Jump to content
Madison5716

Who To Learn From

Recommended Posts

norseman
16 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Here's a thought my beloved wife and I discussed this morning:

 

Had sasquatches tamed and used fire, they likely would have been exterminated long ago like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and perhaps others, because they would have been easier to find. By being even more primitive than Stone Age man, they have been able to hide better.

 

The perplexing thing is that every species of the genus Homo utilized fire and made stone tools.

 

Is it a situation of having something and losing it? Or never having it in the first place?

 

Anthropology doesn’t do well with the concept of going backwards I think. Conventional wisdom would say Sasquatch never had it. The problem is that it’s pretty hard to conceive a Australopithecene waddling it’s way on primitive feet from Africa to North America.

 

If these thing co existed with Homo Sapiens or Neanderthals or Denisovans? It’s filling a different niche in the environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
5 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

The perplexing thing is that every species of the genus Homo utilized fire and made stone tools.

 

Is it a situation of having something and losing it? Or never having it in the first place?

 

Anthropology doesn’t do well with the concept of going backwards I think. Conventional wisdom would say Sasquatch never had it. The problem is that it’s pretty hard to conceive a Australopithecene waddling it’s way on primitive feet from Africa to North America.

 

If these thing co existed with Homo Sapiens or Neanderthals or Denisovans? It’s filling a different niche in the environment. 

 

Good questions and points and you're correct that evolutionists don't like reversals in behavior. Don't care for them much m'self actually. Whether or not Bigfoot filled a niche would depend on how long they've been around. Or a niche got filled when they entered it from somewhere else. Food for thought on that one.. Because of their size and agility they could have forced entering a niche that was previously occupied by something else that was smaller and weaker- or became prey because of a new BF presence. Like smaller statured bear population in North America. I wouldn't think BF would want to contend with polar or Brown Bears so the trek East and then South along the North American West Coast  may have been quite narrow until the PacNW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, norseman said:

.........Is it a situation of having something and losing it? Or never having it in the first place?

 

Anthropology doesn’t do well with the concept of going backwards I think. Conventional wisdom would say Sasquatch never had it........

 

Agreed. I believe they never needed it, and just never went there.

 

........The problem is that it’s pretty hard to conceive a Australopithecene waddling it’s way on primitive feet from Africa to North America.........

 

How so? All kinds of creatures did so in both directions.

 

........If these thing co existed with Homo Sapiens or Neanderthals or Denisovans? It’s filling a different niche in the environment.

 

Yup, and it continues to this day, but the other Homo species (the ones that used fire and manufactured tools) were elipsed by Homo sapiens. These creatures, living like apes (but in even smaller family units), have survived.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Huntster said:

Had sasquatches tamed and used fire, they likely would have been exterminated long ago like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and perhaps others, because they would have been easier to find. By being even more primitive than Stone Age man, they have been able to hide better.

 

A good theory and here is more to that. By mastering fire and habitually cooking their meat, Homo species developed microbes that were able to properly digest and adapt their immune system. Species that eat raw meat get different microbial reactions to adapt their immune system. BF eats anything but is not known to cook its food. That means its physiology is unique for a humanoid mammal. This could be a clue to other areas of their appearance and behavior. Also their fierce stink.

Edited by Arvedis
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
57 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

 

How so? All kinds of creatures did so in both directions.

 

We do not see Australopithecenes outside of Africa. It seems Homo Erectus was the first bipedal primate outside of Africa. Modern feet with a penchant to explore it seems.

 

The other possibility is that somehow Asian Apes gave rise to a bipedal cousin with no direct ties to Africa. (20 mya)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
Posted (edited)

The translation of "Eskimo" is 'eater of raw meat'. They had fire in the way of burning bones and whale oil but still loved to gobble down raw marine mammal parts. YUM.

Sasquatch signature essence is not emitted all of the time.

Edited by Catmandoo
more text

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
43 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

The translation of "Eskimo" is 'eater of raw meat'. They had fire in the way of burning bones and whale oil but still loved to gobble down raw marine mammal parts. YUM.

Sasquatch signature essence is not emitted all of the time.

 

As a kid, I used to steal mom’s fondue steak cubes..... chewy but beefy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis
47 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

The translation of "Eskimo" is 'eater of raw meat'. They had fire in the way of burning bones and whale oil but still loved to gobble down raw marine mammal parts. YUM.

Sasquatch signature essence is not emitted all of the time.

 

The Eskimo translation has been called out as incorrect for a while now. One source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Eskimo#Etymology

 

The fact that they can control their putrid essence is an even better clue of the microbial theory (and that is all it is on my part, musing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

Let me say how much I like Bob Gymlan. We know so little.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB
10 hours ago, norseman said:

If these thing co existed with Homo Sapiens or Neanderthals or Denisovans? It’s filling a different niche in the environment. 

 

That would be my best guess as well.   Darwin's finches.   

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

Over the last several months, I have learned parts and parcels from different individuals, but never even close to a complete picture of BF from anyone. I'm not much of a field investigator, more on the research side. Ever since I started working on people's books I have been exposed to tons of details and perspectives I never knew existed, some from some notables in the BF community. I have difficulty believing most of it because it seems so off from my own research. There are people who I really wanted to learn from but it turns out their knowledge is not on the same page as me and that bums me out. But these aren't my books. I am just editing and organizing the content so they can have a polished, professional looking publication and be able to reach the various BF audiences.

 

On 7/3/2019 at 8:45 PM, Madison5716 said:

I'm supposed to be meeting up with Autumn Williams for coffee, she's local, but our schedules haven't worked out.

 

It is good to know she is still around and would be cool to know what she is up to with Oregon Bigfooting. Like everyone else, I would be interested to get to the bottom of the Mike/Swamp Bandit mystery. Whatever happened to the book he was supposedly writing?  Probably the same thing that happens to most people. It languishes unfinished for years (like since 2011 at least in that case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...