Possible reason why there are no good photos of Bigfoot.

originally posted by: damo1583
a reply to: Grovit

Its just an incling as it seems the most likely fit! Physically they are pretty much identical to reports from witnesses and from the grainy film clips that are not clear hoaxes, its possible with dwindling numbers that some of them could have migrated along the land bridge between Alaska and Russia! As I said before I have always been interested in bigfoot! Whether a small number of gigantos made that journey and have survived till today living in small packs is debatable for better minds than mine lol

Sorry survived as a species not as individuals

The only problem with this line of thinking is that there are far too many variables and unknowns regarding any of the Gigantopithecus species we know of and even more so with G. Blacki. You're basing you're entire hypothesis on a sketch, which itself is based on nothing more than pure speculation.

There are no post cranial remains of G. Blacki. The only remains at all are a few mandibles and some molars. Without a pelvis or cranium we don't know if it was bipedal, quadrupedal or used a combination of the two forms of locomotion. We don't have any idea of cranial capacity either to discern how Intelligent it may have been. With an ape the size of at. Blacki, the amount of weight it carried would have placed an incredible amount of stress on the hips, legs and feet making full time bipedalism rather unlikely in my opinion. Consequently, the same would likely hold true for Bigfoot if it were reaching heights of 10 ft.

Based on the 1300 or so teeth found so far, as well as the fact that the remains we have been able to locate have often been found alongside the remains of extinct pandas, Blacki had a rather specialized diet consisting mainly of bamboo amd lived in bamboo forrests which makes it very unlikely that it left the sub tropical areas of South East Asia(china, India, Nepal, Vietnam) for the bitter cold of Siberia and then made its way into equally frigid North America. Also, its closest living relative is the orangutan and it would be more likely to have morphology in common with that particular ape than the depictions typically associated with Bigfoot in my opinion. Just some food for thought.

a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks peter, obviously one of the minds capable of looking into this! Just a question, what is the timeline that humans migrated from Asia to NA? And dies this coincide with the extinction of g.black I?? If so would it be a push to think that they were intelligent enough to possibly follow the smarter apes?

originally posted by: damo1583
a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks peter, obviously one of the minds capable of looking into this! Just a question, what is the timeline that humans migrated from Asia to NA? And dies this coincide with the extinction of g.black I?? If so would it be a push to think that they were intelligent enough to possibly follow the smarter apes?

I believe the first humans migrated to America around at least 10,000 years ago if yo ugo by fossil evidence. Of course, we don't really know when they arrived there or how they arrived there. I really doubt any species of ape would follow humans around the globe. You see, humans were able to master fire, which gave us the ability to kill bacteriae and vermin contained within the food, giving us the possibility to have a powerful digestive sistem and eat basically anything that could provide us the nutrients.

If any animal would migrate like humans do, they would have lots of problem on finding food and surviving in the new habithat.

a reply to: Frocharocha

Thank you that's help clear up a few thoughts, more research needed from my end!

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: tallcool1

Did you tell that to the people that claim Bigfoot comes over and hangs out with them? Some of these vast forests that people claim to see one in are as small as 40 acres.

Anton - sorry I didn't reply until now. I am usually very busy and only have limited time online so it sometimes takes me a day or two to respond.

But you do have a valid point and I certainly do not believe in every story, picture or video of Sasquatch/Bigfoot out there. There are obvious hoaxers and attention-whores out there - but that doesn't automatically make the possible existence of Sasquatch invalid. I was merely pointing out that there are vast forestlands in the world and in the Pacific Northwest there are thousands of square miles of forestlands that have likely never had a human set foot in them. In fact, Washington state is 52% forestland.

The point of my post was that, if there are literally beacons of bright shiny metal objects just laying there in the forest that can't be found after extensive searches - can't you at least admit the possibility of a dark haired bipedal creature existing that is intelligent enough to not be found? I'm not saying to jump on the "Sasquatch is real" bandwagon - just to admit that the possibility exists.

originally posted by: damo1583
a reply to: peter vlar

Thanks peter, obviously one of the minds capable of looking into this! Just a question, what is the timeline that humans migrated from Asia to NA? And dies this coincide with the extinction of g.black I?? If so would it be a push to think that they were intelligent enough to possibly follow the smarter apes?

The earliest definitive genetic evidence for human habitation of North America comes from coporolites found in a cave in Oregon and are dated to 14,300 BPE. This is 1000 years prior to Clovis culture and their expansion into North America across Berringea. There are also cave painting in South America dated to twice that at 29,000 years and sites in Botth America like the Topper site in South Carolina with dates as old as 40,000-50,000 BPE


As for anything contemporary with G. Blacki, nothing in this part of the world that ones back 100KYA and unless there is something in the fossil record we haven't yet found, based on what is known from their dentition it is highly unlikely the G. Blacki would have been able to find suitable food sources farther north than sites we currently find their remains at. As I mentioned earlier, they were highly specialized like Pandas living off of bamboo. This is evidenced by their dentition as well as cavities very much like what we see in both modern and older extinct Panda populations. I'll be the first to admit though, that despite my serious misgivings, without a more complete fossil record the possibility can not be ruled out 100% but current determinations have to be made on the best data currently available hence my point of view on the matter. Hope this helps a little.

a reply to: peter vlar

It helps a lot and thank you for sharing your knowledge. Primates fascinate me in general and I believe that mountain gorrilas were a myth until relatively recent times. Would be amazing if this could be proven either way in my lifetime!

a reply to: peter vlar

let me be more general then.
in my opinion, if an animal like bigfoot exists, i think it would have descended from an animal like giganto.
thats my thought

a reply to: peter vlar

Sorry just to pick your brain again lol, you say that from the fossil record that gigantopithicus blacki lived on a herbivorous diet. Now I know gorillas do as well, but how does that sustain hugely powerful creatures like that? We have to take in protein and minerals to gain strength with training.

originally posted by: damo1583
a reply to: peter vlar

Sorry just to pick your brain again lol, you say that from the fossil record that gigantopithicus blacki lived on a herbivorous diet. Now I know gorillas do as well, but how does that sustain hugely powerful creatures like that? We have to take in protein and minerals to gain strength with training.

Bamboo shoots are rich in protein, containing between 1.49 and 4.04 grams (average 2.65g) per 100g of fresh bamboo shoots. The bamboo protein produces eight essential and two semi-essential amino acids. Although the fat content is comparatively low (0.26-0.94%), it is still higher than in many other vegetables, and the shoots contain rich essential fatty acids.

a reply to: Grovit

Its certainly a possibility. All that needs to be done is show descent and lineage tracing a currently living organism to something in the fossil record that lived between 100,000 BPE and now that can also show lineage to G. Blacki. I'm certainly not opposed to the hypothesis but there has to be something more substantial to support it than conjecture. Personally, I would be stoked to see definitive proof of the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. There's just enough anecdotal data to keep the myth alive but nothing substantial enough to verify its existence. I wish it were otherwise though.

a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, you are certainly more educated in this subject than myself, so I wonder what you opinion may be of this.

The Legend of Zana the Russian Almasty, seems to have grow in the past few years...I guess because of the various TV shows and forums like this one.

DNA testing was completed on one of Zana's sons, and the "Results" were found that he was/and she was 100% sub Saharan...ie African........which in itself is an interesting hypothesis by this famous doctor, considering Zana was Seeded by a local Caucasian Russian white man (or several)......so how they could find "100% Sub Saharan" is a little strange to me, but Im not the expert. (so All Russians are Sub Saharan now??)

doubtfulnews.com...

Anyway, if we are to believe the hypothesis, that All Humans came from Africa (note that doesnt mean all Humans are descended from modern Negro Black Africans), and that Homo Erectus left Africa 500,000- 1 million or so years ago...would a Homo Erectus DNA, show "Sub Saharan" traits?
AS it is speculated that our relative in Europe, the Neanderthal is possibly related to the Homo Erectus, and existed around 250,000 years ago, then does the Neanderthal DNA show "Sub-Saharan" traits?
As we are now speculating that Modern "Albino" Homos may have bred with Neanderthal Man, certainly many Europeans look like Neanderthals (me too, long body, short legs, hairy etc .

