It's official.Big Foot is real.Problem haters?
>>264130Who's talking unarmed?
>>264134'Sup, Mitch.
>>264137whoops, I meant >>264124
>>264109I believe a large ape species may be found in North American Rockies and the mountain ranges in Asia.Call me crazy.
Fun Fact: Gigantopithecus, the species that most resembles Sasquatch and Yeti, is known to science only by it's teeth, and a few jawbones. Even though it lived only 300,000 years ago, there are virtually no skeletal remains.
>>264207>in what is now China, India, and Vietnam>HimalayasReminder that Native Americans moved from that area and that there are stories and drawings of giant ape men going back many thousands of years while Gigantopithecus is a recent discovery, so it's not like Bigfoot is tacked onto Gigantopithecus but rather the other way around.Gigantopithecus (proof) is tacked onto Bigfoot.
>>264110I'm gonna go with the ritual cannibalizing, or at least ritual flensing and breaking up of the bones. If they eat most of the meat and organs, then there's little for scavengers to find and dig up. Plus, the breaking up the bones and then burying them (especially in a swamp or other area where they'd be more likely to decompose) would a) facilitate decomposition (surface area to volume and whatnot), and b) make it less likely that a biologist would correctly identify the bone fragments. And that fits with >>264207 Giganto only being known from jaws and teeth, since those are harder than other bones to burn or break up with rocks. Plus, no delicious marrow, so it'd be a wasted effort if they are indeed cannibals.
>>264207That's my exact point. Never mind bea skeletons, it's practically impossible to find a gorilla skeleton that wasn't poached by a human.Case in point: I found a dead bird once. It was fresh. Walked by it, came back an hour later, and it was absolutely picked clean. Came back another hour later, it disappeared.
>>264115>Come to think of it, we never knew gorillas existed outside of mythology until the sixties.It's like you get stupider the more you post.
>>264236yeah, it was during the mid-1800s. Still relatively recent but still ALOT further off than the 60's....
>>264237>>264236I blame typos, and sleep deprivation.
The conceit that the natural world has already been fully explored is nothing but an illusion. In fact, science is constantly discovering new species of animals in environments ranging from rainforests to deserts. Recently discovered species:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_Apehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown-mantled_Tamarinhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosavi_Woolly_Rathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_rock_rathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey-faced_Sengihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaf_Muntjachttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Blossom_Bathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Dorcopsishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champion%27s_Tree_Mousehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden-mantled_Tree-kangaroohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_David%27s_Long-beaked_Echidnahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard%27s_Titihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Nash%27s_Titi1 in 10 known mammal species were discovered in the past 15 years. In 1963 the Titi monkeys comprised three known species. Now the number has risen to 28.
>>264235But, again, we have the dental remains if Giganto. There may have very well been a species of large ape that lived side by side with humans eons ago and it's memory has been passed down via tradition, but there's no evidence of any extant species of large ape on the North American continent, save for it's obvious hominid inhabitants.
>>264267We have one complete jaw from a species that existed from one million to (supposedly) three thousand years ago (ancient Sumerians may have had contact).It's not far fetched that it also survived for those three thousand years or that some members of it followed the Native Americans in their trek across the Bering Strait.It's so non-far-fetched in fact, that it's pretty damn likely.
>>264237Maybe he meant the 1860s....I sometimes say things like "The 90s" in reference to the 1590s.
>>264267Yeah, but if we have one bone from the period of 2 million to 300,000 B.C. is it that unbelievable to find no bones from 300,000 B.C. to present?
>>264299It could simply be that no one's found it yet. Think of "Lucy" or "Ardi", or the dozens of prehistoric hominids we know only from the fossils of a single or two or three individuals. I doubt anyone's seriously looked in the Pacific Northwest, or in the Himalayas, for hominid fossils. But in myth the Sasquatch, Yeti, Yeren, Orang Pendek, etc., have been around for millenia. It's just that we once dismissed all such things as myth, like stories of dragons, goblins, and fairies, and are now just barely beginning to go "wait, all these myths have a lot in common, and there's this extinct ape that fits the description to a tee..."Also, the Patterson film. I've watched it dozens of times, speed up, slowed down, enhanced, analyzed, and I'm convinced it's not a man in a suit. The arms, the gait, it's just too inhuman.
