1924 Ape Canyon Bibliography

[BlackRockBigfoot]

5 hours ago, hiflier said:

I didn't plagiarize, BRB. Honest. I didn't see your post so didn't know. What IS good to know is that someone like yourself really thinks about this stuff. At least you know there are like minds here.

Sorry.  I didn't mean to insinuate that you had stolen an idea from me.  I just agree with your line of thinking.  

 

The theory has been floated before and makes sense.  If this is true, I wonder if a few were killed before they learned about the lethality of firearms, or if they observed them in action whilst hidden and decided that they didn't want to go against the boom sticks.  

 

I never put much stock in the Bigfoot/Indian war story with Joshua LeFlore, but maybe there is a kernel of truth to it.

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

If any of that could be true, it implies a language, or means to pass down experiences from one generation to another.

[NatFoot]

10 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

If any of that could be true, it implies a language, or means to pass down experiences from one generation to another.

 

Yep.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

3 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

If any of that could be true, it implies a language, or means to pass down experiences from one generation to another.

Yup.

 

If true, the question then stands as to why that ability to communicate and pass learning and experiences down does not result in the adoption of greater use of tools....or even use of fire.

 

Unless you have an intelligent race that has the ability to develop tools, but chooses not to in order to stay hidden from the dominant species on Earth.  It seems if that was the case, then there would be at least a few outliers who went against the grain and attempted overt contact with us.  Unless there is some form of racial memory/fear that is so deeply engrained in their species that it precludes that attempt.  

 

However, if these things are as fast and as powerful as some make them out to be, coupled with intelligence (and opposable thumbs)....then why was man not predated off the face of the planet?  

 

Again, every question just leads more questions.

Edited December 3, 2019 by BlackRockBigfoot

[NatFoot]

23 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Yup.

 

If, true the question then stands as to why that ability to communicate and pass learning and experiences down does not result in the adoption of greater use of tools....or even use of fire.

 

Unless you have an intelligent race that has the ability to develop tools, but chooses not to in order to stay hidden from the dominant species on Earth.  It seems if that was the case, then there would be at least a few outliers who went against the grain and attempted overt contact with us.  Unless there is some form of racial memory/fear that is so deeply engrained in their species that it precludes that attempt.  

 

However, if these things are as fast and as powerful as some make them out to be, coupled with intelligence (and opposable thumbs)....then why was man not predated off the face of the planet?  

 

Again, every question just leads more questions.

 

Very well said. Made me more skeptical reading it.

 

Like ....how is this even all possible?

[ioyza]

21 hours ago, norseman said:

 

What part of the story could not have been perpetrated by flesh and blood ape men? That’s my point. What Fred Beck thought they were or where they came from? Is neither here nor there. Lots of people and cultures ascribe supernatural titles to things they do not understand. It’s normal but incorrect.

 

No you're right, the attack itself is entirely "mundane" and that was my reading of it for a long time; chapter 3 is just his coloring the events with "kooky miner spirituality."

 

This is the only bit pertaining to sasquatch that's a bit of a head-scratcher:

 

Quote

Another very striking experience which shows that they cannot be natural beings with natural bodies: It was before we made our cabin, and we were staying in a tent then. The tent was below a little cone shaped mountain called Pumy Butte. A little creek flowed nearby, and there was a moist-sand bar about an acre in area. We would go there and wash our cooking utensils and bring our drinking water back. Early one morning Hank came back to the tent. He was rather excited. He led us to the moist-sand bar, and took us almost to the center. There in the center of the sand bar were two huge tracks about four inches deep. There was not another track on that sand bar!

 

There we were standing in the middle of the sand bar, and not one of us could conceive any earthly thing taking steps 160 feet long. "No human being could have made these tracks," Hank said, "and there's only one way they could be made, something dropped from the sky and went back up."

 

Maybe there was a full trackway and water washed all but the middle tracks away, who knows. BUT if you're going to treat him as a reliable witness with regards to the attack, then the whole "Indian spirit guide showed us to our mining claim with a glowing golden arrow" part is problematic.

 

It's an interesting case for a lot of reasons, worth going over it regardless of your interpretation, imo.

[norseman]

41 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

No you're right, the attack itself is entirely "mundane" and that was my reading of it for a long time; chapter 3 is just his coloring the events with "kooky miner spirituality."

 

This is the only bit pertaining to sasquatch that's a bit of a head-scratcher:

 

 

Maybe there was a full trackway and water washed all but the middle tracks away, who knows. BUT if you're going to treat him as a reliable witness with regards to the attack, then the whole "Indian spirit guide showed us to our mining claim with a glowing golden arrow" part is problematic.

 

It's an interesting case for a lot of reasons, worth going over it regardless of your interpretation, imo.

 

This isn’t unlike Roger Patterson or Paul Freeman or many others. Colorful characters seem intertwined with this subject.

[ioyza]

2 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Yup.

 

If, true the question then stands as to why that ability to communicate and pass learning and experiences down does not result in the adoption of greater use of tools....or even use of fire.