Could it be, that the Homo we know as Bigfoot, DID NOT breed or interact with either Neanderthal or modern Sapien, and in fact is a direct descendant of the original Homo Erectus (or other early Homos), may/or may Not have been a Black fella, and just keep to their own breeding group/tribe and did not have any interaction with modern homo.

As these Bigfoot/Yeti/Yowie seem to exist on most continents...Not forgetting that modern man had the ability to make war and kill things for many 10 of 1000s of years......could modern man have eradicated and pushed back the bigfoot, and in doing so, bigfoot has learnt thru many generations, to beware of man and keep out of sight at all times.....hence they are smarter than us in the wild.

There are legends in Native Australian peoples (another mystery Homo tribe) of "Giant Man" in Australia, with which they had wars etc
www.australianyowieresearchcentre.com...



Could these early Homo Erectus over a million years or so, grown large, and hairy (for protection/camo), and indeed the molars found of a large "Ape" Gigantopithicus could infact be, the descendant of Homo Erectus.....Mr. Bigfoot.?

Who has never bred or mixed with either, Neanderthal, Sapien, or Denisovian, and may still show that ancient "sub Sahara" DNA.......

Is this reasonable to consider?

originally posted by: gort51
a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, you are certainly more educated in this subject than myself, so I wonder what you opinion may be of this.

The Legend of Zana the Russian Almasty, seems to have grow in the past few years...I guess because of the various TV shows and forums like this one.

DNA testing was completed on one of Zana's sons, and the "Results" were found that he was/and she was 100% sub Saharan...ie African........which in itself is an interesting hypothesis by this famous doctor, considering Zana was Seeded by a local Caucasian Russian white man (or several)......so how they could find "100% Sub Saharan" is a little strange to me, but Im not the expert. (so All Russians are Sub Saharan now??)

In regards to the genetic identity of Aana and Khwit, it explains that in your linked article-

Professor Sykes’ research (part of a worldwide analysis of alleged Bigfoot samples), has yielded a remarkable result: that Zana’s ancestry was 100% Sub-Saharan African and that she was most probably a slave brought to the region by the ruling Ottomans.

But the big surprise in Sykes’ results was that Zana’s DNA is not Caucasian at all, but African. Khwit’s tooth sample confirms her maternal African ancestry and the saliva tests on the six living descendants show that they all contain African DNA in the right proportions for Zana to have been genetically 100% sub-Saharan African.

Tis tells us that by analyzing the DNA of Zana's descendants that Dr. Sykes was able to determine that Zana herself was of 100% sub Saharan origin based on the proportions of the corresponding DNA they possessed. It isn't a testament that Khwit or any other descendants were also of 100% sub Saharan descent, just a measurement of the percentages of that particular DNA in their saliva samples and Khwit's tooth that was tested.

Anyway, if we are to believe the hypothesis, that All Humans came from Africa (note that doesnt mean all Humans are descended from modern Negro Black Africans), and that Homo Erectus left Africa 500,000- 1 million or so years ago...would a Homo Erectus DNA, show "Sub Saharan" traits?

Ill spare you the lecture on Out of Africa Theory and the emanation on how we actually are all descended from black African Homo Sapiens( not to be confused with Homo Sapiens Sapiens which is what hi,and living today are) and jump to H. Erectus. They were in Europe as long ago as 1.8 million years ago based on finds in the Republic of Georgia in the Caucus Mountains region. Their DNA is separated from H. Sapiens by over 1.5 million years and consequently is very different from ours and would not be recognizable as Sub Saharan like the Khoi San for example which is the likely comparison point and basis for Zana's lineage when Dr. Sykes did his testing.

AS it is speculated that our relative in Europe, the Neanderthal is possibly related to the Homo Erectus, and existed around 250,000 years ago, then does the Neanderthal DNA show "Sub-Saharan" traits?

Likewise, because the hominins who would evolve into Homo sapiens did so in complete isolation, as they remained in Africa, from earlier hominens who had left Africa 100's of millennia previously their genetic signature was uniquely theirs. Its how we can tell the difference on a genetic level between H. Erectus, Neanderthals, Denisovans and us. Its what led in the first place to the discovery of Denisovans as a unique new sub species as their remains were found in a cave that had also been occupied, sometimes contemporarily with, both Neanderthal and Us.its also what helped determine that there is an as yet unidentified group of people that the 3 most recent branches of humanity all share a common ancestry with.

