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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

All New World primates seem to have diverged and radiated from a single species that rafted over from Africa about 26 million years ago, it's as good a starting point as any. The skelectal morphology is remarkably similar in all species.

Then the question would be what ecological pressures would drive the emergence of bipedal locomotion and the loss of the tail in this lineage?

Edited by Carnoferox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carnoferox said:

Then the question would be what ecological pressures would drive the emergence of bipedal locomotion and the loss of the tail in this lineage?

 

1 minute ago, Carnoferox said:

Then the question would be what ecological pressures would drive the emergence of bipedal locomotion and the loss of the tail in this lineage?

Some of the same posited and unsatisfactory reasons often cited in reference to it in hominids, man in particular. Perhaps bipedalism and great size were necessary to deal with and overcome such adversaries as the giant terrestrial terror birds that stalked the continent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Then the question would be what ecological pressures would drive the emergence of bipedal locomotion and the loss of the tail in this lineage?

You seem to be well educated in this. Is it something you do for a living or what? Just curious is all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

 

Some of the same posited and unsatisfactory reasons often cited in reference to it in hominids, man in particular. Perhaps bipedalism and great size were necessary to deal with and overcome such adversaries as the giant terrestrial terror birds that stalked the continent.

Sabretooth cats like Smilodon would be major predators as well, similar to how Dinofelis preyed on early hominins in Africa. Communication between individuals would be key for survival, hence the vocalizations commonly reported in Bigfoot sightings. A howler monkey-like ancestor with an enlarged hyoid would be most plausible in this case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alien Origins said:

You seem to be well educated in this. Is it something you do for a living or what? Just curious is all.

It is not something I currently do for a living but it will be in the near future. I just read a lot of scientific literature.

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

For anyone still interested in this topic, I'm working on a revised version of my "Why Bigfoot is NOT Gigantopithecus" article. It's over two years old now and is in need of updating. I am looking for a hard-to-find paper by Krantz, so I'll include the full citation below if anyone would happen to have a copy.

Krantz, G.S. (1987). A reconstruction of the skull of Gigantopithecus and its comparison with a living form. Cryptozoology, 6, 24-39. 

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

2 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

For anyone still interested in this topic, I'm working on a revised version of my "Why Bigfoot is NOT Gigantopithecus" article. It's over two years old now and is in need of updating. I am looking for a hard-to-find paper by Krantz, so I'll include the full citation below if anyone would happen to have a copy.

Krantz, G.S. (1987). A reconstruction of the skull of Gigantopithecus and its comparison with a living form. Cryptozoology, 6, 24-39. 

I know someone who might well have this,  I'll check. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, oldrover said:

I know someone who might well have this,  I'll check. 

Thank you, I've been looking for it for ages now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldrover said:

Surely Karl Shuker has this? 

I think I might've emailed him about it awhile ago but never heard back. Can't remember for sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2018 at 7:55 PM, Carnoferox said:

Read the original post - that's the topic. Anything having to do with the BIG hypothesis and even other fossil hominids in relation to Bigfoot should be discussed.

While American Bigfootology has always preferred giant apes, the Russian school theorized that the creature was a much closer human relative:

 

The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the Taxonomy and Evolution of Higher Primates

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/201497

 

On Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus

 

The secret Abominable Snowman theory that no one knows about was the life work of Boris Porshnev, the leader of the Snowman Commission. This work was a radical theory of anthropogenesis. In this theory the Troglodyte had a staring role in human evolution as a predatory species that ate humans the ancestors of modern humans. Porshnev theorized that the conflict between Homo sapiens and Troglodytes was the driving force behind human evolution.

This is from a summary of his work:

Thus, this crisis and the way out was characterized by two extraordinary phenomena. First, a  phenomenon rare among higher animal species - cannibalism (in other words, there was a shift to predatory behavior against members of their own species). And secondly, the new phenomenon of splitting the species on the basis of specialization between those who were passive, and those who consumed part of the population, which, however, then led to the development of separate species. This divergence of two types - "food" and "eaters" - proceeded unusually fast, and the character is the most acute in the whole complex of questions about the beginning of human history before modern science.

This work has never been translated into English.

Obviously his theories would need to be completely revised in light of modern discoveries.

