Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Still Waters

What Changed the Face of Bigfoot?

9 posts in this topic

Above is the late Warren Thompson‘s drawings of the Bigfoot seen during the encounters that took place during the Basin Gulch Expedition of the Bay Area Group. The individuals involved (Ben E. Foster, Jr., Sharon Gorden, and Richard Foster), who Thompson had guide his sketching, reported seeing several Bigfoot the night of August 11, 1970.

Thompson published these in George Haas’s Bigfoot Bulletin, August 31, 1970, No. 20. Thompson was not professionally skilled as an artist, but you get a good idea of what was seen. An ape-life animal that had a ruffed brow or a prominent browridge, hardly any nose, and a projected mouth.

http://www.cryptozoo...m/bigfoot-face/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

If Bigfoot is real... the answer is, because not everyone sees the same thing in the same way.

If Bigfoot isn't real... the answer is, because all the alleged witnesses haven't gotten their stories co-ordinated.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bigfoot is real maybe there are different ethnic groups.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very important point, Hilander. If we are all different, why shouldn't we believe that the bigfoot beings (???) aren't the same way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1954 sketch somewhat looks like a sloth, perhaps just a coincidence ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bigfoot is real... the answer is, because not everyone sees the same thing in the same way.

If Bigfoot isn't real... the answer is, because all the alleged witnesses haven't gotten their stories co-ordinated.

We all know its the second option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder about the influence of National Geographic issues on human evolution as well as Great Apes, on witness descriptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that Bigfoots are real, then one can assume they may have a certain degree of diversity, just as we do. I'm not referring to diversity of ethnicity but rather diversity within an ethnic group. This from Wikipedia:

Models of human evolution

See also: Multiregional hypothesis and Recent single origin hypothesis

In a 1995 article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson suggested that any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race.[51]

Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of homininae: the first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis, are theorized to have evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. Homo erectus is theorized to have evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout Europe and Asia. Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Archaic Homo sapiens (A group including the possible species H. heidelgergensis, H. rhodesiensis and H. neanderthalensis) evolved out of African Homo erectus ((sensu lato) or Homo ergaster).[52][53]

Today anthropologists increasingly believe that anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved in North or East Africa from H. heidelbergensis and then migrated out of Africa, mixing with and replacing H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis populations throughout Europe and Asia, and H. rhodesiensis populations in Sub-Saharan Africa (a combination of the Out of Africa and Multiregional models).[54][verification needed]

"Within" versus "between group variation"

See also: "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper)

The F(ST) or "genetic variation between versus within groups" for human races is approximately 0.15. This is ample to satisfy taxonomic significance. The F(ST) for humans and chimpanzees is 0.18.[55] The attempt to claim F(ST) invalidates the human race concept is known as "Lewontin's Fallacy".[56] However, Witherspoon et al. 2007 concluded that Lewontin's "Fallacy" is only a fallacy if one assumes the populations that individuals can be assigned to are "races". They concluded the ability to assign an individual to a specific population cluster with enough markers considered is perfectly compatible with the fact it may still be possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster whilst still being capable of being traced back to specific regions.[57][58]

Lieberman and Jackson argued that while advocates of both the Multiregional Model and the Out of Africa Model use the word race and make racial assumptions, none define the term.[51] They conclude that students of human evolution would be better off avoiding the word race, and instead describe genetic differences in terms of populations and clinal gradations.[51]

Now again, if we assume that Bigfoots are real then, it's reasonable to assume they have a diverse mix within their own species. How diverse is a function of the size of the population. If we further assume that in North America there is a population of between 20k and 50K (you have to have enough to make a viable population, and I've seen a lot of numbers battiered around by a lot of people with a lot of letters after their names. So pick the one you like best). Look at the diversification within Caucasians; Blond, brunettes, redheads, fair complexions, olive complexions, dark complexions, blue eyes, brown eyes, hazel eyes, dark eyes. "I just saw a human, it was a red head."

"You idiot, you know all humans have dark hair."

Just speculating, but it seems reasonable to assume......since this is a huge assumption anyway, that a population is going to have some diversity. How much diversity, is a function of population size and location.

Not sure if I made my point here or not.

:unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Have you ever been watching the evening news and they put up a police artists drawing of a criminal suspect? Sometimes they are spot on, but usually they could be anyone. A great variety among drawings of something like bigfoot is bound to happen.

7.29.bigfoot.1.jpg

http://www.thepaintedcave.com/img/pete/sasketch/hypo/head/index.php

http://www.thepainte...ch/bsp_main.php

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.