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 minute ago, Lord Harry said:

Perhaps because most scientists dismiss the evidence without examining it.

yeah perhaps= but most know the real reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dejarma said:

yeah perhaps= but most know the real reason

You can't know the answer without examining the evidence. That is not how science works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

You really need to read the works of Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum.

Tracks, hair samples, scat samples. All if which have been found.

If you want a body, you must remember that the acidic soil of the Pacific Northwest isn't very conducive for preserving organic remains. Even the remains of relatively common large mammals such as black bear are seldom found in the Pacific Northwest. How much less a species with an estimated population of around 1,500 animals.

Quote

If you want a body, you must remember that the acidic soil of the Pacific Northwest isn't very conducive for preserving organic remains. Even the remains of relatively common large mammals such as black bear are seldom found in the Pacific Northwest. How much less a species with an estimated population of around 1,500 animals.

Don't buy this...The Bog Mummies are perfectly preserved in peat bogs that are acidic....The lack of a body where BF is concerned is puzzling...I have thought about buying Meldrum's book Sasquatch Meets Science but have not made the move.....I am still not convinced this thing exist yet. But I am reading Abominable Science which is pretty good so far.

Edited by Alien Origins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

Not all do however. Jeff Meldrum, Grover Krantz, John Napier and Jane Goodall are all advocates of Sasquatch's existence.

let's say BF is real:

people found gorillas over 100 years ago in Africa after rumours of large human-like mammals roaming around.

these individuals you quoted must be incredibly stupid to NOT yet prove the existence of a large human-like mammal roaming around North America in this day & age.

Though I take it you won't agree with that? oh well, I'm off haggis hunting now:D

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

1 hour ago, Dejarma said:

I'm off haggis hunting now:D

Please dress appropriately. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

I already answers this question. Most scientists dismiss the possibility that any large species of animal could remain unclassified without bothering to examine the evidence with any degree of objectivity.

If one considers how much of North America remains wilderness, and how much largely remains unexplored by men, then one begins to realize that God's creation has not yielded up all of its mysteries.

90% of old growth forest has been logged off; extraction industries have explored every nook and cranny of North America.  Like most bigfoot enthusiasts, you have a naive and romantic notion of the natural history of this continent.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

The size correlation for one. Both gigantopithicus and the alleged Sasquatch animal are or were between 7 and 10 feet in height.

In addition, evidence in the form of jaw fragments suggest the ape was a biped.

A 7-10 ft tall bipedal ape, sure sounds like a certain cryptid reported from the wilderness areas of the Pacific Northwest, doesn't it?

Will post links shortly. I'm currently posting from my cell phone and don't know how to copy and paste from this bloody machine.

The only "evidence" for bipedalism in Gigantopithecus is based on Grover Krantz's bad reasoning. Krantz thought that the widening of Gigantopithecus' mandibular condyles indicated that the trachea and esophagus were held in between them which in turn indicated an upright neck and posture which in turn indicated bipedal locomotion.

Except there are two huge flaws with this line of reasoning: 

1. None of the four known Gigantopithecus mandibles even have preserved condyles.

2. Posterior widening of the jaws is found in the majority of vertebrates and is not an indicator of stance/locomotion.

As you can see Krantz's justification for bipedalism in Gigantopithecus was a convoluted mess with no basis in reality. Quadrupedalism is most likely for Gigantopithecus based on postcranial remains from relatives like Sivapithecus and its large mass of 200-300 kg. 

8 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

Reconstruction can determine where on the animal the jaw and head were positioned and thus whether it were a biped or quadreped. 

Gigantopithicus also inhabited a similar environment to that from which Sasquatch has been reported. It is conceivable that a descendent of gigantopithicus could have crossed the Bering Landbridge along with the ancestors of the Paleo-Indians.

Gigantopithecus did not inhabit an environment similar to any in the US or Canada. Rather it lived in subtropical monsoon forests in southeast Asia and its diet consisted entirely of C3 plants. Gigantopithecus was ecological specialized and a migration across the steppes/tundra of the Bering Land Bridge would have been impossible.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

I have news for you gentlemen, Bigfoot is likely to be real.

1. Centuries of eye witness testimony which includes American Indian legends. The context in which these legends occur makes it clear the Indians believed this to be a real flesh and blood animal.

2. Footprints which include dermal ridges.

3. The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

4. Hair samples discovered throughout western North America which were determined to be non-human primate in origin, most closely related to Bonobo apes.

And these are just a few of the highlights.

1. The Native American legends are not consistent with BF tales. Connecting them is wishful thinking on BF proponents.

2. The dermal ridges might be artifacts of the casting process

3. PG is a hoax - two of the 4 scientists you listed stated this

4. No hair samples exist as you suggest

Take these problems to another thread.

Edited by stereologist
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Have any Gigantopithicus remains ever been DNA tested to see what other apes they are most closely related to? If they are related to Orangutans, as has been suggested, then it would take TREMENDOUS physical changes from an Orangutan to make such into bigfoot, which is hominid is appearance.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, stereologist said:

1. The Native American legends are not consistent with BF tales. Connecting them is wishful thinking on BF proponents.

I believe we've had NA posters here on UM say that numerous NA mythic wildmen/giants do match up with BF descriptions. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Question: Have any Gigantopithicus remains ever been DNA tested to see what other apes they are most closely related to? If they are related to Orangutans, as has been suggested, then it would take TREMENDOUS physical changes from an Orangutan to make such into bigfoot, which is hominid is appearance.

No Gigantopithecus teeth have been tested for ancient DNA yet. Unfortunately the humid subtropical climate of southeast Asia is not favorable for DNA preservation and any samples able to be retrieved would be degraded.

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

8 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

@Lord Harry

Are you coming back to this thread? :huh:

Greetings.

I probably am.  At the moment I am currently engaged in a private messaging conversation with a fellow Egyptologist concerning a mutual project.

When it comes to antiquity I am actually an orthodox among orthodox.  It is only my positions on certain cryptozoological matters on which one could consider me to belong to the fringe.

Edited by Lord Harry
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have any of you ever looked into the Bossburg tracks? Not only were these tracks consistent with what would be expected of a large, bipedal non-human primate, but they displayed evidence of injury on one of the feet. While certainly not conclusive, this strongly suggests the tracks were not hoaxed. As Primatologist John Napier concluded, "what kind of a hoaxer would be clever enough, or indeed sick enough to perpetrate such a fraud?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Harry said:

Have any of you ever looked into the Bossburg tracks? Not only were these tracks consistent with what would be expected of a large, bipedal non-human primate, but they displayed evidence of injury on one of the feet. While certainly not conclusive, this strongly suggests the tracks were not hoaxed. As Primatologist John Napier concluded, "what kind of a hoaxer would be clever enough, or indeed sick enough to perpetrate such a fraud?"

The Bossburg tracks don't have anything to do with Gigantopithecus, and their authenticity is dubious considering they were "discovered" by serial hoaxer Ivan Marx.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marx's film of the supposed crippled trackmacker:

A compilation of Marx's "conehead Bigfoot" footage:

 

Edited by Carnoferox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Cripplefoot, he faked 'em

Bigfoot credulous, he snaked 'em

He don't have to speak, they defend him

A con-man's dream if I ever did see one.

 

 

All apologies to The Band.

 

Edited by Resume
attribution
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The population size crucial to the alleged animal's continued existence would have to be what number? Hundreds if not thousands most likely. Regardless of dietary tendency the animal would also require significant amounts of food source to maintain one. Therefore, the activity of this population of such a huge animal would not go unnoticed by experienced hunters and trackers. As elusive as some propose, there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint and "blobsquatch" photos/videos. Sorry, but the animal is great fantasy and unfortunately nothing more.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2018 at 6:43 PM, Lord Harry said:

You can't know the answer without examining the evidence. That is not how science works.

You keep mentioning evidence, specifically "Tracks, hair samples, scat samples."  yet as far as I know there is not one sample of any of these that has passed examination.  Please provide your evidence of any of these that you believe to be the real thing. 

As far as Dr. Meldrum, he has exactly one footprint that he strongly feels is an actual BF print and several that are "interesting", yet he has never presented or defended any of them in a professional journal.  Why?  If it is evidence of BF it would make him world famous yet he chooses to not present any of his "evidence" to the wider scientific community.   

Jane Goodall has zero evidence of BF, she simply wishes and/or hopes it is real, so not a quintessential believer as you have suggested.  http://allthatsinteresting.com/jane-goodall-sasquatch   

Lastly, you have offered only your beliefs yet not challenged any part Carnoferox's original post.  Is there a reason for that? 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2018 at 4:40 PM, Trelane said:

The population size crucial to the alleged animal's continued existence would have to be what number? Hundreds if not thousands most likely. Regardless of dietary tendency the animal would also require significant amounts of food source to maintain one. Therefore, the activity of this population of such a huge animal would not go unnoticed by experienced hunters and trackers. As elusive as some propose, there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint and "blobsquatch" photos/videos. Sorry, but the animal is great fantasy and unfortunately nothing more.

