New species?

[Rokcet Scientist]

Oh and BTW, Frank, I have a very hard time imagining a relationship between a 4/5 foot Orang Pendek in Sumatra and an 8 foot Bigfoot/Sasquatch in eastern Texas...

[Minimalist]

I don't know if you can put too much stock into mere variations of height.

[Frank Harrist]

Oh and BTW, Frank, I have a very hard time imagining a relationship between a 4/5 foot Orang Pendek in Sumatra and an 8 foot Bigfoot/Sasquatch in eastern Texas...

I don't think they're related.

[Rokcet Scientist]

I don't know if you can put too much stock into mere variations of height.

Agreed.
The sample could be manipulated, engineered, for instance. Right?

But WOW!
Hey! Min, where can you get that size ties?
I need a new tent for the grandkids.

[Minimalist]

NBA.com?

Tie Dept?

[jw1815]

Frank,

I suppose it's possible that the American Sasquatch and Asian Yeti stories refer to an unknown species, but I'm skeptical. "Wild man" stories are common in many cultures, e.g. European stories of various large and small creatures living in forests, under bridges, in mountains, rivers and lakes, etc.

From another perspective, though, I wonder if a comparison of similarities and differences in the Sasquatch and Yeti stories would suggest a much older, common origin in folklore and beliefs, carried into North America several millennia ago and modified by generations of separation since then.

[War Arrow]

Frank,

I suppose it's possible that the American Sasquatch and Asian Yeti stories refer to an unknown species, but I'm skeptical. "Wild man" stories are common in many cultures, e.g. European stories of various large and small creatures living in forests, under bridges, in mountains, rivers and lakes, etc.

From another perspective, though, I wonder if a comparison of similarities and differences in the Sasquatch and Yeti stories would suggest a much older, common origin in folklore and beliefs, carried into North America several millennia ago and modified by generations of separation since then.

Comparable folk tales seem absent from much of the globe, and contemporary claims for sightings of large apelike beasts seem even moreso restricted to the previously mentioned locales. Looking for verification of some theory by "evidence" of coincidences or superficial similarity (generally speaking but I think it might apply here) seems like shaky ground to me.

Just saying.

[Forum Monk]

Often, alternative theorists tend to be skeptical if not downright antagonistic toward scientific opinion and explanations. How often do you hear them say they do not trust scientists or they feel mainstream science has an agenda. Fine. Perhaps in some cases there is a certain close-minded arrogance in scientific circles. Nevertheless, these same theorists exhibit another kind of close-mindedness when they claim there is only one possible answer to an uncommon event. For example, the cabin deep in the woods far from human habitation being pelted with what sounded like rocks. Of all the creatures in the woods, only big foot could throw rocks, therefore, big foot is throwing rocks at the cabin. A whole series of assumptions, generalizations and faulty logic leading to an unlikely explanation.

[jw1815]

Comparable folk tales seem absent from much of the globe, and contemporary claims for sightings of large apelike beasts seem even moreso restricted to the previously mentioned locales. Looking for verification of some theory by "evidence" of coincidences or superficial similarity (generally speaking but I think it might apply here) seems like shaky ground to me.

Agree that folk tales about a large apelike beast seem restricted to the previously mentioned locales (Asian Yeti and North American Sasquatch). That's why I suggested a possible folklore connection between them that wouldn't exist elsewhere, since we know that there have been migrations from Asia into North America. Without physical evidence of actual apelike creatures, I consider the folk tales to be just that - folk tales. Different specifics than found in wild man folklore in other regions of the world, but similar human characteristic of folk tales about "the other" - a "mysterious" creature that's humanlike but not quite human.

I don't believe, for example, in the actual existence of the Algonquian Windigo, the Irish leprechaun, the Norse trolls, the human-like Greco-Roman gods on Olympus, or that Romulus and Remus were actual "wild men" raised by wolves.

I totally dismiss modern day accounts of Bigfoot sightings from non-Native people, sometimes as far away from the Pacific northwest coast of North America (where Sasquatch stories derive from) as Pennsylvania and Arkansas. To me, they're products of over-active imaginations, without even the quality of a cultural folklore setting. Folklore expresses meanings and perspectives of the culture that produces it. Sometimes the folklore has a basis in real experience that’s been placed into a legendary or sacred context. Often it doesn’t. Generally, the meanings of legends, folklore, and sacred myths are psychological, not literal.

But, that's my opinion. Others are free to disagree.

I don’t totally dismiss the possibility of a large, human-like ape or a large bear being the real source of the Asian and North American folklore. But, without solid physical evidence, I don’t accept it, either.

[Minimalist]

I don’t totally dismiss the possibility of a large, human-like ape

I can't totally dismiss the possibility of Bertram Russel's orbiting teapot, either, but I'm not going to waste my time looking for it. But, if Frank comes up with a bone which is not from a recognized species then I would have to consider the possibilities.

What annoys me is when people tell others not to waste their time looking for something. I think Frank should spend as much time as he likes in the woods....once he gets out of the hospital, or the bar.

[jw1815]

But, if Frank comes up with a bone which is not from a recognized species then I would have to consider the possibilities.

So would I. And therefore, I wouldn't dream of telling Frank or anyone else not to waste their time looking if that's what they want to do.

When I said that I totally dismiss modern day anecdotal accounts of sightings or experiences of Bigfoot, it's because the ones I've read and heard about sound a lot like campfire scare stories, only about Bigfoot instead of ghosts.

[Minimalist]

Yeah. Some day, if you get the opportunity, watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi Channel. You'll see exactly that sort of "scare-ourselves-silly" nonsense.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Yeah. Some day, if you get the opportunity, watch Ghost Hunters on Sci-Fi Channel. You'll see exactly that sort of "scare-ourselves-silly" nonsense.

Forget it! Not as long as there still is porn!

[Minimalist]

Take a break once in a while....you'll get calluses.

[Take3]

Tangent time!!!

I often wonder about the reports that Native American oral history concerning the arrival of horses with the Spanish, often states that while horses were new to the Indians, "the grass remembered them". I can't find any solid reference right now (google hard enough and you'll find it but not neccessarily on an "academic" website). But I'm sure it was referenced in Dee Brown's "The American West". Interestingly the Indian stories were collected before the discovery that Eqquids had evolved in the new world.

Perhaps the NA experience with horses, the various incarnations of bigfoot, and "the flood", all represent some sort of genetic memory.

I remember a study where they got a nest of pigeon squabs and hung various sillhouettes over them, sillouhette of a flying pigeon as viewed from below elicited a feeding call whilst a hawk sillouhette caused them to adopt a defensive pose (can't remember if it manifested as a different call or they just went silent).

Anyway the point is, if a lab bred domestic pigeon can recognise its wild ancestor's mortal enemy even if it has never seen one, even just hours after its eyes opened, is it so far fetched, that faced with a vauge facsimile of a genetic archetypal boogeyman who is recorded in our genetic code, that bison/bear/barn becomes bigfoot.

Following from that, hawks do eat pigeons, so if the above hypothesis is believed, does it suggest that humans were preyed on by or were subject to the extreme largesse of another member of our own genus?