| Cacique Caribe | 18 Nov 2005 4:26 p.m. PST |
Interesting article: physorg.com/news7950.html I wonder what I would have done if I had turned a corner and come face to face with one of them! CC |
| hrothgar | 18 Nov 2005 5:11 p.m. PST |
That is a cool artical. I wonder how agressive they would be? |
| Cacique Caribe | 18 Nov 2005 5:15 p.m. PST |
Hey, even an affectionate pat on the back from one of those brutes would probably kill you! Still, it would be nice to imagine them as extremely aggresive. CC |
| Mardaddy | 18 Nov 2005 5:23 p.m. PST |
"Using a high-precision absolute-dating method…" I'd LOVE to know more about this "absolute" dating methology. Even in the VERY unlikely case that there is 0 chance of error, I guess humans are so infalible that there is no room for misinterpretation of results… Cool monkey, though. ;) |
| Dave Crowell | 18 Nov 2005 6:04 p.m. PST |
My college Physical Anthro professor had a cast of a skull made into a coffee table. These brutes were huge. My theory on Sasquatch is that they are Gigantopithecus survivors. They do seem to have a lot in common. |
| Alxbates | 18 Nov 2005 6:12 p.m. PST |
Interesting. God, 10 feet tall is HUGE… I'm over 6 feet tall, and I tower over lots of people. Something three and a half feet taller than me, and outweighing me by 1,000 pounds??? Wow. |
| John the OFM | 18 Nov 2005 7:04 p.m. PST |
Big deal. It's just a 40mm gorilla… |
| westphalia | 18 Nov 2005 9:35 p.m. PST |
If the sasquatch is legit, I also tend to favor the Gigantopithecus idea. An excellent book on the subject is "Bigfoot/Sasquatch Evidence" by the late Grover Krantz, an anthropologist at Washington State. There's another new wave of scientists buying into its existence, including a notable fellow at either Utah or Idaho, whose name escapes me. The Krantz book would prove interesting to those gamers interested in prehistoric gaming, and wishing to reproduce the likely manner in which these gigantopitheci behaved. |
| Mr Pumblechook | 18 Nov 2005 10:39 p.m. PST |
|
| commisar kersey | 19 Nov 2005 7:01 a.m. PST |
Lol! I saw that in the newspaper and just knew CC would be on the case…. and isn't the timing brilliant with the Kong movie coming along….. Pity the Empire State hadn't been invented back then so he could swing on it ;) |
| Doctor Bedlam | 19 Nov 2005 7:28 a.m. PST |
I dunno, but in the illustration, it looks peeved about something… |
| Filbanto | 19 Nov 2005 1:45 p.m. PST |
Mardaddy –
Absolute dating is archaeological jargon. The term "absolute" is used for dating methods that actually give you a year in time as opposed to "relative" dating methods which can only place artifacts in time relative to each other. An absolute method is something like C-14 dating – you find a hunk of charcoal, take it to the lab and they give you a date. A relative dating method is a stratigraphic sequence of sediments – the layers of soil lower down the sequence are (usually) older than the ones on top. Archaeologists use both methods to place things in time and sometimes stretch the limits of the methods in search of a date:-)
Cheers – Mike |
| Ferrous Lands | 19 Nov 2005 3:12 p.m. PST |
I read "Bigfoot Exposed," by David Daegling recently. I'm sad to say it turned me from a strong believer into a cynic. |
| Mardaddy | 19 Nov 2005 10:41 p.m. PST |
@Filbanto Even using the term "absolute" is a misnomer then, because the word itself denies any variance or possibility of error or misinterpretation. C-14 is notoriously unreliable, with multiple tests giving wildly different results on the same item, but I'm taking this OT, so I'll shut up now. (zipped) |
| RockyRusso | 20 Nov 2005 10:25 a.m. PST |
Hi Ur..but the rest of the article is…….interesting. 100k ago, no sapiens. A couple different speices of homo exist. Sapiens developed in China. and what does "more nimble humans" have to do with it when discussing eating bamboo? Rocky |
| Cacique Caribe | 30 Jul 2007 4:13 p.m. PST |
Man, That was one MASSIVE-looking beast! picture CC |
| Saladin | 01 Aug 2007 5:05 a.m. PST |
That might be one reason humans can run so fast. |
| Mysterioso | 04 Aug 2007 12:21 p.m. PST |
For those who live in the greater NYC area, the American Museum of Natural History has a truly awesome recreation of a Gigantopithecuus as a part of its current "Mythic Creatures" exhibit. (It is with Bigfoot, etc. entries.) (No photographs are allowed so I can not post anything.) Hopefully it will be moved to the Human Evolution exhibit when the "Mythic Creatures" exhibit ends. It is worth the cost of the exhibit alone (which has other things like a Dragon, a Kraken, and a Roc). |
| Cacique Caribe | 07 Aug 2007 9:25 p.m. PST |
This guy doesn't look so intimidating: picture Just kiddin' CC |
| Cacique Caribe | 10 Jan 2008 11:51 p.m. PST |
|
| Tango01 | 20 Sep 2014 9:30 p.m. PST |
Nice diorama here.
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Platybeladon | 21 Sep 2014 11:08 a.m. PST |
The major problem with Gigantopithicus = Sasquatch is that there NO evidence that Gigantopithicus existed in the US, the fragmentary remains (some teeth and skull fragments) have only been found in SE Asia.
Plus nobody actually knows exactly what it looked like (only skull and teeth found, no other parts of skeleton), so that giant gorilla look is only an educated guess. |
finally paints the first of his Gauls...
