Will Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 13 hours ago, norseman said: But it’s also intelligent enough that it stays hidden, bury its dead Our best technology can’t even get a simple picture of it. Maybe it’s a ghost.
Buckaloo Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 16 hours ago, norseman said: As an individual yes. But we are not talking about an abandoned Homo Sapiens child being raised by wolves. As a species? Of course as you go back in time the more feral we become. Which is why I think Bigfoot is an earlier branch of hominid. But this isn’t by choice or a cruel twist of fate. The "official" record of feral people seems to be individual cases. HOWEVER, sightings and stories of feral GROUPS of individuals are persistent, particularly in the Smoky Mountains region. I seem to recall even reading some reasonably credible reports from park-official types. Some of these reports seem to also mirror Bigfoot sightings. The mythology in the area claims that these feral-types are descendants of people who once settled in the area and were displaced by the creation of the National Park. They refused to leave the area and have to hide. I'm not sure where I stand yet on feral people, but I certainly don't discount the possibility. I think we've seen some recent CRAZY discoveries in the world of anthropology. I believe that most human-type species are capable of things we can't even imagine. A big and complex brain that's good at making tools, ALSO may be good at being the supreme ninja of the forest and appearing as a "ghost" to other human-types. Edited 1 hour ago by Buckaloo
Buckaloo Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 15 hours ago, norseman said: You have already said that Sasquatch and its ancestors never used tools. So Denisovans are off the table. And I would be more than happy to hear your theory on what Hominin you are talking about. Most of us do. Only sub Saharan Africans are not hybridized with either Neanderthals or Denisovans. I don't buy Denisovan tool usage as a 100% established fact. I understand that it may be the current thinking, but it's based on some assumptions. Like I mentioned before, the sites that Denisovan "tools" have been found at were also occupied by Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens and science can't say with absolute certainty that Denisovans made those tools. Many scientists are very quick to assign tool usage to any newly-discovered "homo" species. Maybe too quick. I seem to recall reading an article in the recent past where one group of scientists discovered "tools" in a cave habituated by a hominid group (can't remember which one) only to have another group of scientists brand them "interesting looking rocks, but likely not tools." I'm not saying Denisovans didn't make tools, jewelry, etc. Perhaps some of them did (maybe those groups had contact with Neanderthals and/or Homo Sapiens?). Perhaps there were groups isolated from other Denisovan groups (and other hominids) who didn't. The fossil record is still too tiny to make too many assumptions. Edited 1 hour ago by Buckaloo 1
Buckaloo Posted 1 hour ago Author Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 1 hour ago, Will said: Our best technology can’t even get a simple picture of it. Maybe it’s a ghost. As a species, we have massive amounts of hubris. That's typically what gets us in trouble. Edited 1 hour ago by Buckaloo 1
norseman Posted 1 hour ago Admin Posted 1 hour ago 4 minutes ago, Buckaloo said: The "official" record of feral people seems to be individual cases. HOWEVER, sightings and stories of feral GROUPS of individuals are persistent, particularly in the Smoky Mountains region. I seem to recall even reading some reasonably credible reports from park-official types. Some of these reports seem to also mirror Bigfoot sightings. The mythology in the area claims that these feral-types are descendants of people who once settled in the area were displaced by the creation of the National Park. They refused to leave the area and have to hide. I'm not sure where I stand yet on feral people, but I certainly don't discount the possibility. I think we've seen some recent CRAZY discoveries in the world of anthropology. I believe that most human-type species are capable of things we can't even imagine. A big and complex brain that's good at making tools, ALSO may be good at being the supreme ninja of the forest and appearing as a "ghost" to other human-types. Yes, but I would counter that with how many Cougar have you seen in your lifetime? I have spent a lifetime in the woods and have seen very few. Probably as many Cougar as some people have seen Bigfoot. And yet a Cougar isn’t as smart a Gorilla or a Chimp or a Orang. All three have been taught sign language. So how much intelligence do you need to be a forest Ninja? As far as the Mick Dodge types? Yah we have a legend here of “Wolf people”. Feral people that run around barefoot and howl like Wolves. This was told to me by a buddy that was a USAF survival instructor at Tacoma creek. I am not denying that Homo Sapiens can go feral. But even Mick Dodge sneaks into town for a burger now