Cryptozoology, Ghosts, Aliens and other mysteries

[Sully]

I don't know if it necessarily is said to have the same role as a black bear. I think too little is known about the behavioural ecology of sasquatch to draw conclusions regarding its legitimacy based on that alone. The direct evidence at hand is best to analyse as there is less wiggle room. An objective conclusion is more likely to be derived. Meldrum actually makes a point in the book, just because sasquatch can't exist (secondary factors, e.g place in the ecosystem), doesn't mean they don't exist. Grover Krantz also says the idea of aasqautch is ridiculous, but the idea of hoaxing (referring to footprints as linked above) is impossible.

As for the gigantopithecus theory, I agree with you. Based on all I know about the giant ape in terms of climate and diet, I can't see it thriving outside its niche (though Meldrum made a point on analysis of gigantopithecus teeth suggesting they may not have been strictly bamboo eaters). I was watching a YouTube video where a guy asserts that dryopithecus is the best bigfoot candidate and lays out his argument. I for one believe this hypothesis to be much more likely than it being an offshoot of gigantopithecus.

Reply