Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The BFRO and Gigantopithecus


Carnoferox
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thank you, I really enjoyed that and you certainly put the leg work into it...Extremely informative. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for your compliments. I'm trying to get back into the saddle of writing again and hopefully I'll have more articles like this one coming in the future. In the meantime I'd be curious to hear any more thoughts, questions, or criticisms.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Resume said:

Well, other than that, what did you think of the article?

Is this addressed to me or to the other commenters?

Edited by Carnoferox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Is this addressed to me or to the other commenters?

I think Resume is joking. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Is this addressed to me or to the other commenters?

To you. I was joking.  I found your post very well researched and expressed.

Edited by Resume
clarity
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Resume said:

To you. I was joking.  I found your post very well researched and expressed.

Thanks for the kind words. My sarcasm detector was clearly turned off today. :lol:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Resume said:

Well, other than that, what did you think of the article?

Loved it, I couldn't spell half the words on it, let alone question it.. :lol:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 4:42 PM, Carnoferox said:

One can only hope that like most bad hypotheses its influence will fade with time.

That is one ambitious hope, sir.:lol:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be slipping to not see this thread for over a week....

I very much agree with what you wrote Carnoferox. I've never thought the Giganto hypothesis had any real merit to it. 

I think "Bigfoot is a weird species of bear", "Bigfoot is a cave man", "Bigfoot is a alien" and "Bigfoot is a human genetic freak", explain the phenomena much better then "Bigfoot is a Gigantopithicus" and as such, it is barely even worth mentioning, even for purposes of only discussion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's impressive work, congratulations.

As for the original article you are rebutting, I always find it odd when people who put forth such work never want to take credit for it. It's like they do not want to be associated with their work. Maybe they are embarrassed by it ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, danydandan said:

That's impressive work, congratulations.

As for the original article you are rebutting, I always find it odd when people who put forth such work never want to take credit for it. It's like they do not want to be associated with their work. Maybe they are embarrassed by it ?

I think you're being very generous in calling the original article "work". Seems more like the ponderings of a lonely stoner than an actual hypothesis. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I must be slipping to not see this thread for over a week....

I very much agree with what you wrote Carnoferox. I've never thought the Giganto hypothesis had any real merit to it. 

I think "Bigfoot is a weird species of bear", "Bigfoot is a cave man", "Bigfoot is a alien" and "Bigfoot is a human genetic freak", explain the phenomena much better then "Bigfoot is a Gigantopithicus" and as such, it is barely even worth mentioning, even for purposes of only discussion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just watched this video over on Cryptomondo....

Edited by Alien Origins
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that gigantopithicus, or a direct descendent is the most plausible candidate for the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon. 

I have investigated this mystery in some detail, and am convinced there as a real flesh and blood animal behind this. There are too many old Indian legends, eye witness sightings, as well as evidence in the form of footprints (with dermal ridges), scat and hair samples, and the famed Patterson-Gimlin Footage which has never been debunked.

The manner in which the subject of the film moved would be impossible for a human to replicate while maintain the speed maintained by the creature. In addition, many eye witnesses are experienced observers of animal life such as hunters and forest rangers, making misidentification of known species an inadequate explanation in many cases. 

Hoaxes can also be ruled out as the ultimate source of the phenomenon unless one is inclined to believe in a centuries old conspiracy of 7-9 foot tall men walking around in the woods wearing monkey suits.

Edited by Lord Harry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

I would say that gigantopithicus, or a direct descendent is the most plausible candidate for the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon. 

I have investigated this mystery in some detail, and am convinced there as a real flesh and blood animal behind this. There are too many old Indian legends, eye witness sightings, as well as evidence in the form of footprints (with dermal ridges), scat and hair samples, and the famed Patterson-Gimlin Footage which has never been debunked.

The manner in which the subject of the film moved would be impossible for a human to replicate while maintain the speed maintained by the creature. In addition, many eye witnesses are experienced observers of animal life such as hunters and forest rangers, making misidentification of known species an inadequate explanation in many cases. 

Hoaxes can also be ruled out as the ultimate source of the phenomenon unless one is inclined to believe in a centuries old conspiracy of 7-9 foot tall men walking around in the woods wearing monkey suits.

No, sorry but no. Nothing you've listed in your reasons to believe srand up. Carnoferox has made points supported by references, which we can refer to and check. In their turn those citations will be referenced and we can check these, and so on. It's how you build up a reluable and tdansparent body of knowledge. There are probably millions of posts like yours and I've seen only a handful that come even close to a fraction of that openess. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, oldrover said:

No, sorry but no. Nothing you've listed in your reasons to believe srand up. Carnoferox has made points supported by references, which we can refer to and check. In their turn those citations will be referenced and we can check these, and so on. It's how you build up a reluable and tdansparent body of knowledge. There are probably millions of posts like yours and I've seen only a handful that come even close to a fraction of that openess. 

I can provide plenty of citations including those of professional anthropologists. Jeff Meldrum's "Sasquatch Evidence Meets Science," and the works of Grover Krantz. 

