Extinct Giant Ape Depended Upon Forest Food

[norseman]

10 4

[gigantor]

This creature is the first mention of sasquatch. Not of all mentions of wild men, etc.

correct, he "coined" the term.

 

So I want to draw a distinction between all wild man stories and the stories about the sasquatch people, the creatures for whom the name was coined by Burns. The sasquatch people as described related by Burns and described by the eyewitnesses with whom he spoke are sasquatches.

 

Let's not conflate the other stories of wild men with these, very specifically named and described creatures/peoples/tales.

 

Not so fast. These "wild man" eyewitness accounts may not use the name Sasquatch, but they clearly describe such an animal, so there is no reason to exclude them from the discussion. You can verify this yourself by reading Tirademan's Historical Archive, there are dozens of articles which demonstrate this and you are a premium member.

 

Here is an example from California 1870:

 

 

Bodhi, you are basically attempting to commit a logical fallacy based on semantics, but don't worry, I won't let you.

Edited January 8, 2016 by gigantor

[Incorrigible1]

[Bodhi]

 

This creature is the first mention of sasquatch. Not of all mentions of wild men, etc.

correct, he "coined" the term.

 

So I want to draw a distinction between all wild man stories and the stories about the sasquatch people, the creatures for whom the name was coined by Burns. The sasquatch people as described related by Burns and described by the eyewitnesses with whom he spoke are sasquatches.

 

Let's not conflate the other stories of wild men with these, very specifically named and described creatures/peoples/tales.

 

Not so fast. These "wild man" eyewitness accounts may not use the name Sasquatch, but they clearly describe such an animal, so there is no reason to exclude them from the discussion. You can verify this yourself by reading Tirademan's Historical Archive, there are dozens of articles which demonstrate this and you are a premium member.

 

Here is an example from California 1870:

 

 

 

Bodhi, you are basically attempting to commit a logical fallacy based on semantics, but don't worry, I won't let you.

 

I'm attempting to keep the definition of sasquatch true to the definition used by the Salish People of the Fraser Valley.

 

Because,

the word sasquatch can clearly be pinned to that location and time as it was a bastardization of the Native People's word for another "tribe" of giant wild peoples by JW Burns. When he coined that term is was to describe those specific giants. I reject the claim that it's just semantics, these two creatures are not at all alike.

 

I think that using it generically is incorrect if it is being applied to a primate-like animal because it just doesn't work for a "tribe" of giants with long hair and basic technology. There may be (although I doubt it) a breeding population of primate-like "things" but they ain't sasquatches.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Bodhi

[hiflier]

Hello Incorrigible1,

There are folks in Laurasia that wouldn't like that.

[Cotter]

If we assume that the sasquatches are a separate 'type' of reclusive forest primate as is being offered, perhaps the accounts lend some credence to either variation within species or separate species in and of themselves.

 

Even looking at humans at this very second, the modes and methods employed to survive vary greatly.  From nomads to city dwellers to loners living off the land. 

 

BUT, back on topic.  I think there is a lot of evidence still today showing that large animals can live in seemingly 'unlivable' conditions (desert elephants, Siberian tigers, musk oxes at the north pole).

 

As with many things in life, there are things we don't fully understand.  If these creatures are real, they've figured out a way.

[norseman]

This creature is the first mention of sasquatch. Not of all mentions of wild men, etc.

correct, he "coined" the term.

 

So I want to draw a distinction between all wild man stories and the stories about the sasquatch people, the creatures for whom the name was coined by Burns. The sasquatch people as described related by Burns and described by the eyewitnesses with whom he spoke are sasquatches.

 

Let's not conflate the other stories of wild men with these, very specifically named and described creatures/peoples/tales.

 

Not so fast. These "wild man" eyewitness accounts may not use the name Sasquatch, but they clearly describe such an animal, so there is no reason to exclude them from the discussion. You can verify this yourself by reading Tirademan's Historical Archive, there are dozens of articles which demonstrate this and you are a premium member.

 

Here is an example from California 1870:

 

 

 

Bodhi, you are basically attempting to commit a logical fallacy based on semantics, but don't worry, I won't let you.

I'm attempting to keep the definition of sasquatch true to the definition used by the Salish People of the Fraser Valley.

 

Because,

the word sasquatch can clearly be pinned to that location and time as it was a bastardization of the Native People's word for another "tribe" of giant wild peoples by JW Burns. When he coined that term is was to describe those specific giants. I reject the claim that it's just semantics, these two creatures are not at all alike.

 

I think that using it generically is incorrect if it is being applied to a primate-like animal because it just doesn't work for a "tribe" of giants with long hair and basic technology. There may be (although I doubt it) a breeding population of primate-like "things" but they ain't sasquatches.

Think about it, each tribe zeroed in on different attributes to descibe the same creature. Even different tribes of Salish had different names for the creature.

If we are dealing with a flesh and blood creature? There is no possible way that all these variants coexist.