 

Unless you have an intelligent race that has the ability to develop tools, but chooses not to in order to stay hidden from the dominant species on Earth.  It seems if that was the case, then there would be at least a few outliers who went against the grain and attempted overt contact with us.  Unless there is some form of racial memory/fear that is so deeply engrained in their species that it precludes that attempt.  

 

However, if these things are as fast and as powerful as some make them out to be, coupled with intelligence (and opposable thumbs)....then why was man not predated off the face of the planet?  

 

Again, every question just leads more questions.

 

It begs the question, if we can develop and afford wheelchairs, what are we all doing walking around everywhere?

 

I think wanting to be conspicuous is probably part of it, but the main reason to me would seem to be lack of need. I've found a couple of simple structures I believe to be traps, one for fish, one for deer - take the deer trap for example: basically a cattle guard made of branches placed strategically just around a blind corner on a narrow deer trail through overgrown brush. One sasquatch can spook a deer down the trail, another wait in the brush for it to trip on the trap. That's tool use, of a sort. Why waste time whittling rocks into spear and arrowheads when you can catch and break ungulate necks with your bare hands?

 

The notion of technology as the inevitable product of culture; the eradication of other races of hominids as the inevitable product of technology... these are anthropocentric assumptions, and I don't think it's hard to resolve the apparent paradoxes of sasquatch having language and culture if you merely allow the possibility of other perspectives.

 

That being said, I think there's some merit to the idea of them "learning the hard way" about our technology. I even wonder if Patty taught them what a camera is.

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

This isn’t unlike Roger Patterson or Paul Freeman or many others. Colorful characters seem intertwined with this subject.

 

True, colorful characters come with the territory, or does the territory come to colorful characters? It's all well and good to say a weird subject attracts weird people, but what about the witnesses who didn't ask for it? How can we explain a spirit guide and golden arrow leading miners to gold, short of schizophrenia? How can we trust their account of ape men attacking their cabin, but treat the other claims as just "colorful"?

Edited December 3, 2019 by ioyza

[BlackRockBigfoot]

I wouldn't say that the eradication of other races of hominids has occurred as the inevitable product of technology, but the inevitable result of two competitive species competing for resources and space.  Why would our relationship with Sasquatch be any different than that between any other groups of hominids thus far?  

 

i agree with you that anthropomorphizing these creatures is not the right thing to do.  However, using your analogy, we built wheelchairs out of a desire if not need to help other members of our society.  Sasquatch is advanced enough to develop language and culture, as well as having species wide communication and social structure in order to make a group decision to avoid humans at all costs.  They are do not develop tools because of their superior physical abilities.  None of them have ever tried to build a tool to help overcome a physical impairment or injury for themselves or others?  Is there a mammalian hive mind thing going on that allows them to make (and to a certain degree enforce) decisions for the entire species?  

 

 

 

 

 

i am just spit balling here.  Trying to work my way through these questions, because so much of this topic makes no sense.  It is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[norseman]

58 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

It begs the question, if we can develop and afford wheelchairs, what are we all doing walking around everywhere?

 

I think wanting to be conspicuous is probably part of it, but the main reason to me would seem to be lack of need. I've found a couple of simple structures I believe to be traps, one for fish, one for deer - take the deer trap for example: basically a cattle guard made of branches placed strategically just around a blind corner on a narrow deer trail through overgrown brush. One sasquatch can spook a deer down the trail, another wait in the brush for it to trip on the trap. That's tool use, of a sort. Why waste time whittling rocks into spear and arrowheads when you can catch and break ungulate necks with your bare hands?

 

The notion of technology as the inevitable product of culture; the eradication of other races of hominids as the inevitable product of technology... these are anthropocentric assumptions, and I don't think it's hard to resolve the apparent paradoxes of sasquatch having language and culture if you merely allow the possibility of other perspectives.

 

That being said, I think there's some merit to the idea of them "learning the hard way" about our technology. I even wonder if Patty taught them what a camera is.

 

 

True, colorful characters come with the territory, or does the territory come to colorful characters? It's all well and good to say a weird subject attracts weird people, but what about the witnesses who didn't ask for it? How can we explain a spirit guide and golden arrow leading miners to gold, short of schizophrenia? How can we trust their account of ape men attacking their cabin, but treat the other claims as just "colorful"?

 

Well.... Each person has to make up his own mind. I’m the occam razor guy. I’m going to look for logically answers and if I do not know then I’m not afraid to say that either. I wasn’t there. Was there an Indian running around the woods with a golden arrow? I don’t know. I sure haven’t seen him.

[norseman]

25 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

I wouldn't say that the eradication of other races of hominids has occurred as the inevitable product of technology, but the inevitable result of two competitive species competing for resources and space.  Why would our relationship with Sasquatch be any different than that between any other groups of hominids thus far?  

