@coolpatent
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The evidence clearly shows that bigfoot is not a Gigantopithecus, but that bigfoot is more closely related to humans than chimpanzees are related to humans.
Thus, bigfoot is more likely to be some form of Australopithecus or other early human ancestor (homo). Even more intriguing is the possibility that they are some form of human hybrid, or that humans are some form of bigfoot hybrid. The hybridization theory opens up a huge can of worms.
Carson: I think you’re right. I don’t think that Sasquatch is a Gigantopithecus in the Pongo or a chimpanzee in the Pan genus for the following reasons.
If you look carefully at the Patterson-Gimlin film, Patty has less prognostication than a chimpanzee, has a hooded nose unlike a chimpanzee, and has toes all in a line where the big toe lines up with the other toes, unlike a chimpanzee. All of these features make Sasquatch more like homo sapiens than a Pan/chimpanzee. The differences are even greater when you compare a Sasquatch to an orangutan/Pongo. I don’t discount other types being in existence that are more like chimps or orangutans, but I’m talking about the Patty types.
The evidence shows that Sasquatch is in a genus that came after the Pan-Homo split. That would make it either another species of Homo, or it’s in a genus that’s more closely related to humans than chimpanzees, i.e., some sort of relict hominid. It’s possible that the split was between Sasquatch and Pan rather than between Homo and Pan.
This is where the FBFB theory comes in that it’s possible that humans are a modern or domesticated version of Sasquatch. Hence “You Are Sasquatch”.
Carson: Thanks for your post. I have a question for you. Based on what you know about the morphology of Sasquatch, which genus do you think Sasquatch is more likely to fall in:
A) Homo
B) Pan
C) Pongo
D) Some other genusThese are the kinds of questions that FBFB were raising. I’d like to hear people’s opinions on this.
What I’m getting at isn’t their mistakes, but they had really insightful analysis. They might not be 100% accurate, but their thinking was very intriguing. For example,
1.) Sasquatch having a hooded nose, which facilitates their ability to swim. Coonbo and Bear had an episode about a lake where Sasquatch were known to frequently swim in and even capsize small boats and canoes.
2.) The angle of Sasquatch’s shins when walking.
3.) The hypothesis that humans are domesticated Sasquatch just as dogs are domesticated wolves.
4.) The fact that the earliest known human genes can be traced back to a female in Asia which is contrary to the “Out of Africa” theory.
5.) The observation that Sasquatch have a pronounced brow ridge similar to some humans of extreme body type such as Nikolay Valuev.
I haven’t seen anyone else talk about or collate observations from videos and eyewitness accounts after the FBFB people ended their activity in 2013. The only person who as come close is Thinker Thunker, but he only talks about videos (and does a great job), but he doesn’t do the in depth analysis that the FBFB guys did. I think Jeff Meldrum goes into this direction a tiny bit as a scientist, but I think he’s very conservative in his findings because he gets enough ribbing from his academic colleagues. Grover Krantz did a little bit of analysis but I don’t think he had enough data at the time like we do today.
Tracy: The group you linked to is not who I was talking about. I was talking about the group facebook.com/findbigfoot run by Jack Barnes and Jack Anderson. They wrote the book “You Are Sasquatch” before it was taken down by Amazon.
My impression of Chris was that the person was either a female with an altered voice or a gay male. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but the voice had an effeminate quality and manner of speaking. Chris reminded me of RuPaul. But that had nothing do to with the information Chris provided so I just ignored it.
I saw David Paulides talk at a bigfoot conference last year. He says he doesn’t talk much about bigfoot anymore because it detracts from the seriousness of his work on the Missing 411 books.
He has worked with researchers and laboratories to analyze bigfoot DNA samples. They know a lot about bigfoot DNA and so on, and his position is that bigfoot is human, but when I asked him about the number of chromosomes they found, he said he didn’t know. Clearly he’s holding back here. The karyotype is probably more important than sequencing the DNA to know if bigfoot is part human or not and what is unique about the bigfoot species. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes whereas all other non-human primates have 24. How could he possibly not know?
