Jump to content
Cryptic Megafauna

What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong?

Recommended Posts

LeafTalker

Yeah, I agree. I wasn't saying different linguistic groups made a species distinct. I was saying that some people might be tempted to believe that the so-called "samurai chatter" (and variations thereof) that sound so ape-like (but are in fact language) could seem to identify an individual that belonged to a species different from the species of an individual who appeared able to make more recognizably "human" sounds.

 

But yeah, I'm thinking those people are not correct, because of my own experience in the same patch of woods, hearing very different types of sounds emerge from what I have reason to believe are individuals from the same family.

 

But to what appears to be your larger point, about how the more we look at things, the more we have to acknowledge how unsophisticated our earlier understandings have been about the capabilities of the creatures around us: Yeah. 

 

And to continue with this thought (and I think this is/could be where you're going): we have a mania for classifying things, and that's all well and good, but at some point, you have to ask yourself, why? Why this compulsion to classify and "pigeon-hole"? Could it be because it allows us to judge those beings that we're classifying? This one is lesser; this one is greater. This one is "worse", and this one is "better". Oh, and by the way, we're better than all of them. 

 

The studies of whales, elephants, dolphins, and now the BF show us we're doomed if we're hoping to establish ourselves as superior to all the other beings on the planet. We have some stiff competition out there -- and even in the littlest beings, as you rightly pointed out in our discussions about whether plants have consciousness (which they obviously do). 

 

Time to give up the hunt for clear signs of our superiority. Such signs do not exist. We are all made of the exact same stuff, and we all come from the same place. If we could recognize THAT -- and then behave in a way that was consistent with that understanding -- now, wouldn't THAT be something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

guyzonthropus, I'm not a biologist, so it's not like I stand firm to hold this position against all arguments.  I was just repeating something an anthropologist summed up to demonstrate the ability of man to modulate and speak, and the inability of apes to modulate and speak.  I mean, modulation in electronics is an entirely different matter altogether.

 

About this hybridization stuff.  I'm not a geneticist either, but in my own mind, I was thinking of cross breeding species where the offspring were sterile.  So it's not like there's a migration of one species to the other, as the result of their natural breeding effort produces another hybrid between the human and hybrid, resulting in sterile hybrids.

 

This possibility of some critters being reported as looking more human than ape (like a BF) may be the sterile result of surviving BF/human offspring.  

 

A horse and a donkey can breed - and their offspring - the mule - is sterile.  And no matter how often a horse and donkey breed, they get no closer genetically to each other.  

 

We have narratives over the centuries of kidnappings by these critters - mostly women being taken.  Which begs the question.  Why the disparities in what different folks are seeing?

Edited by FarArcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
BFF Donor

Why the disparities in what different folks are seeing?

 

That's the wrong perspective on the right question.   The other way to ask it, which is enlightening, is why do we have so little disparity?   It's said that the two most diverse humans on earth are more genetically alike than an average selection of two chimps from the same troupe.   The reason for the similarity seems to be the Toba bottleneck event.    Sasquatch, if they, too, avoided such a bottleneck are not so uniquely different, it is that us humans, though we miss it through our anthropomorphic perspective, are uniquely alike.  

 

In other words, it's not so much that they are oddly dissimilar as it is that we are oddly similar, we just look at the contrast as if we were the rule rather than the exception.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

Perhaps because human groups are less isolated over time than chimp groups in deep jungles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

 

Why the disparities in what different folks are seeing?

 

That's the wrong perspective on the right question.   The other way to ask it, which is enlightening, is why do we have so little disparity?   It's said that the two most diverse humans on earth are more genetically alike than an average selection of two chimps from the same troupe.   The reason for the similarity seems to be the Toba bottleneck event.    Sasquatch, if they, too, avoided such a bottleneck are not so uniquely different, it is that us humans, though we miss it through our anthropomorphic perspective, are uniquely alike.  

 

In other words, it's not so much that they are oddly dissimilar as it is that we are oddly similar, we just look at the contrast as if we were the rule rather than the exception.

 

MIB

 

 

My bad, I didn't clarify what I was referring to.

 

I got a close up look at "mine," and his face was very ape-like, and there's no way I could confuse what I saw with being "very human like," or "like a Neanderthal" that some have reported seeing, especially through a rifle scope - and that was the reason they gave for not shooting.

 

One - very ape-like.  The other description - more human in the face.

 

Most descriptions - very ape-like.

 

That to me, is quite a disparity in what's reported between what offhand seems like they're describing two different kinds of faces.  (We'll ignore the other dog/wolf face, sheepsquatch, etc.)

 

A sure-enough human-like face is significantly different looking than an ape-like face.

 

Is it possible that the BF, if it by chance reproduced with a human female - would maybe result in a type of hybrid?   Maybe some of the offspring would take more characteristics of momma,  with a more human face - and this could possibly account for the discrepancies in appearance?

Edited by FarArcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

Branco knows a lot about the different types of BF, but one thing I forgot I knew is that some people say there are at least two broad categories of hairy people: the Sasquatch people and the Ancient Ones.

 

The Sasquatch people are reported to have the classic cone-shaped heads and long arms that reach to their knees (or thereabouts). I believe they also have more ape-like, upturned noses (although I'm not sure that's true of all Sasquatch people). 

 

The Ancient Ones are reported to have heads that are rounded, like ours; facial features that are like ours; and bodies that have proportions more like ours (meaning, for example, that their arms don't extend all the way to their knees). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

Branco knows a lot about the different types of BF, but one thing I forgot I knew is that some people say there are at least two broad categories of hairy people: the Sasquatch people and the Ancient Ones.

 

The Sasquatch people are reported to have the classic cone-shaped heads and long arms that reach to their knees (or thereabouts). I believe they also have more ape-like, upturned noses (although I'm not sure that's true of all Sasquatch people). 