Either way I feel the Walker letter describes the modern phenom well.

[ShadowBorn]

Bodhi, Norse

Because of history you two are agreeing that it might be possible that a flesh and blood creature may exist today. I sure do not need history to know this but it is good that you looking back on it.

 

Norse

I like the Walker story since it might depict the down fall of the camanchee,IMO I say this to what he writes in his letter " It has been very sickly in this region the last part of the winter. Many have died. I do not know what can be done to save them from utter extinction " These missionaries seems to be the bringers of death for the Native American Indians with out them knowing it. It kind a of makes me wonder if the Native American Indians knew of their demise and of what their future was what to become. All I can say is thank you Norse for bringing this knowledge to the fore front as well  to you Bodhi for your knowledge. You might be skeptical of the idea that these creatures exist, but we have a past with history of a flesh and blood primate possible Hominid. Thanks for being informative I enjoy this stuff.

[Bodhi]

 

 

 

This creature is the first mention of sasquatch. Not of all mentions of wild men, etc.

correct, he "coined" the term.

 

So I want to draw a distinction between all wild man stories and the stories about the sasquatch people, the creatures for whom the name was coined by Burns. The sasquatch people as described related by Burns and described by the eyewitnesses with whom he spoke are sasquatches.

 

Let's not conflate the other stories of wild men with these, very specifically named and described creatures/peoples/tales.

 

Not so fast. These "wild man" eyewitness accounts may not use the name Sasquatch, but they clearly describe such an animal, so there is no reason to exclude them from the discussion. You can verify this yourself by reading Tirademan's Historical Archive, there are dozens of articles which demonstrate this and you are a premium member.

 

Here is an example from California 1870:

 

 

 

Bodhi, you are basically attempting to commit a logical fallacy based on semantics, but don't worry, I won't let you.

I'm attempting to keep the definition of sasquatch true to the definition used by the Salish People of the Fraser Valley.

 

Because,

the word sasquatch can clearly be pinned to that location and time as it was a bastardization of the Native People's word for another "tribe" of giant wild peoples by JW Burns. When he coined that term is was to describe those specific giants. I reject the claim that it's just semantics, these two creatures are not at all alike.

 

I think that using it generically is incorrect if it is being applied to a primate-like animal because it just doesn't work for a "tribe" of giants with long hair and basic technology. There may be (although I doubt it) a breeding population of primate-like "things" but they ain't sasquatches.

Think about it, each tribe zeroed in on different attributes to descibe the same creature. Even different tribes of Salish had different names for the creature.

If we are dealing with a flesh and blood creature? There is no possible way that all these variants coexist.

Either way I feel the Walker letter describes the modern phenom well.

 

Yeah, I still to get that book Norse. I like Byrne and should have purchased book earlier.

 

The description of the sasquatch giants described by Fraser Valley People is so dis-similar from the primate described by Roe that I find it hard to accept that they are referring to the same thing.

 

But I hope my posts can help believers understand why I find the whole thing to be dubious and likely to be a cultural thing rather than a flesh and blood creature. Particularly when you factor in the lack of any physical evidence, sold photo, etc.

If we assume that the sasquatches are a separate 'type' of reclusive forest primate as is being offered, perhaps the accounts lend some credence to either variation within species or separate species in and of themselves.

 

Even looking at humans at this very second, the modes and methods employed to survive vary greatly.  From nomads to city dwellers to loners living off the land. 

 

BUT, back on topic.  I think there is a lot of evidence still today showing that large animals can live in seemingly 'unlivable' conditions (desert elephants, Siberian tigers, musk oxes at the north pole).

 

As with many things in life, there are things we don't fully understand.  If these creatures are real, they've figured out a way.

Difference in those other animals and sasquatch is that the desert elephants, etc leave some evidence of their interaction with their environments.

 

But, I feel like maybe things have gotten far off track and I apologize to gigantor.

[norseman]

However there will be those who will postulate that giganto evolved further to allow it to cross the land bridge and take up residence in North America.  Perhaps giganto developed a taste for North American pine cones and acorns..........

According to native American accounts Sasquatch eats meat.

If Giganto did not eat meat? Then yes its descendants could have evolved to eat meat or Sasquatch and Giganto are not closely related.

[Cotter]

Apes evolving to eat meat when plant foods declined?   Happens.

 

BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

[kitakaze]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/weekendreads/science-stories-of-the-week/ar-AAgogru?li=AAggNb9#page=4

[Guest Crowlogic]

I guess they weren't running down deer then.

[Branco]

I guess that's when they learned they had to start running down deer and eating them. They cut out the "middle man"; the deer ate the grass and big'un ate the deer. Got his greens already "prepared" and had venison as the main dish. (Mighty crude version of turnip greens and ham, but " presumably" saved the big feller from extinction.) 

Edited January 10, 2016 by Branco

[TD-40]

Is any member of the ape or gorilla family, modern or primitive, carnivorous? Even Albert Ostman says he did not see one of his captors eat meat.