The only people who will be genetically identifiable as sub Saharan Africans are people like the Khoi San who carry high frequencies of the earliest haplogroup branches in the human mitochondrial DNA tree and have been evolving separately from the rest of humanity in isolation for nearly 100,000 years.

Technically all humans who have come after Erectus can trace our lineage back to them and their off shoots. They are the forebearers of Heidelbergensis which eventually evolved into Neanderthal in Europe and Denisovans in far Eastern Europe/far Western Asia.

As we are now speculating that Modern "Albino" Homos may have bred with Neanderthal Man, certainly many Europeans look like Neanderthals (me too, long body, short legs, hairy etc

.

Do you have a link for that? Its the first I've ever heard that and my area of study focused heavily on Neanderthal.

Could it be, that the Homo we know as Bigfoot, DID NOT breed or interact with either Neanderthal or modern Sapien, and in fact is a direct descendant of the original Homo Erectus (or other early Homos), may/or may Not have been a Black fella, and just keep to their own breeding group/tribe and did not have any interaction with modern homo.

Is it a possibility? Sure. Without a more complete fossil or genetic record it can't be completely ruled out but at the same time there isn't anything in our current pool of knowledge that points to or indicated the likeliness of such a thing occurring. The only way to really know for certain would be to find a living or deceased Bigfoot specimen and sample its DNA for testing then compare it to all other sequenced precursors to us.

As these Bigfoot/Yeti/Yowie seem to exist on most continents...Not forgetting that modern man had the ability to make war and kill things for many 10 of 1000s of years......could modern man have eradicated and pushed back the bigfoot, and in doing so, bigfoot has learnt thru many generations, to beware of man and keep out of sight at all times.....hence they are smarter than us in the wild.

Again, the possibility can not be ruled out based on what is currently known morphologically and genetically regarding our past and present family tree. But based on what is currently known the likelihood is rather slim in my opinion.

Could these early Homo Erectus over a million years or so, grown large, and hairy (for protection/camo), and indeed the molars found of a large "Ape" Gigantopithicus could infact be, the descendant of Homo Erectus.....Mr. Bigfoot.?

No. There are 3 different Gigantopithecus with the earliest dating back around 9 million years long before any of our ancestors began to diverge and long before bipedalism in hominids began. They are most closely related to the Orangutan.

Who has never bred or mixed with either, Neanderthal, Sapien, or Denisovian, and may still show that ancient "sub Sahara" DNA.......
Is this reasonable to consider?

Personally, I don't find any of it unreasonable to consider if it fits in with all of the current evidence. Even then, there is still room for speculation. If everyone just accepted the paradigm taught in high school biology then there would never be new discoveries like Denisovans. Or even the exploration and rethinking of the peopling of the Americas. 20-30 years ago no anthropologists or archaeologists in North or South America would have even considered digging below the layers containing Clovis cultural and physical remains because there was no reason to think anybody was here earlier.

originally posted by: gort51
a reply to: peter vlar

Peter, you are certainly more educated in this subject than myself, so I wonder what you opinion may be of this.

The Legend of Zana the Russian Almasty, seems to have grow in the past few years...I guess because of the various TV shows and forums like this one.

DNA testing was completed on one of Zana's sons, and the "Results" were found that he was/and she was 100% sub Saharan...ie African........which in itself is an interesting hypothesis by this famous doctor, considering Zana was Seeded by a local Caucasian Russian white man (or several)......so how they could find "100% Sub Saharan" is a little strange to me, but Im not the expert. (so All Russians are Sub Saharan now??)

doubtfulnews.com...

