Originally posted by jimbo999
reply to post by theindependentjournal
Ever hear of Gigantopithecus? Many serious researchers believe that this is exactly what Sasquatch/Bigfoot is. It is established in the fossil record,
and fits the eyewitness/photographic/video evidence quite nicely,
Gigantopithecus was first proposed to account for the Yeti, due to the footprints seeming vaguely ape like/transitional and because the fossil record
in that region can
support the idea. Somehow it became the explanation for bigfoot through wishful thinking. Despite palaeontologists
documenting the fossil record in every mainland US state, for over 100 years, yet nothing of Gigantopithecus or any bigfoot type of creature...There
is no valid reason to think Gigantopithecus ever existed in North America.
Actually North America is one of the least likely places for a creature like this to exist, compared to claimed creatures like Orang pendek.
If you look at Krantz (who, from memory, championed the Bigfoot/Gigantopithecus idea) reconstruction of a Gigantopithecus skull (reconstructed from
the jawbone alone) and look at the creature in the PG film, it becomes obvious "Patty" doesn't have the face of a large creature closely related to
the Orangutan but instead has a modern Human face. Krantz seemed to believe Patty to be the "real deal", yet Patty and Gigantopithecus as portrayed
by Krantz, cannot be the same thing.
Originally posted by Regenstorm
I miss your explanation for the famous Patterson footage.
The usual claim that this has not been debunked is misleading. It would be more accurate to say that nothing has ever turned up
...anywhere...ever...that would genuinely support this piece of footage being authentic. It isn't good enough quality to debunk, this is likely to be
what saves it and is also one of the reasons it has no scientific value.
Though some basic observations can be made. Patty has modern Human facial characteristics, yet cranial characteristics of a Gorilla. Similar
contradictions were observed (human-orangutan) in the greatest palaeontology hoax of the 20th century "Piltdown Man". The sagital crest is usually
considered a male characteristic, yet is accompanied by breasts. A large ape/human with fatty breasts covered in thick hair/fur also seems
The notion it cannot be a man in a suit due the "compliant gait" was laughable at the time. Though credit to Meldrum who has now dismissed this
nonsense via experiment (IIRC). It would make you wonder why an experiment was even thought necessary though...
The circumstances alone surrounding the creation of this footage are enough for many to doubt its authenticity.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Also, mountain gorillas have only been known about and were 'discovered' approximately 100 years ago.
The wilds of central Africa in mid 19th/ turn of 20th century are a slightly more remote and different proposition to 21st century USA. Still,
Gorilla's were known from a skull given to a missionary by natives. Some time later people went out and brought back specimens. When the mountain
Gorilla subspecies was found, specimens were simply shot. Where are the bigfoot skulls or specimens taken by explorers/ hunters?
There is no lack of evidence for Bigfoot, the problem is that none of the evidence is any good (scientifically). The OP is correct, regarding science.
Yet it's hard to discount all of the reports not only from the USA, but worldwide. I agree with the poster who mentioned a third possibility. It
doesn't physically exist, yet people still encounter it. Something is happening, it seems that we might not be able to understand exactly what that
something is, as of yet.
edit on 7-4-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.