Buckaloo Posted 2 hours ago Author Posted 2 hours ago 53 minutes ago, norseman said: 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 **** 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 **** 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 **** 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. I've never seen a cougar, but I have been lucky enough to see plenty of black bears. I think the difference is that cougars have been captured, killed, and taxonomically identified for centuries. Perhaps the government has also done the same with Sasquatch, but that's for another discussion. I understand of course where you're coming from. I guess this is the "universal debate" concerning Bigfoot. Is it some type of "people" (with human-like intelligence), some type of "animal" (like a giant bipedal chimp - smart but not too smart), or something "supernatural" (a Shaman or from a UFO or from another dimension, etc). For now we're all grasping at straws.
Huntster Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 1 hour ago, Buckaloo said: 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. After the Zana investigation moved through the DNA phase, I came to believe that she was abandoned by an African family (either still enslaved or post slavery) at some point after she was born hirstute, and she turned out like so many other children over the ages who grew up feral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child After reading about feral children, a lot that I already knew (as the husband and father of special education teachers) was more fully revealed to me. If a child is deprived of early development up to the age of 6 or 7, intellectual recovery is almost impossible. We aren't born intelligent. It is developed.
Buckaloo Posted 15 minutes ago Author Posted 15 minutes ago 47 minutes ago, Huntster said: After the Zana investigation moved through the DNA phase, I came to believe that she was abandoned by an African family (either still enslaved or post slavery) at some point after she was born hirstute, and she turned out like so many other children over the ages who grew up feral. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child After reading about feral children, a lot that I already knew (as the husband and father of special education teachers) was more fully revealed to me. If a child is deprived of early development up to the age of 6 or 7, intellectual recovery is almost impossible. We aren't born intelligent. It is developed. I'm inclined to believe the same, but what puzzles me is that reports indicated that she had so many physical characteristics that perfectly adapted her to live out in the wild. She was hairy, seemingly impervious to the cold, very large, could swim, was fast, and agile. Also, she must have found ways to eat given that she seemed to be a healthy adult when "captured" (whatever that meant). Her morphological adaptations seem totally adapted for her apparent lifestyle. Her offspring didn't retain all of her physical advantages, but she bred with modern European-stock humans. Perhaps the various Father's genes were dominant in some way? It's a fascinating story.
Recommended Posts