What Is Sasquatch?

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I hope you all know that the dark horizontal slit is NOT the eye socket? And yes, crabshack, they did specifically deform the head.

Edited December 10, 2013 by hiflier

[AaronD]

On pages 308-323 of his 1808 book, Travels in America, Thomas Ashe describes his inspection of one of several different ancient Indian mounds he visited in the then thinly settled Ohio valley. He gives an especially detailed account of how he and his helper visited a mound near the banks of the Muskingum river, climbed to its summit, lifted flagstones at the top, and descended into an artificial vault where Ashe reportedly discovered ancient relics and ancient writing. What is particularly interesting about Ashe's account is that he also speaks of "Mound-Builder" giants in his story of opening that particular mound. On pages 321-323 of his book, Thomas Ashe speculates that the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North America were inclined to select for their top leaders men of gigantic stature. Although Ashe's notion may not represent a universal truth, there are occasional documented instances of the leaders or "upper classes" in certain socially stratified Indian groups possessing an extraordinary stature. See, for example, "Tomb of Giants" on pp. 64-65 of the March 2001 issue of National Geographic for a depiction of "giants" in a Moche burial in Peru.




 

Moche Elite Compared to Average Indian
© 2001, National Geographic Society

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0103/feature3/index.html
 

Extravagant grave goods add to the mystery of this ancient people of Peru.

Above: a human skull. Below: the skull of an 8.5-foot tall (!) skeleton that was found (15) near the old area of Puma Punku, in Bolivia.

The human skull has a narrow chin and a straight bite (left), while the Bolivian skull, which probably belonged to an Anunnaki, has a broad chin and a crooked bite.

On the right you can see that the Bolivian skull cannot possibly have belonged to a human: the sagittal suture, which runs from the middle of the head to the back and is characteristic of homo sapiens, is missing here entirely

[Guest]

Difference in size in the same population is sometimes due to poor nutrition.

[hiflier]

Hello AaronD,

Even mentioning the word Anunnaki can be a very slippery slope for a Bigfoot Forum

Edited December 10, 2013 by hiflier

[AaronD]

Actually, if you read the entire article you'll see a very secular application for Anunnaki as they mention 200,000 years ago from another constellation....very pro-evolution actually. But for convenience sake, I started a thread under the same title in the Tar Pit

[hiflier]

Hello AaronD,

A wise move. The Sumerian legends and the culture itself is quite facinating really with tons of artifacts right down into the Assyrian era. Facinating indeed.

[norseman]

Well.......we might as well go back to talking about werewolves.

Here is my wild and crazy hypothesis.

We are dealing with a bipedal member of the Ponginae family. I think there is a good chance G. blacki was bipedal and we have reports of the orang pen dak being bipedal as well. I think this is the origin of squatch.

This creature has been in North America for a long time and while it's origins are in Asia. It is now a uniquely adapted temperate primate.

I think studying orang behaviors are well suited to this creature. Orangs are shy, elusive, loners who spend much of their lives alone or in small temp groups. very different from social African apes. They have to be, as temperate forests does not yield the calories per acre of tropical forests, and are much more seasonal as well.

[BobZenor]

What are they? Human hybrids....IMO, of course. The only (for lack of a better term) habituator I know personally is a NA shaman and he has called them "people" and described them as being a tribe. Does anyone know what Bob Gimlin's opinion is?

 

Gimlin said on Mysterious World, "An overall description, it looked like a huge hairy human being.

 

I just noticed the post from JanV from another thread.   I appreciate the kind words. 

 

To paraphrase my main point, I never liked anthropologist use of the term human in describing ancient hominids.  I find it presumptuous to assume something like a Homo habilis or even some Homo erectus were human just because it is in the genus Homo.  It becomes an almost meaningless subjective term when "human" is used like that.  All hominids including us should be thought of as 100% ape and some unknown amount of human.  Human is what we are now.  As you get more distantly related or farther back in time you are logically going to be less like us by some unknown amount.  "Human" is too poorly defined to know what it really means.  How fast something can evolve is dependent on selection pressures so nobody really knows how fast we changed or how human any ancient hominid was.  No ancient hominid lineage could be completely excluded as possible ancestors of bigfoot because change could theoretically happen very quickly.  Even a few hundred thousand years isn't out of the question.  

 

Bigfoot is logically most likely some form of hominid much more closely related to us than it is to chimpanzees.  That is just my opinion based on all the Asian fossils.  That doesn't mean I think it was descended from what I would call human.  They are likely descended from a branch of our lineage that became cryptic basically to avoid competing with probably more aggressive and more technologically advanced hominids.  Some of that cryptic lineage also may have become cold adapted which often includes getting larger.   That would explain how they might have better night vision if they were forced to come out at night to avoid other hominids.

 

Homo heidelbergensis seems a good candidate but that may be too closely related to us.  I think "erectus" is the best candidate but many of the fossils that are called erectus probably shouldn't be.  I think some erectus were not necessarily or even logically technological  based on enormous teeth and jaws, relative lack of advanced stone tools found and other factors like some with reduced frontal lobes relative to other "erectus".  There were apparently multiple species of hominids so tools could have only meant that a technological hominid also lived there.

 

We seem to have lost a lot of the characteristics that are generally and colloquially considered apelike  as we became technological.  There is no strong evidence that all lineages of ancient "humans" became increasingly technological together.  Our ancestors probably weren't very "human" even a million years ago and if they separated and lived a totally different lifestyle they are logically going to be very different than we are.  

 

The way I look at it is that they are apparently bipedal apes that probably diverged from our lineage about a million to 2 million years ago.  Much more recent is possible but more distant is less likely in my opinion for various reasons.  I wouldn't presume to call an ancestor even a million years ago a human.  That would be close enough though that they probably would share some human traits with us.  

Edited December 10, 2013 by BobZenor

[MIB]

For sake of argument, since we really don't know, I'll speculate a bipedal, large, new world monkey rather than an ape.     

 

MIB

 

(or hey, how 'bout a polar bear? )

Edited December 10, 2013 by MIB

[WSA]

Branco....thanks for those details. Your observations are gold!

[Lake County Bigfooot]

All hypothesis are fair game at this point, there is nothing wrong

with toying with the possibilities.  I think some pretty dang good discoveries

came from thinking outside the box.

[bipedalist]

..........

All the reports from AL were removed from the Alabama Bigfoot web site after my friend Mike McLain passed away this year. Of course I have the original reports on my computer. The "Black Thing" report with foot print photos is several pages long. Don't think the Mod's would allow me to post it. It might even be too long for a PM. (I also saved the web site versions in a jumbled mess on a blog. I just have not had time to put reports into a respectable blog shape. If I opened it to the public it would win the "worst blog blog of the year" award.)

 

  

Branco you might approach management here .......   they may have a space for you to organize your material if you don't have current plans for it.  

 

I'm unclear about the thumbs but I sure put a lot of stock in the Tx observation of the hickory nut crushing sighting report. 

[Guest]

For sake of argument, since we really don't know, I'll speculate a bipedal, large, new world monkey rather than an ape.     

 

MIB

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I believe

Edited December 10, 2013 by OHZoologist

[Guest]

BobZenor, nice post, plussed.

[Cotter]

When one looks into the Sumerian enigma, some very interesting info can be gleaned that could suggest that Sasquatch is merely a (failed) cloning experiment by the Annunaki.  Failed in the sense they were unable to perform the duties required.

 

Perhaps they were turned loose and expected to die out, but didn't?