Popular Post Carnoferox Posted April 26, 2018 Popular Post #1 Share Posted April 26, 2018 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. Quote Bigfoot-Giganto theorists deal with a few issues that affect the potential linkage of modern bigfoot reports to ancient Gigantos. Probably the most crucial question concerns whether Gigantos walked upright. There is more than one school of thought among anthrolopogists regarding this issue. Some physical anthropologists interpret the scant fossilized remains to indicate an upright walking ape, measuring an impressive nine feet tall, and weighing more than 1000 pounds -- the general description of bigfoot type creatures reported for centuries in North America and Asia. Even if Giganto posture is uncertain, no one can reasonably dispute the conclusion that Gigantos were the largest primates that ever walked the earth. Obligate bipedalism is only known to have evolved in the hominin lineage beginning with Orrorin in the late Miocene (Richmond & Jungers, 2008; Almécija et al. 2013) and it is improbable that a pongine like Gigantopithecus would have convergently evolved the morphology required for this mode of locomotion. Postcranial material of the related pongine Sivapithecus indicates quadrupedal locomotion with a wrist suited for knuckle walking (Begun & Kivell, 2011) and a robust pelvis for load bearing (Morgan et al. 2015). These features were likely also present in Gigantopithecus based on both phylogenetic bracketing and the need to support its large mass. While the size given in the article is exaggerated, the most recent mass estimates of 200-300 kilograms would still make bipedalism unfeasible (Zhang & Harrison, 2017). Gigantopithecus’ status as the largest primate can actually be disputed, as this estimate would put it within the upper range of male gorillas. Based on available evidence it is more parsimonious that Gigantopithecus was a quadrupedal knuckle-walker rather than a hominin-like biped. Quote Bigfoot-Giganto theorists believe that Gigantos' large brain size (perhaps the largest in the terrestrial animal kingdom) and upright-walking posture facilitated their dispersion across Asia and North America. Thousands of years of adaptation to temperate and mountainous climates, it is believed, would have given these large upright walking apes the ability to tolerate cold temperatures, climb through deep snow, and cross high mountain ranges with relative ease. The brain size of Gigantopithecus is unknown because a cranium has never been found, only 4 partial mandibles and over 1500 isolated teeth (Zhang & Harrison, 2017). Gigantopithecus migrating to North America would have been impossible given its dietary and environmental specialization; this is a topic I’ve already covered in greater detail in my previous article. In short, Gigantopithecus did not inhabitat temperate or montane climates, but was restricted to the subtropical forests of southeastern Asia because of a pure C3 plant diet (Zhao et al. 2011; Bocherens et al. 2017). Therefore it would have had none of these supposed adaptations. Quote There is some physical evidence to indicate that Gigantos in Asia were hunted and eaten by Homo erectus (ancestors to humans that lived contemporaneously with Gigantos). The mainstream explanation for the apparent disappearance of Gigantos lays blame primarily on this predation by Homo erectus. There is absolutely no evidence of predation on Gigantopithecus by Homo erectus; even the coexistence of Homo and Gigantopithecus is highly questionable. This was based on the reported presence of Homo sp. in Longuppo cave in China (Huang et al. 1995) and Homo erectus in Tham Khuyen cave in Vietnam (Ciochon et al. 1996), both sites that have also produced Gigantopithecus teeth. However, these remains have more recently been reinterpreted as belonging to either a new species of hominid with uncertain affinities (Ciochon, 2009; 2010) or the pongine Lufengpithecus (Etler et al. 2001; Etler, 2009). It now seems that Homo was absent from the subtropical forests of southeastern Asia during the early-mid Pleistocene and would not have encountered Gigantopithecus. Rather than overhunting by Homo erectus, the cause of extinction of Gigantopithecus was the inability to cope with habitat turnover due to its large size and ecological specialization (Bocherens et al. 2017). Quote Bigfoot-Giganto theorists do not accept the idea that a highly mobile genus like Gigantopithecus could have been completely wiped out by Homo erectus. Instead they look to consistencies in present day bigfoot reports and see the necessary behavioral adaptations which would have allowed the Giganto line to avoid extinction at the hands of man. The ellusiveness [sic] of these modern mystery animals may stem from their bad experiences with pre-humans in Asia. I’ll reiterate that Gigantopithecus was certainly not migratory nor is there any evidence for its coexistence with Homo erectus. The attempt to reconcile Bigfoot’s purported behavior with that of Gigantopithecus therefore fails on both accounts. Quote The most commonly heard argument against the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis is that "we should have found their bones in North America by now..." This argument is, in fact, weak when one considers that very few remains of Gigantos have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Tens of thousands of years of Gigantos' accepted existence in Asia would have produced literally millions of Giganto skeletons, yet the volume of collected remains from Asia is so small that the entire collection could fit easily in one suitcase. The scarcity of