>>264299If we only have one such specimen, then I'd bet on that species being extinct. They could very well be like the Coelacanth, but this is a very slim chance.There comes a point where you have to admit the likelihood of this being an extant species is extremely low. Even if it means admitted this about something awesome.I fucking wish Thylacine was still around.
>>264307Not to derail or anything, but Dragons are in every civilization's mythology, even in those that don't have reptiles in their ecosystem.I'm just saying.
>>264314Oh, I admit the chances are low.But theres two reasons I say it's still worth research:1) Not all species are created equal. If we found a Yeti, it would be totally awesome. If we found a new kind of stink beatle, not even stink-beatle-ologists would care.2) As with most phenomenon like it, being able to definitively prove the alternative would be almost as mind blowing. I mean, think about what that says about us, as humans, that we've seen /thousands/ of collosal apes lumbering around our woods, when there are zero.Oh, and my point with the Jawbone is, if this thing left litterally a handful of fossils, over the course of over a million years, it seems possible that it would leave no bones in a few thousand.
>>264315Dragon lore arose from discoveries of dinosaur fossils, which are pretty much everywhere. Of course there's stories of Mkole-Mbembe or Thunderbird still kicking around today, but yeah.
This moth drinks blood. I'm just sayin'. Nature doesn't give a shit about what you think.
Most of the new species we're discovering are either quite small, live in remote, uninhabited areas, or are close in appearance to other species. Most of the Bigfoot myths fit at best one out of three.No, I won't say it's impossible, but I find it extremely implausible. The only way I can possibly see it happening is if they're severely inbred and about to die out anyway.
>>264319What about the Inuit?
>>264315Well we did find dinosaurs, didn't we?
>>264333Man sized ape found in the Congo?Congo is seven times smaller than Canada and twice as populated, most of the population lives rurally, the country has been populated for millenia.The Bili Apes were a cryptid for many years before being proven with video. Researchers couldn't secure funding due to being labeled loons and had to waste entire life savings on the find.The thing that bothers me most is that people like you are going to disappear into the woodwork when you're proven wrong, so I'm not going to get a chance to yell "I Told You So!" in your face.
>>264343Before you start throwing around phrases like "people like you" and assuming you know how I would act, please take the time to actually find out what I actually would do in that situation.Because I can tell you now, you are wrong. I would not disappear into the woodwork.
>>264345Yes you would, because we both know what you are.Kate Moss
>>264343Similarly, remember all those people claiming that Indonesia was inhabited by small, bipedal apes?Yeah, me neither.
>>264348No, I know what this poster is, and why he would not dissapear into the woodwork.He's Bigfoot
>>264351>implying I can't disappear into the woods or blur out right in front of you>>264134>>264133I thought about something like that. You know it's very well possible that Bigfoot is actually SMARTER than humans. For them, phase disruption cloaking fields may be a reality.There could be entire floating cities in those forests, blurring just barely out of visible focus of the human eye.Think about it.
>>264359And then Bigfoot was Gorilla Grod.
>>264397>grodwas just thinking that.
>>264359>that picture...P-principle Snyder?!
>>264417He was an alien in disguise the whole time.
>>264343>Man sized ape found in the Congo?Kind of like a dog sized Golden Lab, amirite?
>>264343Thats a pretty weak comparison. Canada is worlds away from somewhere as shitty as the Congo. I think people are more concerned with not being slaughtered than they are about species of ape.>Researchers couldn't secure funding due to being labeled loons and had to waste entire life savings on the find.Yeah, because if theres one great place to send researchers, it an african warzone.
>>264467You gotta admit, some of them have been packing it away. Shit, they could stand the exercise.So could I..
>>264464What?No, kind of like an arctic fox sized canine. Try to pull up comparisons which don't make my mind full of fuck.>>264467>development of a nationAaaaaand now my brain is full of fuck again.
>It had beautiful hair. >duck calllol white people.
>>264591>ISN in /baw/RRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>264734I dunno, man. I had pretty much the same reaction, and I am the whitest white person.lol white people indeed.
>>264734ISN?
>>264759You don't want to know.
>>264759You know I used to like China before he showed up.
>>264314I'd heard that they're working on cloning some with unmounted ones they have in the freezers at the Smithsonian or something like that.
>>264775Yep.
>>264775They won't manage to clone it thoughhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/Science/Clone-again/2005/05/14/1116024405941.html
>>264769Now I really want to know.
Hmm.