Professional anthropologists and primatologists with PhD's have spoken in support of Sasquatch being a real species of primate. Including Dr. Jane Goodall.

And regarding the famed Patterson Gimlin Footage, with the level of technology in 1967, not even Hollywood could have produced a costume with that level of detail, including the shifting musculature.

If you want proof, compare the subject in the Patterson footage with the costumed actors in the Planet of the Apes. That was state of the art technology in 1967, and the difference is striking to say the least.

Edited by Lord Harry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

I would say that gigantopithicus, or a direct descendent is the most plausible candidate for the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon. 

I have investigated this mystery in some detail, and am convinced there as a real flesh and blood animal behind this. There are too many old Indian legends, eye witness sightings, as well as evidence in the form of footprints (with dermal ridges), scat and hair samples, and the famed Patterson-Gimlin Footage which has never been debunked.

The manner in which the subject of the film moved would be impossible for a human to replicate while maintain the speed maintained by the creature. In addition, many eye witnesses are experienced observers of animal life such as hunters and forest rangers, making misidentification of known species an inadequate explanation in many cases. 

Hoaxes can also be ruled out as the ultimate source of the phenomenon unless one is inclined to believe in a centuries old conspiracy of 7-9 foot tall men walking around in the woods wearing monkey suits.

Quote

Hoaxes can also be ruled out as the ultimate source of the phenomenon unless one is inclined to believe in a centuries old conspiracy of 7-9 foot tall men walking around in the woods wearing monkey suits.

In a subject such as this hoaxes can never ever be ruled out..The human mind can cook up some pretty crafty s**t when it takes notion. That and your dealing with a subject that has circumstantial  evidence at best. Cryptozoology does not take a degree. It has been damaged beyond repair the same as Ufology. Thats where the hoaxes come in, so much of this stuff is a hoax people don't know what to believe. 

Quote

I would say that gigantopithicus, or a direct descendent is the most plausible candidate for the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon. 

Maybe..But from what CarnoFerox just posted I would side with him on this.

Quote

The manner in which the subject of the film moved would be impossible for a human to replicate while maintain the speed maintained by the creature. In addition, many eye witnesses are experienced observers of animal life such as hunters and forest rangers, making misidentification of known species an inadequate explanation in many cases. 

The PG film has long been a source of debate...But until and when there is a body found Bigfoot remains an enigma....Thats the biggest source of fault that I see no body.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Harry said:

I can provide plenty of citations including those of professional anthropologists. Jeff Meldrum's "Sasquatch Evidence Meets Science," and the works of Grover Krantz. 

Professional anthropologists and primatologists with PhD's have spoken in support of Sasquatch being a real species of primate. Including Dr. Jane Goodall.

And regarding the famed Patterson Gimlin Footage, with the level of technology in 1967, not even Hollywood could have produced a costume with that level of detail, including the shifting musculature.

If you want proof, compare the subject in the Patterson footage with the costumed actors in the Planet of the Apes. That was state of the art technology in 1967, and the difference is striking to say the least.

I'm not discussing the PG film, or any of the other points you raised on this thread, which is about the idea that bigfoot could be a Gigantpithecus. There are about a thousand other bigfoot threads here though where I'd be happy to. And fair play to you for offering to back your claims up with references, so I hope you do post these elsewhere. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

I would say that gigantopithicus, or a direct descendent is the most plausible candidate for the Bigfoot/Sasquatch phenomenon. 

I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

2 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

I can provide plenty of citations including those of professional anthropologists. Jeff Meldrum's "Sasquatch Evidence Meets Science," and the works of Grover Krantz. 

Professional anthropologists and primatologists with PhD's have spoken in support of Sasquatch being a real species of primate. Including Dr. Jane Goodall.

And regarding the famed Patterson Gimlin Footage, with the level of technology in 1967, not even Hollywood could have produced a costume with that level of detail, including the shifting musculature.

If you want proof, compare the subject in the Patterson footage with the costumed actors in the Planet of the Apes. That was state of the art technology in 1967, and the difference is striking to say the least.

The point of my article was to point out the many flaws in the BIG hypothesis, not to debate if Bigfoot actually exists or if the PG film is legitimate.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

I would like to hear your reasoning behind this.

The point of my article was to point out the many flaws in the BIG hypothesis, not to debate if Bigfoot actually exists or if the PG film is legitimate.

True. But I thought I would post a few brief lines of reasoning. Been intending to post here on the subject for a while but been busy working on my PhD.

Guess I got a bit trigger happy. LOL!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Harry said:

True. But I thought I would post a few brief lines of reasoning. Been intending to post here on the subject for a while but been busy working on my PhD.

Guess I got a bit trigger happy. LOL!

You gave your reasoning behind why you think Bigfoot and the PG film are real, but not why Gigantopithecus is a suitable Bigfoot ancestor. Since that is the topic of my article and this thread that would be relevant to post.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.