Gigantopithecus fossils is the product of a unique taphonomic bias that is incomparable to Pleistocene sites in North America. The bones of Gigantopithecus were initially collected by porcupines (Hystrix spp.) and deposited in limestone caves that they inhabited. There the porcupines chewed the bones to wear down their continously-growing incisors and consume calcium needed for quill growth, until only the hard enamel of the Gigantopithecus teeth remained. Over the course of 300,000+ years the surrounding limestone eroded away and left these caves isolated at the tops of large karst towers (White, 1975). More favorable preservational conditions in North America make it more likely that Gigantopithecus fossils would have already been found had they migrated to the continent. Quote One flavor of the Bigfoot-Giganto hypothesis suggests that bigfoots might not be direct descendants of the genus Gigantopithecus, but rather some other offshoot of the giant Asian "wood ape" line, perhaps a line for which we have zero fossils remains at the present time. The Giganto line is an important reference point for this alternate explanation for two reasons: 1) the Giganto line illustrates the potential for primates to grow to such 'gigantic' proportions (twice as large as the largest 'known' living primate), and 2) the fact that so few remains of Gigantos have been unearthed and identified makes it more conceivable that there could have been other lines of giant Asian wood apes for which we have no fossil remains at the present time. What the article calls “wood apes” I assume are meant to be dryopithecins. Derived from the meaning of the name Dryopithecus (Greek for “oak ape”), “wood ape” appears to be becoming a more common term for dryopithecins, especially in cryptozoological circles hypothesizing a relationship with Bigfoot. The tribe Dryopithecini, which contains the genera Dryopithecus, Rudapithecus, Hispanopithecus, Ouranopithecus, and Graecopithecus, is only known from fossils in Europe and Turkey (Begun, 2009). Thus the proposed occurence of dryopithecins in eastern Asia is entirely unsupported. Additionally, the morphology of dryopithecins is unlike that commonly described for Bigfoot. This is exemplified by the most completely-known dryopithecin, Hispanopithecus, which has a relatively low estimated mass (22-25 kilograms for females and 34-43 kilograms for males) and shows adaptations for both arboreal quadrupedalism and suspensory locomotion (Alba et al. 2012). Dryopithecins are just as poor candidates for a Bigfoot ancestor as Gigantopithecus. Quote No research group has ever made an attempt to look for Giganto bones in North America, so no one should be surprised that Giganto remains have never been identified in North America. Ironically, the most vocal skeptics and scientists who rhetorically ask why no bones have been located and identified on this continent are the last people who would ever make an effort to look for them. Some Bigfoot-Giganto theorists speculate that fragmentary remains of Gigantos have been unearthed in North America in the past but were simply disregarded or misidentified. The article pulls out the tired BIG rhetoric that Gigantopithecus fossils will be found in North America “if we would just look for them”. What this sentiment ignores is that Pleistocene sediments are common in North America and generally well-sampled. The FAUNMAP database provides a record of Pleistocene fossil sites for example. It also imagines that paleontologists specifically seek out certain animals and then find them, when this is an equally ridiculous notion. The ending note is almost conspiratorial in implying that knowledge of North American Gigantopithecus fossils has been suppressed. In reality this kind of discovery would have profound implications and would definitely be published in scientific literature. Conclusion Almost everything that this article claims about Gigantopithecus is demonstrably false. The BFRO repeats the same old misconceptions that are easily debunked. It’s frustrating that the BIG hypothesis continues to be supported without question despite its dubious nature. This isn’t helped by the persistent association between Bigfoot and Gigantopithecus even in mainstream popular science articles. One can only hope that like most bad hypotheses its influence will fade with time. References Alba, D.M., Almécija, S., Casanovas-Vilar, I., Méndez, J.M., & Moyà-Solà, S. (2012). A partial skeleton of the fossil great ape Hispanopithecus laietanus from Can Feu and the mosaic evolution of crown-hominoid positional behaviors. PLoS ONE, 7(6): e39617. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039617 Almécija, S., Tallman, M., Alba, D.M., Pina, M., Moyà-Solà, S., & Jungers, W.L. (2013). The femur of Orrorin tugenensis exhibits morphometric affinities with both Miocene apes and later hominins. Nature Communications, 4: 2888. doi:10.1038/ncomms3888 Begun, D.R. (2009). Dryopithecins, Darwin, de Bonis, and the European origin of the African apes and human clade. Geodiversitas, 31(4), 789-816. Begun, D.R., & Kivell, T.L. (2011). Knuckle-walking in Sivapithecus? The combined effects of homology and homoplasy with possible implications for pongine dispersals. Journal of Human Evolution, 60(2), 158-170. Bocherens, H., Schrenk, F., Chaimanee, Y., Kullmer, O., Mӧrike, D., Pushkina, D., & Jaeger, J-J. (2017). Flexibility of diet and habitat in Pleistocene South Asian mammals: Implications for the fate of the giant fossil ape Gigantopithecus. Quaternary International, 434(A), 148-155. Ciochon, R.L. (2009). The mystery ape of Pleistocene Asia. Nature, 459, 910-911. Ciochon, R.L. (2010). Divorcing hominins from the Stegodon-Ailuropoda fauna: New views on the antiquity of hominins in Asia. In J.G. Fleagle, J.J. Shea, F.E. Grine, A.L. Baden, & R.E. Leakey (Eds.), Out of Africa I: The First Hominin Colonization of Eurasia (pp. 111-126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Ciochon, R.L., Long, V.T., Larick, R., González, L., Grün, R., de Vos, J., Yonge, C., Taylor, L., Yoshida, H., & Reagan, M. (1996). Dated co-occurence of Homo erectus and Gigantopithecus from Tham Khuyen Cave, Vietnam. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(7), 3016-3020. Etler, D.A. (2009). Mystery ape: other fossils suggest that it’s no mystery at all. Nature, 460, 684. Etler, D.A., Crummett, T.L., & Wolpoff, M.H. (2001). Longuppo: Early Homo colonizer or late Pliocene Lufengpithecus survivor in south China? Human Evolution, 16(1), 1-12. Huang, W., Ciochon, R.L., Gu, Y., Larick, R., Fang, Q., Schwarcz, H., Yonge, C., de Vos, J., & Rink, W. (1995). Early Homo and associated artefacts from Asia. Nature, 378, 275-278. Morgan, M.E., Lewton, K.L., Kelley, J., Otárola-Castillo, E., Barry, J.C., Flynn, L.J., & Pilbeam, D. (2015). A partial hominoid innominate from the Miocene of Pakistan: Description and preliminary analyses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(1), 82-87. Richmond, B.G., & Jungers, W.L. (2008). Orrorin tugenensis femoral morphology and the evolution of hominin bipedalism. Science, 319, 1662-1665. White, T.D. (1975). Geomorphology to paleoecology: Gigantopithecus reappraised. Journal of Human Evolution, 4(3), 219-233. Zhao, L., Zhang, L., Zhang, F., & Wu, X. (2011). Enamel carbon isotope evidence of diet and habitat of Gigantopithecus blacki and associated mammalian megafauna in the Early Pleistocene of South China. Chinese Science Bulletin, 56(33), 3590-3595. Zhang, Y., & Harrison, T. (2017). Gigantopithecus blacki: a giant ape from the Pleistocene of Asia revisited. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 162(S63), 153-177. 8 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted April 26, 2018 #2 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Excellent and very insightful piece. 6 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iilaa'mpuul'xem Posted April 26, 2018 #3 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Thank you, I really enjoyed that and you certainly put the leg work into it...Extremely informative. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimalists Posted April 26, 2018 #4 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Man! I wish I could write like that! Good job dude! 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resume Posted April 26, 2018 #5 Share Posted April 26, 2018 Well, other than that, what did you think of the article? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted April 26, 2018 Author #6 Share Posted April 26, 2018 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. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted April 26, 2018 Author #7 Share Posted April 26, 2018 (edited) 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 April 26, 2018 by Carnoferox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted April 27, 2018 #8 Share Posted April 27, 2018 57 minutes ago, Carnoferox said: Is this addressed to me or to the other commenters? I think Resume is joking. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resume Posted April 27, 2018 #9 Share Posted April 27, 2018 (edited) 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 April 27, 2018 by Resume clarity 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted April 27, 2018 Author #10 Share Posted April 27, 2018 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. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iilaa'mpuul'xem Posted April 27, 2018 #11 Share Posted April 27, 2018 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.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Onyx~ Posted April 28, 2018 #12 Share Posted April 28, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 5, 2018 #13 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danydandan Posted May 5, 2018 #14 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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 ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer77 Posted May 5, 2018 #15 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimalists Posted May 5, 2018 #16 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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 More sharing options...
Minimalists Posted May 5, 2018 #17 Share Posted May 5, 2018 (edited) Just watched this video over on Cryptomondo.... Edited May 5, 2018 by Alien Origins 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harry Posted May 5, 2018 #18 Share Posted May 5, 2018 (edited) 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 May 5, 2018 by Lord Harry 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted May 5, 2018 #19 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harry Posted May 5, 2018 #20 Share Posted May 5, 2018 (edited) 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 May 5, 2018 by Lord Harry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimalists Posted May 5, 2018 #21 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted May 5, 2018 #22 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted May 5, 2018 Author #23 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Harry Posted May 5, 2018 #24 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnoferox Posted May 5, 2018 Author #25 Share Posted May 5, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now