Edited by Razumov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Razumov said:

While American Bigfootology has always preferred giant apes, the Russian school theorized that the creature was a much closer human relative:

 

The Troglodytidae and the Hominidae in the Taxonomy and Evolution of Higher Primates

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/201497

 

On Neanderthal vs. Paranthropus

 

The secret Abominable Snowman theory that no one knows about was the life work of Boris Porshnev, the leader of the Snowman Commission. This work was a radical theory of anthropogenesis. In this theory the Troglodyte had a staring role in human evolution as a predatory species that ate humans the ancestors of modern humans. Porshnev theorized that the conflict between Homo sapiens and Troglodytes was the driving force behind human evolution.

This is from a summary of his work:

Thus, this crisis and the way out was characterized by two extraordinary phenomena. First, a  phenomenon rare among higher animal species - cannibalism (in other words, there was a shift to predatory behavior against members of their own species). And secondly, the new phenomenon of splitting the species on the basis of specialization between those who were passive, and those who consumed part of the population, which, however, then led to the development of separate species. This divergence of two types - "food" and "eaters" - proceeded unusually fast, and the character is the most acute in the whole complex of questions about the beginning of human history before modern science.

This work has never been translated into English.

Obviously his theories would need to be completely revised in light of modern discoveries.

I'm aware of the works of Porshnev and other Russian hominologists; this is not secret knowledge as you seem to imply. Neanderthals and australopithecines are not suitable ancestors for Bigfoot, either. They do not match its characteristics, nor do any fossil hominids.

Edited by Carnoferox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Neanderthals and australopithecines are not suitable ancestors for Bigfoot, either. They do not match its characteristics, nor do any fossil hominoids.

Since you don't believe in Bigfoot, where exactly to you get your definition of Bigfoot from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Razumov said:

Since you don't believe in Bigfoot, where exactly to you get your definition of Bigfoot from?

Same as everyone else. Bigfoot is a very well-known cryptohominid that is sighted all across the United States and Canada

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

I'm aware of the works of Porshnev and other Russian hominologists; this is not secret knowledge as you seem to imply.

The part that is unknown in the west is his theory of anthropogenesis, which is seen as his main work in Russia.

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/О_начале_человеческой_истории

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Same as everyone else. Bigfoot is a very well-known cryptohominid that is sighted all across the United States and Canada

There is a lot of variation within that legendary, and the native myths are another subject entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Razumov said:

There is a lot of variation within that legendary, and the native myths are another subject entirely.

Yes there is a lot of variation in Bigfoot stories, which suggests one of two things depending on your viewpoint:

1. There are multiple species of undiscovered hominids in North America.

2. The inconsistency is to be expected from eyewitness reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Considering it is covered in his English papers, I doubt it is unknown in the west.

Not completely, but compare the Russian wiki to the English one and you see the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Yes there is a lot of variation in Bigfoot stories, which suggests one of two things depending on your viewpoint:

1. There are multiple species of undiscovered hominids in North America.

2. The inconsistency is to be expected from eyewitness reports.

So how do you debunk something without defining it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Razumov said:

So how do you debunk something without defining it?

It is pretty clear that the characteristics reported for Bigfoot in general do not match any fossil hominids. If you don't have anything to say about Gigantopithecus then I'm not sure why you're posting on this thread.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Introduction

As evidenced by my past article deconstructing the subject, I’m a vehement critic of the “Bigfoot is Gigantopithecus” (BIG) hypothesis. Recently I found an article on the BFRO’s website entitled “The Bigfoot-Giganto Theory”; the author wisely remains uncredited. Is the BFRO’s take on the BIG hypothesis well-researched and plausible for a change? Of course not. It’s the typical exercise in ignorance and as such I couldn’t resist refuting all of the outlandish assertions that this article makes. I’ve included excerpts from the article in quotes with my rebuttals after them.

*snip*

 Right Gigantopithecus are true, but never made it across to the Americans, dinosaur bones are found all over:) Big foots? :) or some Gigantopithecus bones would be found :) 

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons
removed large unnecessary quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

 Right Gigantopithecus are true, but never made it across to the Americans, dinosaur bones are found all over:) Big foots? :) or some Gigantopithecus bones would be found :) 

Any chance of a translation?

Edited for a typo. 

Edited by oldrover
  • Like 1
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.