@devon
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
fingers crossed that you’re on the mend, Wes. keep it simple – drink fluids, get rest, stay warm.
There are thousands of people out here who care very much about you. You’re like a favorite uncle who comes over to tell amazing things to us a couple of times a week!
Get well, soon. xo.
Chris, you are likely right. Zara was 100% sub-Saharan African, according to the book by Dr Sykes. If you Google an image of a sub-Saharan African person, they have striking characteristics that might be considered very exotic to another culture that sees only short white people. People in very cold climates evolved to be shorter for body heat conservation. A tall very black person would stand out. In addition, in the nineteenth century, Africans were thought of as savages, and monkey-people. Also, slavery was slowly being outlawed around the globe. It would not be illegal, however, to keep an “animal” as a slave. Her story is likely to have been embellished for whatever reasons were beneficial to the storytellers.
Thank you, Gumshoguy. You are a true gentleman. Best to you. 🙂
Now, off to work for my rent money. Enjoy your day!
According the Dr Syke’s book, Zara was 100% sub-Saharan African. Nothing else mixed in. This means that she was… wait for it… very, very…dark…black. (No mixing of white what-so-ever). Slavery was also common around the world, not just here in the US. Even though it was being outlawed slowly, it still occurred.
One hundred and fifty years ago, people in white cultures thought of black people as savages, animals, and sub-human. The term monkey-man and ape-man were not uncommon. Even today, we still hear it, sad to say.
So, I don’t think that Zara can be held out as an example of anything. She was a slave whose story was never completely known and was embellished. She was a “savage monkey-man”…only in nineteenth century terms. Her story took on exaggeration.
Those are a lot of different animals that have been described in the last six or seven comments…. none of them sound anything close to human, so my comfort level in considering them non-human is growing as more people share what they know.
Added to the last comment – I do see the winky-smiley on the end of the cmment, so if I have misunderstood what you were saying, then it is my bad and I apologize for that.
Gumshoguy M – Please don’t put words in my mouth, as I have enough respect for the encounters that people have truly had. I do not think that *everything* is a hoax. It is not fair to characterize my comment as such. I hope you reconsider your comment of 9:10am. I would appreciate it if you would.
Thanks,Actually, I did acknowledge Mac M.
As for the claim that stone tools have been found, I doubt it. It Sasquatch fashioned stone tools as part of its knowledge base passed to the next generation as a learned skill, we would be finding the stone tools as often as we find footprints, broken trees and even nests. Yes, even the occasional nest is more prevalent than the virtually non-existent stone tools. Not every Sasquatch sighting is a real sighting, not every blurred photo is what it is purported to be, and even some footprints are hoaxes. Heck, a lot of non-blurred photos are hoaxes for that matter. If this animal fashioned tools as a learned skill from its parents or elders, we would be finding them as often as we find arrowheads. Sorru, it still doesn’t hold water.
I wish Dr Ketchum would talk more about her work in detail. While I truly do admire her courage at even trying to get to the bottom of the mystery, she hasn’t been able to defend the work when challenged. I don’t know if she can’t or if she won’t, but the fact is that she hasn’t. It’s a shame because her work had the potential to lift the discussion to a new level. Even Wes has said that this is a real problem with incorporating her findings in any discussion. So really, her work hasn’t expanded what we know. It might be enough for “true believers” but even the believers are divided into different camps as to what this creature is all about. I’m not a “true believer”. I believe they are out there, but do not buy into every single claim put into the cyber-world. Some claims stretch the bounds of credulity.
Even though Australopithicines are in the hominin clade, they do not qualify as Homo /human. Their DNA would be close, but not a match. Just like chimps are very close, but are not human either. Would you call a chimp human? You could call them hominin and that would be technically correct, but not human. That’s not a line that most people would cross with you. (You know, there is one chimp that has been taught to light a fire and cook food, but he can’t start a fire from scratch and he hasn’t taught his skill to others. And that matters if you are to call it a learned skill with tools.)
I don’t know what they are, and neither does anyone else, regardless of the time invested in trying to find out. I would however, laugh my head off to someday find out that even though they can’t build and control a fire or make a stone tool, they were flying UFO’s all over the galaxy.
(That was a joke, by the way.)Mac M – didn’t mean to leave you out. Yes! As we make more discoveries about our ancestry and possible relatives, we have the right/responsibility to question everything! Keep asking, and keep seeking. Keep weighing the evidence! 🙂
And thanks to you too, Nathan. Your thought that an incredibly intelligent non-human could exist is worth exploring. Clearly, everyone on this board is captivated by what we have heard of these creatures, and yet there are no definitive answers. We await the story of the next encounter, to get more clues. To try to figure this out.
The clues that come with each encounter are providing more and more pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, that is for sure.
Thanks Frankie – makes sense t me!
Tracy G – Thank you for your notes, too. Although the mods deleted them from this forum, copies came through my email and what you had to say is true, as many other examples in the forum section back up what you said. I really appreciated your encouragement.
Regardless of the other position taken above, it looks like part of the topic got ignored. So I’ll continue to ask: What makes us human? What makes us so different? Animals experience emotions, have some semblance of intelligence. But still….. there is a spark of something unique about us. That accounts for something and Sasquatch just isn’t supplying evidence that it qualifies.
A commenter tossed out that someone – ONE GUY- in Texas discovered stone tools. That presentation doesn’t hold much water. If Sasquatch really made stone tools, we would be finding them up and down Cascadia from the Yukon to California, old and new. They would be just as much a part of the lexicon as all of the plaster foot-casts. We find scads of footprints. Stone tools, not so much. Nada. One guy in Texas vs a whole Western US and Canada without stone tools doesn’t refute anything.
Unarguably, early man controlled fire in the middle Paleolithic. Some say in the lower Paleolithic, but get pushback on it. Since Sasquatch doesn’t have pyro skills (and in some encounters has shown fear of fire) It’s fair to say its ancestry split from ours before fire was part of our skill set in the lower Paleolithic or maybe even before that. Add to that the lack of stone tool making (Homo habilis was first there) and it that makes a strong case that Sasquatch is more Australopithicine than Homo. Maybe not even that. Maybe something along side, but not parallel, and not the same.
That would make more sense as its behaviors in other ways (the curling of the upper lip as a sign of aggression, a couple of videos taken with Sasquatch in a forest background swinging in trees) are not human. Humans don’t do those. Not by a long shot.
So …. way upthread, Chris’s short statement was the closest to truth than any other comment here. “We just don’t know”.
But I’m voting non-human until that dead ape is on a steel slab somewhere and proves otherwise.
“The arguments that sasquatches are not a species of Homo are weak to ridiculous.”
Thanks for making me, a new person, feel welcome and part of the community. I’ll be sure to participate in other discussions when there are differing ideas to discuss. Not.
