never been killed because one the opportunity has never been presented.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 12, 2013 14:22:01 GMT -5
Bob Gimlin and so many others did not shoot the damn things because they are a hell of a lot more like us than gorillas or chimps. If you want to use Occam's razor then if it walks like a human then it's a human. I thought Gimlin said to me and others that they didn't want to shoot one because they felt it to be a rare creature. In fact, Gimlin often referred to what they filmed as 'the creature'. And while I have never asked Bob this, I do know that he is a religious man which means he believes in creationism, which would then see the Sasquatch as a whole other species to that of man. Both Krantz and Meldrum (independent of each other) told me that there is no evidence that man has ever been noctournal. noctournal creatures seem to have highly reflective eyes that appear to glow when light is shined upon them, which has also been witnessed about the Sasquatch. Humans do not. The Intermembral Index seems to also separate us from the apes. And while I have seen apes that resembled people I have seen, their Intermembral Index did not. As far as walking like humans, I think the biomechanical people saw that the subject on Roger's film did not walk like a human. If walking on two legs is all that it takes to qualify for being human, then I have eaten my own kind every time I roasted a chicken. The long and short of it all is that no one to my knowledge has said they have proven Sasquatch is Gigantoppithecus, but that they merely have seen evidence that suggest that we may already have fossils of the Sasquatch right under our noses and have had them for three quarters of a century.
|
|
|
Post by westerncanadian on Feb 12, 2013 14:22:51 GMT -5
Humans are apes. A non-human ape is a gorilla or chimpanzee etc. Humans are animals. It is illegal to kill a human. If sasquatch is a human, it would be illegal to kill one. So there IS a moral issue if this is so. As for "don't even try to suggest that a sasquatch would be human", why not? Do you have conclusive proof of any kind to support your statement? If you do, please support your statement with it. I see extremely human-like bipedalism in Patterson and Gimlin's sasquatch as well as human-like breasts and human-like intelligence. I have not concluded yet whether sasquatch is indeed human, but it is a possibility - no matter how remote - that remains on the table. No one at this time can say with any certainty that sasquatch is or is not human, but I would always err on the side of caution and not kill one. Those who speak with any certainty as to what a sasquatch is or isn't haven't got a leg to stand on. At present no one has adduced any physical evidence to support any hypothesis - including whether it is indeed human or not - as to what sasquatch is.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 12, 2013 14:47:27 GMT -5
Well said.
Other than their apparent noctournal abilities (eye shine) and Intermembral Index differences ... these two things tend to support them being animal at this time in my view while relies on what I learned from Krantz and Meldrum.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 12, 2013 23:21:52 GMT -5
I am sorry, but I did not mean to make you believe anything one way or the other .... I said that I understood the connection that Green speaks of. Heck, until 1935, we didn't know that there even was a giant primate that lived on the earth. Since then there have been other fossils of the same found in India and Vietnam if I remember correctly. So it appears that Gigantopithecus covered a lot of territory. I am not one who thinks that they would not cross the landbridge when they were able to have done so. I'll take your points in reverse. If there has only been three jawbones found and they show a much greater time span of 100,000 years between them, then are we to believe that only three such large primates existed and each had life spans of more than 100,000 years .... of course not! In other words, the more recent time stamped Jawbone of one doesn't mean that there are not others that may date back to a much more recent time - they just haven't been found anywhere. The Coelacanth was said to be extinct what ... 2 million years according to the fossil record ... and then someone saw one in modern times. So let us work backwards ... a giant primate is being seen countless witnesses, one such specimen believed to have been filmed in Northern California in 1967, that fits the description attributed to that of a Gigantopithecus. But yet we only know of just one such larger primate that at least had access to North America. And with only three fossils found to date in a part of the world where they obviously lived and must have flourish, it's not unexpected that they could have migrated to North America and that such a fossil is hidden somewhere on this side of the world waiting to be discovered. To invent yet another species that there is no evidence to support - Occams razor any many people minds says to look for the most likely scenario which is often times the correct one. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here The only place that Gigantopithecus fossils have been found is in China, India and Vietnam. In other words not a single fossil has been found outside of southeast Asia To date not a single fossil has been found in Siberia, Russia or for that matter anywhere in the former U.S.S.R. You have no evidence that ANY Gigantopithecus species was north of China so how exactly did they cross over to North America The teeth and jaws would indicate that the diet of Gigantopithicus may be similar to giant panda. If that is true then what would suggest that Gigantopithecus would have migrated out of southeast Asia into the former U.S.S.R. and then into North America I really would like to see you show up to lunch one weekend to talk about this
|
|
shawn
No life here!