and again. He isn’t a new species. He hasn’t developed into Patty. A quick shave and a change of clothes and you can put him in an elevator with others. So how many generations of Mick Dodge do you need to create a Bigfoot? My guess is zero. Because ultimately they would die out. Here is another example. A chihuahua 20,000 years ago was a Timber Wolf. If you kicked a family of chihuahuas into the wilds of Siberia? How many generations would it take before they looked like Timber Wolves again? My guess is zero. Because they wouldn’t make it. Bigfoot most definitely is a human cousin. It’s bipedal. Females have breasts. It’s an omnivore. But that’s where the similarities end. Well that’s well past the Hominin range and could easily place it in the Hominid range. I mean we are slicing hairs here. A Chimp is 98% the same as a Homo Sapien. So we are haggling over 2%. Obviously a Bigfoot is more closely related to Homo Sapiens than a Chimp is. Unless some sort of convergent evolution is going on. But a Denisovan is a species of human so closely related to Homo Sapiens it interbred with us and had viable offspring with us. And that blood line continues to this day in certain human populations. I don’t believe that Bigfoot had that option. And there are plenty of Indian stories claiming they have tried. We are morphologically too far separated as two distinct species to make viable offspring. Which is bad news for the NFL. Bigfooters kinda want their cake and eat it too. The storyline of Bigfoot being this super intelligent forest shaman that has stuck its nose up at modern technology is a very popular point of view. I just don’t find it very realistic. Bigfoot doesn’t make stone tools the same way a Chimp doesn’t make stone tools. It lacks the cognitive ability and probably the fine grasping skills to flake a Clovis point. It can pick up rocks and smash them together or breaks nuts. But beyond that? It doesn’t think about it.
Huntster Posted 58 minutes ago Posted 58 minutes ago 30 minutes ago, Buckaloo said: .........I'm not sure where I stand yet on feral people, but I certainly don't discount the possibility........... We have a scientifically proven case of a feral human being identified as an Almas for over a century, and the widely accepted definition of "Almas" fits perfectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(folklore) Quote ...........According to legend, Zana of Tkhina was an abnauayu, (the Abkhazian equivalent of the almas) of great proportions entirely covered in hair, captured by hunters in the forests of Abkhazia in the mid-19th century. Porshnev on being informed of the story of Zana travelled to Abkhazia, and collected stories from locals who claimed to have first-hand knowledge of her; he then synthesised the collected stories and published them. In 1964, Porshnev attempted to find the graves of Zana and her son Khwit, but was unsuccessful. The residents of the village of Tkhina and cryptozoologists, including Porshnev, considered Zana to be an almas; these theories are nowadays largely considered to be influenced by local folklore. In 2021, the skull Tkhina-75 was exhumed from a grave in a family cemetery, and genomic sequencing conclusively identified Tkhina-75 as Zana. Tkhina-75 was the skull of a middle-aged woman with distinct prognathism. DNA analysis of Zana (and six of her descendants) showed her to be of majority East African descent, with possible West African admixture. The appearance and behavior of Zana described in the legend could be explained by a genetic disorder known as congenital generalized hypertrichosis.......... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9744565
norseman Posted 57 minutes ago Admin Posted 57 minutes ago 6 minutes ago, Buckaloo said: I don't buy Denisovan tool usage as a 100% established fact. I understand that it may be the current thinking, but it's based on some assumptions. Like I mentioned before, the sites that Denisovan "tools" have been found at were also occupied by Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens and science can't say with absolute certainty that Denisovans made those tools. Many scientists are very quick to assign tool usage to any newly-discovered "homo" species. Maybe too quick. I seem to recall reading an article in the recent past where one group of scientists discovered "tools" in a cave habituated by a hominid group (can't remember which one) only to have another group of scientists brand them "interesting looking rocks, but likely not tools." I'm not saying Denisovans didn't make tools, jewelry, etc. Perhaps some of them did (maybe those groups had contact with Neanderthals and/or Homo Sapiens?). Perhaps there were groups isolated from other Denisovan groups (and other hominids) who didn't. The fossil record is still too tiny to make too many assumptions. But you understand that your opinion is not scientifically valid? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean https://archaeology.org/news/2015/05/07/150507-siberia-denisovan-bracelet/ Denisovans are rocket scientists compared to Oldowan technology. And they didn’t just interbreed with us but also Neanderthals.
