 |
| Did Anthropology get giganto wrong and why do some bigfoots get seen? |
"Although [comparing a sasquatch face to downs-syndrome] makes some people's "politically incorrect" radar go off, it's worth considering from a purely scientific standpoint." --Kirk Sigurdson being scientific
In back-to-back posts Kirk Sigurdson continues his no-apology critical approach to--well, everything. In a new post out today he pushes back against the scientific establishment and challenges what he believes are assumptions. Read an excerpt below:
Giganto fossils become huge orangs in anthropological fantasies these days, which are not very scientific, IMO. Why? They leap to conclusions as fast as their 19th Century brethren attributed human faces to apes in their illustrations and "scholarly" musings.
Unscientific wish-fulfillment [pictured left]: there just isn't enough data to support the conclusion that a giganto looked like this. It's as rash as supposing that gigantos still exist today in the form of bigfoots.
Personally, I am intrigued by the latter hypothesis, but I realize that there simply isn't enough cold hard data to effectively support such a conclusion with any degree of scientific certainty. I find it hypocritical that anthropologists can be so thorough in some ways, and so flippant in others.
Oh well, nobody's perfect, but when the whole field of anthropology gets behind such a preposterous conclusion (that Gigantos are basically overgrown orangs) then I have to reserve a certain amount of suspicion for those at the top that are responsible for pushing such a notion so hard and so deep into the minds of the general public, as well as allegedly "well-educated" Ph.D's.
Click to following link to read the rest Kirk's Gigantopithicus post.
I think, to be fair, anthropologist have made no conclusions. The jury is still out. Anthropologist admit that they are even uncertain about the locomotion. Without a pelvic or leg fossils, it is very possible that giganto is strictly a quadraped walking around on all fours. A bipedal giant orang giganto is a minority view.
In Kirk's other post he takes note that the description of Sasquatch faces have been compared to the same features as down-syndrome.
I think, to be fair, anthropologist have made no conclusions. The jury is still out. Anthropologist admit that they are even uncertain about the locomotion. Without a pelvic or leg fossils, it is very possible that giganto is strictly a quadraped walking around on all fours. A bipedal giant orang giganto is a minority view.
In Kirk's other post he takes note that the description of Sasquatch faces have been compared to the same features as down-syndrome.
I've heard the comparison between bigfoot faces and human "Down syndrome-like" faces in connection with some very impressive encounters where the witness was really able to observe the bigfoot's facial structure.You can read Kirk's post regarding this topic here.
Although this comparison makes some people's "politically incorrect" radar go off, it's worth considering from a purely scientific standpoint.
Down syndrome (DS) people do have different chromosome patterns than standard homo sapien sapiens. Perhaps it is closer to the standard sasquatch chromosome orientation? One thing is certain: Downs cases look alike, and the more acute the incidence of this disorder, the more exaggerated facial features become.
I studied anthropology and have a down syndrome child. It is unlikely bigfoots are 100 downs. They have found chimps to have downs also. They may have cases of downs though. Its just an extra chromosome. I think these statements are as valid as giganto being an orangutan. I did notice my daughter walking like a bigfoot with a big knee bend in the sand this weekend. It made me think research into locomotion of the disabled and their bone structures could shed light on the bigfoot body.
ReplyDeleteI should have said the downs theroy has more holes on it. The orang theory actually has SOME science behind it. Has been a theory for at least the last 23 years.
ReplyDelete