Many of the reported sightings are from hunters. I don't believe there has been any statistical analysis on what percent of reports come from hunters, or other woods-related career/activity people, there are, but I've seen enough reports over 13 years on UM that I can say it clearly isn't zero.

If someone walks up to a berry patch, or say a dead deer, how can one tell if it was killed/eaten by a wolf, bear, or bigfoot? There might be tracks, or there might not. There may be teeth marks, or there may be not. I don't think saying that food eaten by a couple hundred individuals over hundreds of thousands of square miles would be noticed is actually reasonable. That is like saying one or two apples off a apple tree that has 500 apples are going to be missed.

"..there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint....". This.... I have to agree with. If bigfoot were real, there'd almost certainly be a body by now, or at least good trail cam pics. Even good trail cam pics will be dismissed as hoaxes, without a actual body to back them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without proper investigative procedures any evidence found of Bigfoot would be tainted before it got into the hands of those that could verify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2018 at 6:43 PM, Lord Harry said:

You can't know the answer without examining the evidence. That is not how science works.

I'm not sure you understand how science works.   You have stated that you firmly believe tales from known hoaxers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Many of the reported sightings are from hunters. I don't believe there has been any statistical analysis on what percent of reports come from hunters, or other woods-related career/activity people, there are, but I've seen enough reports over 13 years on UM that I can say it clearly isn't zero.

If someone walks up to a berry patch, or say a dead deer, how can one tell if it was killed/eaten by a wolf, bear, or bigfoot? There might be tracks, or there might not. There may be teeth marks, or there may be not. I don't think saying that food eaten by a couple hundred individuals over hundreds of thousands of square miles would be noticed is actually reasonable. That is like saying one or two apples off a apple tree that has 500 apples are going to be missed.

"..there would still be more evidence than the occasional footprint....". This.... I have to agree with. If bigfoot were real, there'd almost certainly be a body by now, or at least good trail cam pics. Even good trail cam pics will be dismissed as hoaxes, without a actual body to back them up.

How many of those professionals have never seen a BF?  99%?  How many have seen BF scat?  0%.   If you can see a BF that just devoured a deer you'd think just once those professionals would see a big steaming pile of scat wouldn't  you?  The answer is yes, at least once in the last 100 years.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

How many of those professionals have never seen a BF?  99%?  How many have seen BF scat?  0%.   If you can see a BF that just devoured a deer you'd think just once those professionals would see a big steaming pile of scat wouldn't  you?  The answer is yes, at least once in the last 100 years.  

You are asking to prove a negative, or at the very least to prove that because something has not been recorded that it therefore does not exist. Is there direct data on biology/zoology professionals who have found a partially eaten deer and whether or not they found dung/scat in the immediate local? Of course not. Then why are you saying it as if it is a fact? 

Can you reference those numbers, or are you voicing opinion? Nothing wrong with opinion. Other then it is not fact.

100 years? Is there good naturalist data going back that far? I'd guess there must have been tens of thousands of naturalists of one level or another at the turn of the 20th century. How many do we have good field notes from? Do any of them mention scat near old kills? I doubt anyone has taken that much effort.... So again. How can we say that as if it is a fact? ;)

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

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

You are asking to prove a negative, or at the very least to prove that because something has not been recorded that it therefore does not exist. Is there direct data on biology/zoology professionals who have found a partially eaten deer and whether or not they found dung/scat in the immediate local? Of course not. Then why are you saying it as if it is a fact? 

I think it would be all of them since that ios part of the job and no, I am not asking youi to prove a negative because we already know the number and it is 0%.  All you have is a few folks (36 a yearif I remember correctly) seeing something in the woods and Dr. Meldrumm's footprints which he refuses to defend in a proifessional journal.    

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

Can you reference those numbers, or are you voicing opinion? Nothing wrong with opinion. Other then it is not fact.

Which numbers exactly?

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

100 years? Is there good naturalist data going back that far? I'd guess there must have been tens of thousands of naturalists of one level or another at the turn of the 20th century. How many do we have good field notes from? Do any of them mention scat near old kills? I doubt anyone has taken that much effort.... So again. How can we say that as if it is a fact? ;)

We have a whole lot of them and nothing.  No Bigfoot anywhere.  No body or body parts, no scat no nest of shelter, nothing

  • 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.