Posts: 17
|
Post by shawn on Feb 13, 2013 0:07:20 GMT -5
I'm a creationist don't believe for a second in the whole big bang theory nor do I think we are apes nor that sasquatch are human that has to be the dumbest thing I've heard. What I do know is I go searching for these creatures I do believe they exist and the first one I see will get the same fate as other (ANIMALS) I hunt I'll drop it with a well placed shot. Oh and apes are apes chickens are chickens and everyone else on this forum is human.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 13, 2013 0:44:52 GMT -5
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here The only place that Gigantopithecus fossils have been found is in China, India and Vietnam. In other words not a single fossil has been found outside of southeast Asia To date not a single fossil has been found in Siberia, Russia or for that matter anywhere in the former U.S.S.R. You have no evidence that ANY Gigantopithecus species was north of China so how exactly did they cross over to North America The teeth and jaws would indicate that the diet of Gigantopithicus may be similar to giant panda. If that is true then what would suggest that Gigantopithecus would have migrated out of southeast Asia into the former U.S.S.R. and then into North America I am trying to see your logic here, but you seem to be saying an absence of evidence is evidence itself I really would like to see you show up to lunch one weekend to talk about this I have heard the fossils (five Jawbones in total) were found in China (3), Vietnam (1), and India (1) if I recall correctly. The point being is that these dicoveries show the large primate obviously roamed over a very large area. The landbridge offered a means for them to come here if the chose to do so. The large distances between each other that these few jawbones were discovered shows they bowed to no particular area. The idea that a jawbone hasn't been discovered in North America is not a valid point to show Gigantopithecus have not been here. In other words - perhaps their fossils just have not been stumbled upon yet as only a small few of them have been found over thousands of miles apart. Of course this doesn't mean that the two species are one in the same - it means that the opportunity did exist - and the ability to get from one area to another was present if man and other creatures were able to do it. In fact, the large primate was most likely better equipped to make such a journey than man ever was. I see this theory much like I would examine any evidence based on information gathered. If I entered an old abandoned shed for example and I opened the door and found a turned over table and a broken oil lamp on the floor with a burn mark all around it, and nearby is a discarded used match ... would I not consider that someone lit the lamp with the match and the lamp was then overturned at some point which cased the floor to catch fire? So if we have a canidate that we agree once existed, and people are describing their seeing such type creatures, I see nothing wrong with considering a known species being the culprit rather than to invent a new one out of thin air. Filler made an observation that I had not ever heard before and I am not surprised the many folks will reject it if for no other reason than it shows that what may have been earlier thought about evolution may have been wrong. I personally am not qualified to support or debunk these recent findings. I am qualified however to understand that if certain observations are accurate, then the possibility of the Gigantopithecus may still be around and may be what we know as Sasquatch.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 13, 2013 1:34:25 GMT -5
The problem with your theory is that the wear patterns on the teeth suggest they ate bamboo they were also found with the ancestors of the panda The shape of their teeth and the wear pattern on their teeth and the locations where all the fossils have been found indicates that their range was confined to bamboo forrests
Imo the best evidence we have suggests that they never left the bamboo forrests of southeast Asia
|
|
|
Post by thomassteenburg on Feb 13, 2013 2:46:22 GMT -5
It seems to me that many here are missing the point of Bigfoot hunters original statement. Which is in the fossil record as it now exists there is only one large primate that has been discovered, (so far) which is comparable size wise to what witnesses are reporting here in north America. And that fossil record points to Gigantopithecus. Yes it is only a theory that this creature slowly over a period of time crossed the Bering sea land bridge in the same way the ancestors of our first nations people did. Filler never mentions the Sasquatch in his book and I think he would be irritated knowing that others are using his argument of Occum,s Razzer and the common existence of bipedalism over the last 5 million years to debate the ancestry of a creature which has yet to be confirmed to actually exist. It has been pointed out that no fossil of Giganto has been found on this side of the pacific. That is true but at the same time no fossil remains of ice age humans have been found here ether. Yet it is commonly accepted that they did cross and that is how the first humans arrived in North America over 50 thousand years ago. It is always possible that tomorrow, or next week or ten years from now somebody digging a new basement will uncover the remains of some large primate that was not giganto in origin and the whole Sasquatch/Gigantopithecus connection will be discarded. Until that happens we can not dismiss the fact that the only giant primate so far discovered and known to have at lest once existed on this planet could be related to a reported but as of this time 'not' confirmed higher primate alleged to be alive and well in North America. Occums Razz er simply states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The key word there is 'usually' not defiantly.
Thomas Steenburg
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 13, 2013 10:29:45 GMT -5
The problem with your theory is that the wear patterns on the teeth suggest they ate bamboo they were also found with the ancestors of the panda The shape of their teeth and the wear pattern on their teeth and the locations where all the fossils have been found indicates that their range was confined to bamboo forrests Imo the best evidence we have suggests that they never left the bamboo forrests of southeast Asia Bamboo may have been a food source, but I doubt that they only ate bamboo. The Sasquatch has been reportedly been witnessed eaying various vegetations. It could very well be that particular animals have preferences, but will adapt to eating what ever food sources that are available to them. There certainly are an endless amount of unknown speculative variables to consider.
|
|