Buckaloo Posted 55 minutes ago Author Posted 55 minutes ago 16 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said: In the great course of things, and especially in the fossil record, feral probably don't leave a mark. If there are Sasquatch out there today (or feral people) that's the entire point. They leave no old campfires, no broken tools, no worn-out clothing, etc. They leave no sign that they even exist. That leaves other groups of human-types wondering "are they animals, are they people, or are they ghosts." It's the ultimate survival strategy. It takes something that's VERY smart to pull that off! 1
Huntster Posted 53 minutes ago Posted 53 minutes ago 7 minutes ago, norseman said: ........Bigfooters kinda want their cake and eat it too.......... I prefer ice cream, thanks. And I will most definitely eat it, but will leave a few drops on the front of my shirt leave as a mystery sign for future scientists to concluded all kinds of theories regarding my occupations and tool use, and probably few of them will deduce that I was simply a slob. 2 minutes ago, Buckaloo said: If there are Sasquatch out there today (or feral people) that's the entire point. They leave no old campfires, no broken tools, no worn-out clothing, etc. They leave no sign that they even exist. That leaves other groups of human-types wondering "are they animals, are they people, or are they ghosts." It's the ultimate survival strategy. It takes something that's VERY smart to pull that off! Their names are Adam and Eve, and they live in perfect harmony in the Garden.
norseman Posted 46 minutes ago Admin Posted 46 minutes ago 4 minutes ago, Buckaloo said: If there are Sasquatch out there today (or feral people) that's the entire point. They leave no old campfires, no broken tools, no worn-out clothing, etc. They leave no sign that they even exist. That leaves other groups of human-types wondering "are they animals, are they people, or are they ghosts." It's the ultimate survival strategy. It takes something that's VERY smart to pull that off! He means in terms of species and morphology. If you dig up a Homo Erectus and then another. How do you tell which one was the more accomplished hunter or stone tools maker? With the artifacts that you find with their remains. If you do this enough? You build up a data base based on the bulk of the findings. Not the outliers. I believe it’s called a bell curve.
Buckaloo Posted 38 minutes ago Author Posted 38 minutes ago 5 minutes ago, norseman said: But you understand that your opinion is not scientifically valid? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean https://archaeology.org/news/2015/05/07/150507-siberia-denisovan-bracelet/ Denisovans are rocket scientists compared to Oldowan technology. And they didn’t just interbreed with us but also Neanderthals. That MY opinion is not scientifically valid is of course only YOUR opinion. Again, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Just because there was tool usage by earlier hominims that pre-date Denisovans, does NOT guarantee that all groups of Denisovans used tools. Brain size does NOT gaurantee tool usage. This is just the current herd-template that science gravitates to today. That could change tomorrow. Again, I'm NOT claiming that Denisovans did NOT use tools. IF Denisovans are the ancestors of Sasquatch, then it's possible that ONE group of Denisovans were isolated enough for long enough to develop other "wilder" survival strategies. The original reason for this may be something we can't even imagine and will never know.
Buckaloo Posted 30 minutes ago Author Posted 30 minutes ago 23 minutes ago, Huntster said: We have a scientifically proven case of a feral human being identified as an Almas for over a century, and the widely accepted definition of "Almas" fits perfectly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(folklore) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9744565 I've always believed that Zana may have belonged to a larger group of "people" who had lived "wild" long enough to have actually developed morphological differences from "civilized" humans. She may be a key to many mysteries like this.
norseman Posted 21 minutes ago Admin Posted 21 minutes ago 15 minutes ago, Buckaloo said: That MY opinion is not scientifically valid is of course only YOUR opinion. Again, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Just because there was tool usage by earlier hominims that pre-date Denisovans, does NOT guarantee that all groups of Denisovans used tools. Brain size does NOT gaurantee tool usage. This is just the current herd-template that science gravitates to today. That could change tomorrow. Again, I'm NOT claiming that Denisovans did NOT use tools. IF Denisovans are the ancestors of Sasquatch, then it's possible that ONE group of Denisovans were isolated enough for long enough to develop other "wilder" survival strategies. The original reason for this may be something we can't even imagine and will never know. Your getting heated so I will bow out of your thread. All I am saying is that if you ask any paleontologist about human evolution? Tool use is well refined by the time Denisovans show up on scene. Take care! 👍🏼
Will Posted 19 minutes ago Posted 19 minutes ago 35 minutes ago, Buckaloo said: As a species, we have massive amounts of hubris. That's typically what gets us in trouble. Agreed! Im fascinated at our propensity to simply just guess at this. It’s typical for humans to do that, it’s fun to discuss it. But with this thing, there are so many things that haven’t even been established.
Buckaloo Posted 16 minutes ago Author Posted 16 minutes ago 3 minutes ago, norseman said: Your getting heated so I will bow out of your thread. All I am saying is that if you ask any paleontologist about human evolution? Tool use is well refined by the time Denisovans show up on scene. Take care! 👍🏼 Not getting heated at all! Just mirroring energy. Please do whatever you want to do!
Recommended Posts