...Species A nowdays live in areas X, Y and Z. Areas Y and Z are isolated, there are no populations of animals A living between these areas. How is this possible? Simple, species A geographic range was much broader, encompassing a continous area that contained areas X, Y and Z. Thus, the number of specimens must have been greater when the species had this larger range.....
My point exactly.
Thank you.
...Look! The data came from a census on animal population!!! The sort of work that requires professionals to work in the field. Professionals that probably look the other way when they see a bigfoot...
Or professionals who simply have not seen the rare remnants of the sasquatch population.
And, as I have already exhaustively pointed out in the case of Southeast Alaska, the state biologists aren't in the field as much as you are desperately trying to portray.
...When the species had a broader range, their numbers were larger... And if it there are specimens living from Alaska to Florida, these animals must have been quite numerous....
Not necessarily. They were at least numerous enough to have a range that spanned the continent.
And we don't know when that was, or when the population began it's decline, but we can be relatively certain that the population is very low in most areas of the continent outside of the PNW by the number of sighting and footprint reports.
...AND NOT A SINGLE SPECIMEN HAS BEEN OBTAINED...
Let's be clear:
Not a single carcass has been confirmed to have been obtained. There are hair and feces samples which have defied identification.
...And there are a lot of fossil sites of the right ages scattered across bigfoot's alleged distribution (at the present and at the past). Oh, with fossils of bears, also...
I know of caves on Prince of Wales Island which have yielded bear fossils, but that is all.
Can you cite other fossil sites in the Pacific Northwest please?
Early in his Gigantopithecus investigations, Ciochon noticed similarities between the giant ape and the bamboo-eating giant panda. Both animals have thick mandibles, pitted teeth, and unusually high occurences of tooth decay. Ciochon knew that large herbivores tend to favor one type of plant, so he hypothesized that Giganto fed mainly on the plentiful bamboo of Southeast Asia.
So, bigfeet eat bamboo? Bamboo are common in bigfeet habitats?
No, and no.
Pandas are the only known large bear to specialize it's diet as it does, and that is the primary reason it is in danger of extinction.
Brown bears are also well known as having thick mandibles, pitted teeth, and a very high occurence of tooth decay, and their diet is not limited like the pandas.
...The forests from Asia, rich in bamboo, where gigantopithecus lived, are similar to those were bigfeet are supposed to live in North America?...
In climate, yes; very much so.
...And the types of vegetations they had to live within in order to expand their habitats from South Asia tropical and subtropical climates to PNW´s cold climate?...
With the exception of bamboo, yes; very similar.
Hubei Province, where gigantopithecus fossils were found, is at 33 degrees north latitude, well within the
temperate zone:
...The north temperate zone extends from the Tropic of Cancer at about 23.5 degrees north latitude to the Arctic Circle at about 66.5 degrees north latitude.....
A cave near the top of the rounded limestone tower at Liucheng, China has yielded three Gigantopithecus jawbones and nearly a thousand teeth.
See? A critter that lived at a tropical rainforest -with acid soils- had its remains fossilized. In a cave. As some say should not happen to bigfeet. And the critter in question is the very same critter that they take as the prime candidate for being the mythical beast.
With the exception of Kushtaka Cave on Prince of Wales Island, can you name some caves in the PNW where archeological digs have occurred?
Do you know what the word "kushtaka" means?
Based on the fossils, Gigantopithecus is now placed among the Asian apes, a descendant, along with the orangutan, of the earlier ape ancestor Sivapithecus, best known from an 8-million-year-old skull discovered in Pakistan. Its size and ape affiliation suggest Gigantopithecus was a ground-dwelling, fist-walking creature.
Fist-walking. Bigfeet are fist-walkers?
No, they are not.
Can you provide some insight as to why it was theorized that gigantopithecus was a fistwalker? What evidence supports that allegation, since all that was found were teeth and a mandible?
An outstanding characteristic of giant herbivores is their extreme slowness. They have no particular need of speed: their size and thick skins protect them from predators, and of course their feeding habits require no more of them than that they move from place to place as they systematically denude the landscape of vegetation. Furthermore, they are usually stuffed full of bulky food to digest, which tends to produce inertia. Gigantopithecus probably followed this pattern.
So, bigfeet are described as slow creatures?
No, but they are described as being omnivores, not herbivores.
I can also attest that moose, the world's largest deer, or bison, North America's largest land animal, (herbivores, both) can not be described with the words "extreme slowness".
...Do you have any doubt that such a slumbering giant would be a piece of cake to track?...
Do you have any experience tracking animals, slow or fast?
I do. Lots. And I'm still not very good at it.
It's a lost art, and few today are very good at it.
I know no scientist at all who has any skill at it.
...Now, compare the facial reconstitutions of Gigantopithecus with Patty's stills. What Patty has that Gigantopithecus does not? A nose....
The gigantopithecus facial reconstructions were created without any evidence whatsoever regarding the nose.
Gigantopithecus appeared in the fossil record about 6.3 million years ago and thrived in Southeast Asia for five and half million years. Early humans, Homo erectus, spread into Giganto's territory about 800,000 years ago. Within half a million years of the arrival of these early humans, Giganto had gone extinct.
The key word is extinct.
And that key word is based on an assumption.
6.3 million minus 5.5 million equals 800,000 years.
That means that no recognized fossil record younger than 800,000 years of age has been found.
Period.
...Bottomline - bigfeet are not Gigantopithecus that survived extinction.
That is your opinion.
The facts are these:
* Thousands of people today claim they see bipedal apes in North America that are commonly described as 8' tall or more, and those sightings are most common in the Pacific Northwest region of the continent
* Hundreds of footprints supporting that eyewitness testimony have also been found
* A film of such a creature has been shot, and despite many attempts to establish it's validity/invalidity, it has still not been proven a hoax
* There is fossil record of a huge ape in China, which is a Pacific Rim nation, and estimates of it's size are very close to the reported size of the bipedal apes seen in North America
That is more evidence supporting the existence of these creatures than you can produce which indicates that they don't or can't exist.
Sorry, but thems are the facts.
