You Are Sasquatch (New Book/theory)

[Guest]

The book is now available on Amazon Kindle. In the near future, it will also be available on Nook, and then in a paperback edition.

http://www.amazon.co...u+are+sasquatch

I was consultant and editor on this book, and although I do not know if the theory is true, I do think that the authors have put forth a plausible case. I'd love to hear others' views.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest]

Book Description

Publication Date: June 14, 2012 The discovery of Sasquatch as a living, breathing member — along with us — of the primate family tree is emerging as the most profound revelation of the early 21st Century.

But equally astonishing is the new theory set forth in You Are Sasquatch — that not only do we share the Earth with a fellow upright-walking, language-speaking creature, but that this species is none other than the still-surviving representatives of our own earliest ancestors!

This dizzying conclusion is derived through a clear presentation of evolutionary steps, logical links, and pictorial/video demonstrations.

Just as the many breeds of modern-day dogs are diminished descendants of their common ancestor, the gray wolf, so do the races of mankind represent a domesticated version of our mighty progenitor. Show More

[Guest]

Here is the rest of the Book Description, picking up where the above leaves off:

In many ways, Sasquatch is our superior, for we have lost most of our original character, our sheer animal wit and wisdom, our genius for strategic survival, our awesome physical prowess.

So Sasquatch stands before us today as the living embodiment of our former greatness. We can learn much from this teacher, but only if we wake up, wise up, and recognize our place in the History of Life.

You can read a free sample here, including the Introduction and Chapter One:

http://www.amazon.co..._kd#reader-link

Edited June 18, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest]

Thanks, Chris. My Fire doesn't deal well with large posts. I tried to add the remaining description via edit, along with my thoughts on the description, but it appears I ran out of time.

Here are my thoughts based on the description:

Assuming the above description comes from the authors, they seem to me to be confused.

First, assuming life arose once, all extant species are still-surviving representatives of our own earliest ancestors. In other words, all species, both extant and extinct, have a common ancestor. This is Biology 101, Biology for Jocks, hardly an astonishing theory.

Second, use of "progenitor" implies that humans are direct descendants of bigfoots. That is something entirely far more specific than stating that our two species share a common ancestor.

Third, Homo sapiens (i.e., wise man) has plenty of original character, and more wit, wisdom, and genius for survival than any other species that has ever inhabited this planet. By any meaningful biologic measure H. sapiens is far more successful than bigfoot.

This book might contain entertaining fantasy, but it appears not to be rooted in biology or any other logical framework.

[Guest]

"First, assuming life arose once, all extant species are still-surviving representatives of our own earliest ancestors. In other words, all species, both extant and extinct, have a common ancestor. This is Biology 101, Biology for Jocks, hardly an astonishing theory."

True, and this is not what the book is about.

"Second, use of 'progenitor' implies that humans are direct descendants of bigfoots."

Yes, this is what the book is proposing.

Here is a rather startling assertion in the journal Nature:

Early forms of Homo erectus [our direct ancestor] mark such a radical departure from previous forms in height, reduced sexual dimorphism, long limbs and modern body proportions, that it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as “without an ancestor, without a clear past.†(Dennell & Roebroeks in Nature, 2005)

You Are Sasquatch seeks to fill this gap. Until now, theories of human evolution have not taken Sasquatch into account at all, because of course the species has not been sanctioned by science. This new book does take Sasquatch into account, and to my knowledge this is the first serious such attempt to integrate this species with human evolutionary theory.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Christopher Noel

[Guest]

Why include a description that is not descriptive of the book?

What is startling about the Nature excerpt? The absence of traditional forms is common throughout the fossil record. Recent anthropological finds prove that some gaps will be filled with increased effort of looking, but, because not all individual remains become fossilized, we shall never see all gaps filled.

Ballsie to incorporate an undescribed species into an anthropological paradigm. To do so is within the realm of fantasy, not science.

[Guest]

The description does reflect the contents of the book, Ptero. Perhaps you might actually read the book before launching accusations of "fantasy"?

[Guest TexasTracker]

Chris,

The thought is entertaining, but not sure if it will hold up to a closer look by the scientific minds..

I'd like to add to that....every time I hit the woods looking for biggie, I can't help feel that "we" today are so much more out-of-place in the woods than our Native American brothers might have been... I agree, we surely have lost touch with a lot of those skills needed to survive/thrive without all out modern conviences...

Edited June 18, 2012 by TexasTracker

[Guest]

The description does reflect the contents of the book, Ptero. Perhaps you might actually read the book before launching accusations of "fantasy"?

Chris,

I was open about basing my impressions on the description of the book that I assume was written by the authors. I didn't need to read "Enoch" after listening to Autumn's illogical presentation to know that her book was fiction, and I don't need to spend money on this book, after reading the authors' illogical description of it, to know that it is a work of fantasy. There is nothing wrong with fantasy. I enjoyed "The Hobbit."

Pt

[Guest Peter O.]

"They tell us that, we lost our tails,

evolving up, from little snails,

I say it's all, just wind in sails... We are devo!"

Devo, 1977.

[Guest wudewasa]

I'll not dismiss this theory, but I find it hard to accept the hypothesis that we are descended from a living creature that has not been scientifically described. DNA doen't do it for me, we need a type specimen to analyze.

[Guest BFSleuth]

DNA will tell a lot more about the ancestry and lineage than a type specimen will ever do. How do you think information about interbreeding between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens Sapiens came about, by looking at skulls?

[Guest poignant]

Read the preview on Amazon. It has my attention so far and I'll critique in full after reading.

PS: pet peeves - not justifying-full and quoting wikipedia.

[Guest wudewasa]

Regarding the neanderthal example..

The physical specimens were identified long before DNA was recovered and analyzed. This purported animal is an undescribed creature that is LIVNG- neanderthals have died out. Again, I'm VERY open to the existence of bigfoot, but want more evidence than just DNA.

Maybe I should just buy the book and BELIVE because other people are telling me to do so: nope.

[bipedalist]

I'll not dismiss this theory, but I find it hard to accept ...

Maybe I should just buy the book and BELIVE because other people are telling me to do so: nope.

Why not give it a whirl Wude, you said you would not dismiss the theory?