 

The Ancient Ones are reported to have heads that are rounded, like ours; facial features that are like ours; and bodies that have proportions more like ours (meaning, for example, that their arms don't extend all the way to their knees). 

 

Can you expand a bit more on this, or point me in the right direction?

 

That would explain the significant differences in descriptions - some more ape-like, and others more human-like, I think one guy I read said it looked more like the pictures of Neanderthals that he'd seen - whatever that may mean.

 

Glad you pointed those separate designations out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WesT

 

I think one guy I read said it looked more like the pictures of Neanderthals that he'd seen - whatever that may mean.

If it's the same guy I know, I have the answer to what he meant. In his case, it was the closest match that he could find. No cigar, just the closest. His first thought upon seeing it was "what's a gorilla doing out here?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

The possibility of multiple types or species can't be tossed out out of hand....

In that sublime craftiness developed in one species that effectively(sorta)evaded our perceptions implies that it could have developed in other species as well, especially if they are related to the first. They may have figured it out themselves, or had the cognitive capacity to see the other still surviving and then emulated their tactics. Or perhaps they all had a big meeting where they discussed how "not to be seen"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

FarArcher, here are some citations for you. In classic fashion, I can't find the exact citation I found just the other day, which citation I believe was from Kewaunee Lapseritis -- but here are some places you could begin your research. One draws from information gleaned from Lapseritis. (And to head off the predictable, ill-informed criticisms of Lapseritis -- and, for that matter, of everyone with extensive experience with the Sasquatch and Ancient Ones: Please know that anyone offering such criticisms is, in comparison, inexperienced.) Also note that, although these citations seem to imply there are two basic "types" of hairy people, in fact there appear to be at least four. In my haste to find a good, meaty reference for you, I passed over the texts that explicitly said there were four different "types" and can't find them again. Sorry about that!

 

From http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/bigfoot.html:

There are several species who differ in height, and live in different regions of the Earth. Some are are twelve foot tall, others are a little smaller than humans. Basically there are two species. One is the 'gorilla' type. These are built very robust, with thick bones and big muscles. They have a gorilla type face that is covered with hair, like the rest of the body. Their arms are very long, up to their knees. Despite the animal look of their physical body, they are human-like in regards to their consciousness and intelligence. The other kind has a human face, and are said to be very beautiful. Except for their face, they had hair all over their body too. Their arms are proportion the same as humans. This second type of Bigfoot are called The Ancient Ones.

 

From Thom Cantrall's site: http://www.ghostsofrubyridge.com/sasquatch-the-living-legend/

Cantrall, who eventually ran his own logging company, became a student of a variety of Sasquatch that he calls “the Ancient Ones†— a group of Sasquatch that look a little more human-like than the others. Still large, they are not quite as hairy as the average Sasquatch, he explained. He said they taught him about their societies, which he describes as groups of people who have language, rituals and humor but no possessions or houses as we do.

 

Information on the "intermembral index" (also by way of Thom Cantrall): http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2012/05/richland-wa-bigfoot-conference-thom_08.html

 

P.S. To return to the subject of language: Here's an interesting post that sums up a lot of existing info about Sasquatch language abilities: http://www.ghosthuntingtheories.com/2014/03/sasquatch-language.html

Edited by LeafTalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

Leaftalker, thanks.  I'll start digging around with a few new questions.

 

It was a bit confusing, as I've heard more than one say they looked at something through a scope, and the face was too human to shoot.  That completely threw me off, as what I saw could not possibly be confused with a human like face.  Not even in the vicinity!

 

What I saw, under the right rifle at the right time, and the right preparation, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot.

 

But if I saw another one with a more human face - I'd probably click the safety back on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeafTalker

I hear you.  :)

 

I will say, though, that it appears that both types of hairless beings are very much like us in ways that don't include appearance... Both types have language and culture. Both types are considered "people-like" by many (including moi). 

 

So maybe there are more occasions than we realize when it's probably good to click the safety back on..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

But they might be with in their own branch of species that might have broken off within the human species at some time in our world history. But who knows Right !

 

What I saw, under the right rifle at the right time, and the right preparation, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot.

 

The only problem is how quickly they can be set up on you when you pull that trigger, there is no hesitation with them of tearing you apart or anyone else who does one of them harm.

 

This is where I am confused about Patty to why she was where she was at that moment, as they were coming along and the horses rearing. Horses are sensitive and will alarm to threats, Yet this creature walked off calmly. Any other animal would have bolted outa of there. Some thing is not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

Shadow, I have a very firm number of variables that must be met before I'd pull the trigger - and they will NOT be compromised - not one.  I've been in scores and scores of shoot/not shoot situations, and excitement is one variable that never enters the equation.  Actions based on an inability to control one's emotions can be fatal.  And have.

 

I think we assume - at least science does - that all species that count - have already been found.  Maybe.  Maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
BFF Donor

 excitement is one variable that never enters the equation.

Yet, it is this one thing that takes over all of us and makes us forget our surroundings until we can ground our selves to the situation. The one thing I have learned from them is the matter on how they are able to draw your attention away from the real objective. They are very good at this and use this effectively. 

 

That day in my ground blind I felt like I was being hunted, or they were effectively letting me know that they were in control of the area I was in. I felt threaten so I needed to leave, So I am dumb founded by patty's reaction to Roger running up to her with the camera. If she was like any other animal of the forest then she would have bolted, but she did not. Her placement of her feet and how she just walked out of there is some thing that I do not understand. Did she even know she had a rifle pointed at her? Did she know that Roger had a camera and that she was being filmed? Just things do not make sense. Not with what I have encountered and I am not sure with what you have encountered or anyone else has encountered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...