georgerm Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 There are some really hairy Caucasian men, and this may indicate that at one time Caucasians were a type of smaller BF. Over time less hair was favored by natural selection. We simply don't have good records from 100,000 years ago. hairy man.doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 6, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 6, 2012 Haha BobbyO, you have clearly never been to Manchester. United outnumber city 3 to 1 AT LEAST. And everyone in Manchester knows that, including the city fans. City has never, ever been blue. And it never will be. Don't kid a kidder Lee, i've been to OT probably half a dozen plus times ( have seen a couple of victories for my lot ( Di Canio & Defoe winners ) believe it or lot, plus a 0-6 in the cup and a 1-7 in the league the wrong way ) and have Mancunian Pals, most of which are of course blue.. Off topic sorry and i'll send you a PM with something you might raise a smile too.. On topic, George adds something that i've thought about before regarding the subject, but again i'm not so sure if that could be good enough physical trait for a whole new " race " ( would that be the right term ? ) of Human Beings.. George uses 100,000 years as a time frame that we don't have records too, but regarding the time frame of the Slaves, we'd only be talking about a maximum of 400 or so wouldn't we and that's what i'd find hard to believe, as it's such little time in teh grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 BoobyO - I can't resist, sorry. I am not an expert in anything, but as someone who has been going to OT for over 30 years, home and away, Europe too, to Maine Road and City of Manchester more times than I care to remember, I feel I am pretty well qualified to say that in no way do city fans even come cose to the number United have in Manchester. It's a myth perpetuated by the media and city fans too, who, incidentally, are concentrated in Stockport - not even in Manchester. Wish we'd have signed Di Canio for that one season, and I'd take Defoe now still. I promise I will stick to the topic now!! I know that a lot of sightings are in the PNW - is it possible to live here without the aid of fire? Could they live underground perhaps? Best. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I know that a lot of sightings are in the PNW - is it possible to live here without the aid of fire? Could they live underground perhaps? Best. Lee Sure, there are many, many large mammals living out there without fire. We are the only ones who developed fire because we are the only ones who ever needed it. Bigfoot does not have the physical deficiencies we do which prompted our ingenuity in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 NiceGuyJohn - what I mean is, could a human live there without fire? Could someone with an excellent knowledge of survival techniques live in the PNW without fire? If there answer is No, then would that put the feral human theory out of the window? Thanks. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Well the way I see it, whatever this thing is, it has a large mass and a great deal of hair. That means it has adapted in a way that would make it not need fire for survival. I can see it being "human" in the same way a newly discovered population of Neanderthals or Denisovans would be "human"; a different species, but still human. However, I do not see how it could be a feral human, as my understanding of the term would mean that it would be anatomically modern humans who have separated from society and lost any "domestication". I think we can all agree that whatever Bigfoot is, it's not anatomically modern humans. I have always considered Bigfoot to be just an ape that has evolved bipedalism, like an upright gorilla, until I got to this forum. I am now very open to the idea that it is another kind of hominid, when you consider the fact that this is the ONLY time in human history in which we would NOT be living side by side with another bipedal hominid. So, a discovery of another bipedal hominid, although spectacular, would actually be a move more toward what has been the norm throughout our history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Another thing to consider is the fact that slaves had fully developed language, culture and knowledge of fire/tool use and clothing. Things Bigfoot is not supposed to possess (as far as we know). In some South American countries (the Guianas) there are still many descendants of runaway African slaves living in the remote jungle, so we know how they lived and evolved. They didn’t regress into an ultra primitive state of existence by losing all their knowledge of these things and they didn’t change physically into giant hairy ape-humans. I think a few hundred years is not enough to change a group of people into feral humans without any culture and with the physical traits of a Bigfoot. And yes, it’s nice to see when sensitive topics can be discussed without turning into something ugly. I think when Bigfoot is proven to the world all hell will break loose so why not practice now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Cool theory but I can't quite see it happening. I think there were a ton of runaway slaves that ran away into the jungles of caribbean. I think they called them maroons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Let's look at Rome that flourished for at least 600 years. They had Caucasian slaves found in Europe and did these slaves run away to form feral slave groups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Sorry but I have to give this one a big NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 6, 2012 SSR Team Share Posted July 6, 2012 Let's look at Rome that flourished for at least 600 years. They had Caucasian slaves found in Europe and did these slaves run away to form feral slave groups? Have you ever been to Ireland ?? Joke joke, joke, sorry..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 I've always though they were some kind of ape just due to the MTB. Since only apes and monkeys have that feature. I'd accept that they're somehow part human though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 @ Georgerm, Would Caucasion slave groups need to form feral groups in lands that had predominantly Caucasion people living there? I am not so sure, unless they were indisputably marked as slaves. Did they not escape to places where they could live freely? I don't know, I should brush up on my history. With African slaves, there is no mistaking them in the country they are in, because they are black and most other people who live there are white. They couldn't escape to anywhere where there were white people. So maybe they had to completely disappear to survive and that meant living in places that other people didn't go. Best. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 So you're theory is that a tribe of feral humans, has spread and survived, undiscovered for 100-400 years, and in this short time spread their population to a range which exceeds any other mammal in North America, at the same time evolving a different foot, huge size, no-tool-use and open nostrils. I don't know if you know about evolution, but it takes a long time, and with an estimated population under 10,000, the gene flow would be highly restricted, offering little chance of mutated genes ever taking hold in a population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) There are stories of them all the way up to the south of Hudson Bay and all the way to Yukon Territory. Almost no one lives in such remote areas, but I think the population number (of Bigfoot) would be way more than just 10,000. Edited July 9, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts