Giganticusopithicus Teeth,foot.

[Kirt Still]

I spoke too soon. Now I see it.
‘NA Heal scrape rock -worn from walking’.
Congratulations on a find of a lifetime!
Could fetch a steep price on eBay.

Please don't patronize me.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kirt Still]

I believe these are the teeth and the right foot of an GIGANTOCISOPETHICUS;
any feedback is welcome.

To whom should I contact ,in order to authenticate these fossils?

 

[Kray Gelder]

Does this look like skunk monster crap?MAMUCKER.note the 3rd pic is of bottom,right foot,notice the worn scrape of the heel,from walking.

I see the foot. It is the foot of someone who's shoes were always too small as a child. The outer three toes curled under. IMO.

 

[Kirt Still]

I see the foot. It is the foot of someone who's shoes were always too small as a child. The outer three toes curled under. IMO.

Not curled under,that is prehistoric plant matter,that is under the last four toes and between the big toe and on top of foot.

I see the foot. It is the foot of someone who's shoes were always too small as a child. The outer three toes curled under. IMO.

 

[MAMucker]

Putting the kidding aside, (and I’m already in too deep) a few indulging questions if you please.
Is this post claiming that these stones are fossils or imprints or effigies.
Are you insisting that these rocks reveal that an ape-like creature wrapped their feet in leaves?
Or are you saying that these (rocks?)are from the paleo period and represent a creature with gigantic teeth?
Or are you saying that your stones are the smoking gun that removes any doubt regarding the existence of a Bigfoot-like creature during the paleo period?
Or are you claiming that these are evidence of an ancient humanoid species that died/lived/walked in your back yard?
11,000+YBP? This doesn’t seem to fit the quality of the so-called fossil condition.
1,000,000+ YBP? Yikes!
You asked for opinions.
Mine is that your thumb seems to be pressed-down on the scale of evidence -heavy with speculation, conclusion and dramatic imagination. But, I could be wrong. Maybe better photos?

 

[unclemac]

better pix would help too

 

[Kirt Still]

Putting the kidding aside, (and I’m already in too deep) a few indulging questions if you please.
Is this post claiming that these stones are fossils or imprints or effigies.
Are you insisting that these rocks reveal that an ape-like creature wrapped their feet in leaves?
Or are you saying that these (rocks?)are from the paleo period and represent a creature with gigantic teeth?
Or are you saying that your stones are the smoking gun that removes any doubt regarding the existence of a Bigfoot-like creature during the paleo period?
Or are you claiming that these are evidence of an ancient humanoid species that died/lived/walked in your back yard?
11,000+YBP? This doesn’t seem to fit the quality of the so-called fossil condition.
1,000,000+ YBP? Yikes!
You asked for opinions.
Mine is that your thumb seems to be pressed-down on the scale of evidence -heavy with speculation, conclusion and dramatic imagination. But, I could be wrong. Maybe better photos?

First,thank you for your response,and yes all kidding aside,I believe them to be of giganto,no,not wearing plant shoes,but was standing in prehistoric plant,resulting in these plants under foot,and up in between toes,and laying on top of foot.
I have the actual fossilized complete right foot,not a cast or imprint,or anything else,but the whole complete fossilized right foot,and several teeth.
I had contacted the college,(OU)OKLAHOMA,UNIVERSITY,museum of natural history,sent them pics for them to identify,only to be told,"these rocks can not be of giganto,because it is an Asian ape,and only found in China.
Even with the pic of the foot and teeth staring them in the face.
I had also contacted a few more promedent professors,at prestiges colleges,in which they specialize in anthropology;only to shot down with with there skepticisum and doubt or I get no reply at all.ibe even sent email to the dr.in China,that has the only other known fossils of giganto,with no avail.
Yes!,these creatures were right here in North America,and I have the proof.i think this is such a monumental find,the pros don't want to recognize them as giganto,do to the confrontational nature of the subject.
Yes,I agree,the age of these fossils are older than 11,000 yrs.,but I'm not sure,not with out carbon dating,which I hear is expensive,and I can't afford this service.
Bottom line,for my situation,is this:
I know,with out a doubt,that these fossil are of giganto,with out a doubt!but now I'm left scratching my head,in wonder and amazement at the over all lack of interest and the level of skepticisem,and deniel that these,could be giganto.
Surely they are aware of the land bridge that connected this land to Asia,all those years ago.
So here I am trying to bring to light of this monumental find.
So........yes this is what I'm saying.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Take them to a museum, there are several in Colorado, the Denver Museum Of Nature and Science is a suggestion.

 

[Kirt Still]

IITake them to a museum, there are several in Colorado, the Denver Museum Of Nature and Science is a suggestion.

I will contact the via email.then I'll

Take them to a museum, there are several in Colorado, the Denver Museum Of Nature and Science is a suggestion.

Let you know,as to what they say.thanks for your insight on such a sensitive and important subject .I'll keep you posted.

 

[Kirt Still]

better pix would help too

 

[Kirt Still]

Some pics of foot and teeth

 

[unclemac]

well, thanks for taking the time to post but I just don't see what you see, especially a foot. What do you base your ID on?

 

[Tnmountains]

Please do come back and let us know what the museum said. We are interested to hear what they say as we are unable to give you much help.
Good luck with your find.

 

[Kirt Still]

well, thanks for taking the time to post but I just don't see what you see, especially a foot. What do you base your ID on?

well, thanks for taking the time to post but I just don't see what you see, especially a foot. What do you base your ID on?

 

[Kirt Still]

In this pic is the foot with the toes at bottom of pic.the big toe on far left,and the other toes in sequence.note the plant matter under last four toes,and is up between the big toe.with more plant matter laying across the top of foot.
What you think about the teeth?

 

[Kirt Still]

In this pic is the foot with the toes at bottom of pic.the big toe on far left,and the other toes in sequence.note the plant matter under last four toes,and is up between the big toe.with more plant matter laying across the top of foot.
What you think about the teeth?

This is pic of bottom of foot.look close an the prehistoric plant matter is evident.

 

[Kirt Still]

This is pic of bottom of foot.look close an the prehistoric plant matter is evident.

 

[Kirt Still]

Sorry wrong pics,these are of the canine,or "I" tooth

 

[Emil W]

They are rocks. Nothing more.

You need to learn how fossils form (retain original form of the bone; individual bones do not fuse together, etc.) But more importantly you need to study anatomy.

Take them to any anthropology/primatology department. Until you do that, and get them to agree with you, you will not convince anyone with any knowledge of anthropology to agree with you.

You are entitled to your opinion but that does not change the fact they are simply rocks.

 

[Kirt Still]

This is pic of bottom of foot.look close an the prehistoric plant matter is evident.. See

Sorry wrong pics,these are of the canine,or "I" tooth

Here a foot pics first two are of top of foot,and the third is of bottom of foot