 

i agree with you that anthropomorphizing these creatures is not the right thing to do.  However, using your analogy, we built wheelchairs out of a desire if not need to help other members of our society.  Sasquatch is advanced enough to develop language and culture, as well as having species wide communication and social structure in order to make a group decision to avoid humans at all costs.  They are do not develop tools because of their superior physical abilities.  None of them have ever tried to build a tool to help overcome a physical impairment or injury for themselves or others?  Is there a mammalian hive mind thing going on that allows them to make (and to a certain degree enforce) decisions for the entire species?  

 

 

 

 

 

i am just spit balling here.  Trying to work my way through these questions, because so much of this topic makes no sense.  It is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

A couple of thoughts.

 

Intelligence and stealth are not mutually inclusive. Cougar are very stealthy, but they are not intelligent per say. Meaning they are never inventing the longer lasting lightbulb. Apes are generally smart. But something with a Chimp level of intelligence could still be stealthy..... but again not inventing anything.

 

Or they are crazy smart. Like almost as smart as we are. But chose to hid it well. Maybe they do use tools and fire. Maybe they wear rudimentary clothing. Maybe they are long lost tall Erectus, Neanderthals or Denisovans hiding in some of the last virgin places on Earth? 

 

We know tons of stuff based on studying the fossil record. The hand axe is over 2 million years old. If this thing is even remotely related to us? It has the capability of tool manufacture, speech, religion, planning, etc. all human traits.

 

Or it’s something else. A bipedal ape but not human..... that “eats” it’s way through it’s environment as Meldrum says. Not social but dispersed across the landscape like a Wolverine or a Grizzly Bear. Only coming together to mate at certain times?

 

I definitely think something can hid out there. But not in any numbers. And not in areas that people will take notice. I do not think people realize the caloric intake of just one 800 lbs animal let alone a troupe. They follow Mountain Gorillas around by the swath of defoliation left behind them and scat. Bigfoot must have a low footprint on the land and what is left behind is easily confused by Bears, etc.

 

 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

Some cultural anthropologists believe that the origin of many beings of folklore (fairies, elves, etc) rest with the remnant populations of conquered and displaced populations.

 

"The concept may have developed from: (1) folk memories of earlier peoples conquered by the present inhabitants, hidden or lurking remnants, of previous populations lingering in caves or mountain recesses. Defeated or replaced peoples who prey on the occupiers in night-time raids"

 

i keep going back to the same thing that you mention here.  Maybe they are long lost tall Erectus, Neanderthals or Denisovans hiding in some of the last virgin places on Earth? 

 

Perhaps that's what we are dealing with? We are discovering that it seems to be pretty rare for only one species of homo to be walking the earth at any time.  Maybe we are catching glimpses of the last of a dying breed.  Or maybe at the end of the day we are dealing with something so unique and different that it might as well be termed 'alien'.  The terrestrial version of an octopus.

[ioyza]

53 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

I wouldn't say that the eradication of other races of hominids has occurred as the inevitable product of technology, but the inevitable result of two competitive species competing for resources and space.  Why would our relationship with Sasquatch be any different than that between any other groups of hominids thus far? 

 

That's a perfect way to frame it, because to my mind the difference between the big picture of ancient hominids and modern hominids is that today we have exactly two groups living in diametrically opposed ecological niches and lifestyles. You can view that as conscious, unconscious, or a culmination of responses to pressures one way or the other; in reality it's probably a combination of all of these factors, but it makes a lot of sense that it would shake out that way, and really it's the only situation that would find us with a "them" still out there 'undiscovered' to us.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

15 minutes ago, ioyza said:

 

That's a perfect way to frame it, because to my mind the difference between the big picture of ancient hominids and modern hominids is that today we have exactly two groups living in diametrically opposed ecological niches and lifestyles. You can view that as conscious, unconscious, or a culmination of responses to pressures one way or the other; in reality it's probably a combination of all of these factors, but it makes a lot of sense that it would shake out that way, and really it's the only situation that would find us with a "them" still out there 'undiscovered' to us.

Very valid point.

[norseman]

16 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Some cultural anthropologists believe that the origin of many beings of folklore (fairies, elves, etc) rest with the remnant populations of conquered and displaced populations.

 

"The concept may have developed from: (1) folk memories of earlier peoples conquered by the present inhabitants, hidden or lurking remnants, of previous populations lingering in caves or mountain recesses. Defeated or replaced peoples who prey on the occupiers in night-time raids"

 

i keep going back to the same thing that you mention here.  Maybe they are long lost tall Erectus, Neanderthals or Denisovans hiding in some of the last virgin places on Earth? 

 

Perhaps that's what we are dealing with? We are discovering that it seems to be pretty rare for only one species of homo to be walking the earth at any time.  Maybe we are catching glimpses of the last of a dying breed.  Or maybe at the end of the day we are dealing with something so unique and different that it might as well be termed 'alien'.  The terrestrial version of an octopus.

 

I think regardless if anything is left out there or not? There was something out there as the fossil record reveals and it must have been terrifying. And it remains with the human psyche even today. We also know cannibalism existed with archaic humans....