Anyway, if we are to believe the hypothesis, that All Humans came from Africa (note that doesnt mean all Humans are descended from modern Negro Black Africans), and that Homo Erectus left Africa 500,000- 1 million or so years ago...would a Homo Erectus DNA, show "Sub Saharan" traits?
AS it is speculated that our relative in Europe, the Neanderthal is possibly related to the Homo Erectus, and existed around 250,000 years ago, then does the Neanderthal DNA show "Sub-Saharan" traits?
As we are now speculating that Modern "Albino" Homos may have bred with Neanderthal Man, certainly many Europeans look like Neanderthals (me too, long body, short legs, hairy etc

.

Could it be, that the Homo we know as Bigfoot, DID NOT breed or interact with either Neanderthal or modern Sapien, and in fact is a direct descendant of the original Homo Erectus (or other early Homos), may/or may Not have been a Black fella, and just keep to their own breeding group/tribe and did not have any interaction with modern homo.

As these Bigfoot/Yeti/Yowie seem to exist on most continents...Not forgetting that modern man had the ability to make war and kill things for many 10 of 1000s of years......could modern man have eradicated and pushed back the bigfoot, and in doing so, bigfoot has learnt thru many generations, to beware of man and keep out of sight at all times.....hence they are smarter than us in the wild.

There are legends in Native Australian peoples (another mystery Homo tribe) of "Giant Man" in Australia, with which they had wars etc
www.australianyowieresearchcentre.com...



Could these early Homo Erectus over a million years or so, grown large, and hairy (for protection/camo), and indeed the molars found of a large "Ape" Gigantopithicus could infact be, the descendant of Homo Erectus.....Mr. Bigfoot.?

Who has never bred or mixed with either, Neanderthal, Sapien, or Denisovian, and may still show that ancient "sub Sahara" DNA.......

Is this reasonable to consider?

Humans are the bestcreatures since virus in wiping out other species. In fact we are so damn good that many species went extict by humans long before we even knew they existed. Like mamooths and stuff (if you go with the theory that we hunted them down). If sasquatch dissapeared we woudl to be very lucky to find it's fossils, it wouldn't be hard for them to just stay hidden in fossil terms.

a reply to: TheLieWeLive

I've seen them.

Which are you referring to? Mountain Lions, Bear carcasses, Bigfoots or dead people?

I seriously don't know which your referring to.

I think most photos are hoaxes, strange how someone out in the woods with a camera can see one, but millions of hunters out in the woods with a rifle can't spot one and shoot it.

a reply to: Frocharocha

The thing about that is you can't really have it both ways. What I mean by that, is either Sasquatch is a solitary creature who avoided human contact and therefore remains would be difficult to discover because it avoided humans at all costs, or Sasquatch was hunted to the brink of extinction by paleo-indians for example, towards the end of the last glacial maximum. If you go with option A then yes, remains are going to be in short supply. If we entertain option B then just like everything else hunted by Neolithic hunters in North America we would find their remains in mounds, charcoal pits or any of the other documented debris sites we find the remains of megafauna hunted by these individuals. No matter what continent we want to bring into the picture, the habits of Neolithic people as well as archaic humans (HSN,HSD, Erectus etc...) are fairly well documented (except in the case of Denisovans) and the ways in which they disposed of remains of their hunts is quite similar in each group. If Sasquatch/Bigfoot were hunted by either Neolithic or Paleolithic people something would have turned up even if it were an isolated instance. Even if they were not hunted as food due to some sort of familiarity, I find it highly improbable that they would not have used the furs or skins as well as possibly using the meat to attract carnivorous megafauna which would have been hunted for its meat as well as furs. Certainly a fair bit of speculation on my part but its all based on reality and an abundance of anthropological evidence.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: mcx1942
primarily lives at ground level

How do you know that? It could primarily be living underground in caves. That would explain a lot. You seem pretty closed minded to me. You´re avatar makes you look kind of troll like in this forum too.

originally posted by: hesse

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
a reply to: mcx1942
primarily lives at ground level

How do you know that? It could primarily be living underground in caves. That would explain a lot. You seem pretty closed minded to me. You´re avatar makes you look kind of troll like in this forum too.

What you said have some truth. In fact people who reported seeing sasquatch told they smeled like sulphur, which would make sense if you go with the fact that they live in volcaniin like caves. The smell of sulphur woudl also mean that Sasquatchmai nsort of food could be vegetables.