Bigfoot could be a descendant of Paranthropus

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now now, don't go getting all Colonel Bogey on me!

You don't believe there's a possibility that other hominids could exist?

I don't. If the only evidence is a scratchy old video then it seems to ohard to believe. No dead bodies, no fossilized remains, no more footage! Its a small world and we are great at exploiting every ounce of it.

Footprints, hair and dung samples that can be dated. There's a lot of physical evidence collected as well as a swell of scientists who have taken the evidence for face value.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no wide support for the existence of Bigfood in the scientific community.

There really isn't much physical evidence to be honest - no remains have ever been found and there are no great apes in the fossil record of the Continental United States.

If it existed - we'd have found it by now. That we haven't suggests one of two things - either the bigfoot population is exceedingly small and it has a similarly tiny habitat with natural resources that are self-sustaining (not probable tbh) or it simply doesn't exist.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Private Pike

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's no wide support for the existence of Bigfood in the scientific community.

There really isn't much physical evidence to be honest - no remains have ever been found and there are no great apes in the fossil record of the Continental United States.

If it existed - we'd have found it by now. That we haven't suggests one of two things - either the bigfoot population is extremely small (not probable tbh) or it simply doesn't exist.

That presumption has been proven to be inaccurate with other things.

More recently, new animals are turning up at a rapid pace. "In the 
last 25 years, the number of species known to share the world with us 
has grown by 25 percent," says Bruce Patterson, a curator of mammals 
at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. "This is a 
remarkable level of discovery, and a remarkable statement of our 
current ignorance about the other forms of life we share the planet 
with."



http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/02/11/cryptozoology/

[Peikko 1,575]

Most of these animals are much smaller than a Loch Ness Monster; most 
are plankton, insects, small fish and amphibians. But a few new 
mammals are discovered every year. While rats and bats are the most 
common finds, some big surprises have turned up.



There are a few small mammals discovered in the rain forests from time to time (while we still have them) but nothing like that exists in North America - there is no where for a 'bigfoot' to survive - not least and maintain a significant population to maintain itself. Simply a romantic notion, nothing more.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's no wide support for the existence of Bigfood in the scientific community.

There really isn't much physical evidence to be honest - no remains have ever been found and there are no great apes in the fossil record of the Continental United States.

If it existed - we'd have found it by now. That we haven't suggests one of two things - either the bigfoot population is extremely small (not probable tbh) or it simply doesn't exist.

That presumption has been proven to be inaccurate with other things.

More recently, new animals are turning up at a rapid pace. "In the 
last 25 years, the number of species known to share the world with us 
has grown by 25 percent," says Bruce Patterson, a curator of mammals 
at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. "This is a 
remarkable level of discovery, and a remarkable statement of our 
current ignorance about the other forms of life we share the planet 
with."



http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/02/11/cryptozoology/

We find mutant subspecies living in underground caves, or new insects in rainforests. We find (very small) mammals too - but nothing on the scale of the great apes.

The breeding cycle of something that big would require a large foraging area to provide it with food, and that's not taking to consideration territoriality. That being the case its extremely unlikely that it would not have come into contact with man.

If Bigfoot does exist - its more elusive than giant squid that live in deep sea trenches.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Private Pike

[rclouse 0]

The breeding cycle of something that big would require a large foraging area to provide it with food, and that's not taking to consideration territoriality. That being the case its extremely unlikely that it would not have come into contact with man.

I saw a Nova about Loch Ness that pointed out the same thing: the lake cannot generate the food necessary to support a breeding population of an animal that large.

Yes, science steps on your fun, but it's *real*.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Definitely a man in a gorilla suit.

For anyone interested in investigating the possibility that this film might depict a man in a suit, I recommend watching the video several times, finger depressing the pause button in various spots along the progression so as to examine the gait, musculature, limb proportions, and the distribution of hair — all of which, to my trained eye, appear to be non-human and which taken together exclude the possibility of a person in costume.

~ Noah David Henson

http://www.anomalymagazine.com/2009/03/02/...lm-an-analysis/

I saw an examination of that video some years ago that found an apparent belt buckle on "Bigfoot" If it is indeed a costume, the distribution of hair bit is a silly argument; the hair can be distributed however the costume maker wants, and if the goal is to create a "Bigfoot" appearance, then of course it would appear non-human. And the gait looks pretty human to me.

[Pooky 3,795]

There's no wide support for the existence of Bigfood in the scientific community.

There really isn't much physical evidence to be honest - no remains have ever been found and there are no great apes in the fossil record of the Continental United States.

If it existed - we'd have found it by now. That we haven't suggests one of two things - either the bigfoot population is exceedingly small and it has a similarly tiny habitat with natural resources that are self-sustaining (not probable tbh) or it simply doesn't exist.

Don't scientists go to McDonald's? You can supersize anything there!