Big foot found , only problem is ...

Big foot found , only problem is it's 4.4 million years old .

Is she our oldest known ancestor, or just another cousin on the primate family tree? The scientific debate over the 4.4 million-year-old fossil now known as Ardi is continuing, two months after her skeleton was unveiled. However the debate turns out, Ardi is shining "bright new light on an obscure time in our past" and rates as the top scientific breakthrough of the year, the journal Science proclaims today.

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...

Check out the link and tell me if that doesn't look like a big foot ?

The 110-pound, 4-foot female

Looks maybe, is....nah.


Full body image...try not to masturbate you sick puppies.

msnbcmedia3.msn.com...

Looks like an upright gorilla to me.

gotta love scientists thinking they found the missing link.

Wow, great find!
This really resembles bigfoot!
I wonder though why they don't call it prehistoric bigfoot. It has all features! This is a female, male are always bigger, so did they survive?

I would say that this is the most likely candidate for bigfoot...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52bd00db7653.jpg[/atsimg]

Gigantopithecus

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Aggie Man]

Yeah, but what is "time" anyway? Just a way for your mind to order things so you can hunt and kill for survival. There's a whole branch of philosophy that says everything actually always happens all the time. While you sit at your computer, everything that ever happened there and ever will happen is happening.

So if I happen to be in the woods, where there aren't so many people around constantly convincing me I live in the 21st Century, maybe a bigfoot can walk by 4.5 million years ago and I'll see it, and it'll see me, and we'll wonder what's going on.

Cool how it could explain bigfoot. I always thought bigfoot was easy to believe but why wouldn't they have one of their own by now?

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I would say that this is the most likely candidate for bigfoot...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52bd00db7653.jpg[/atsimg]

Gigantopithecus

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Aggie Man]

uncle Bob?!?!?? who's yer little friend w/ the beard?

what a disgrace to mankind even the bigfoot has a better hair cut and much more well groomed

reply to post by Max_TO

Is she our oldest known ancestor, or just another cousin on the primate family tree? The scientific debate over the 4.4 million-year-old fossil now known as Ardi is continuing, two months after her skeleton was unveiled. However the debate turns out, Ardi is shining "bright new light on an obscure time in our past" and rates as the top scientific breakthrough of the year, the journal Science proclaims today

I think it's histarical, when big brains use these big numbers it's a
fargone joke if you ask me.
The only thing that survives that long is the earth itself. There isn't one bone anywhere 4.4 MILLION years old that hasnn't crumbled to dust.

4.4MILLION YEARS is assanine.

I personally enjoy when someone insults another person's intelligence and can't seem to find dictionary.com.

hysterical, far gone, hasn't or has not and lastly the word is asinine.

Meanwhile, I personally agree on the Gigantopithecus being a possible ancestor or even current candidate for the Sasquatch phenomena.

edit: accidental early post

[edit on 23-12-2009 by wingnut01]

There isn't one bone anywhere 4.4 MILLION years old that hasnn't crumbled to dust.

I think you misread that as 4.4 Billion. The mass extinction of the dinosaurs was 65 MILLION years ago. Not so asinine at all.

I think it's an amazing discovery, as it pushes aside the notion that humans evolved from apes, but that it was a distinct evolutionary path seperate from modern primates.

Ardi is really cool. Pretty sure we knew humans and apes came from a common ancestor already, versus that they evolved from apes. The article that I was reading was talking about how this proves that it means our ancestors were walking upright before they had significantly bigger brains and that it supports the ideas that bipedalism arose from a female preference for males who were able to walk, and therefore carry back food. But the article said something like "Ardi is the Lucy of the century!" and I just don't know if I agree. The century is still quite young.

And I just love Lucy because I love Donald Johanson. A lot. A loooooot.

reply to post by grey580


Yeah, that's always the problem with homindae finds. The scientist finding them always announces that they were "on the human family tree" - technically true (technically broccoli is on the family tree, too...). However it's always taken to mean "direct ancestor of man" because popular thought maintains that silly chimp-to-man power walk image. This translates into increased funding and publicity for the paleontologist.

And then the media grabs it and turns it into the "missing link". The media, like most laymen institutions and individuals, fails to realize that there is no such thing as a "missing link." It's a defunct notion like Lemuria or the luminescent aether.

reply to post by randyvs


So you don't believe in fossils, either? Okay man Have fun with that. Man. One wonders what other aspects of reality you choose to disbelieve in.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Which is why we should just teach the world to read phylogenetic trees. Then everything would be peachy.

At least I think so, anyway.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Excuse my language, but... Holy #!