@gummybears
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes: no narrow shoulders and small gut. Lloyd Pye addresses this in his video. Yet focuses on bone density.
No known primate; ape or monkey, shares this trait (among a few others) with modern humans.
Addressing the ‘gut dilemma’ question I posed earlier on this thread.
I watched Lloyd Pye. I have just left an anthropology course.
There is a new problem when the question of ‘define human’ question comes up.
Thi goes back to Lucy ‘Australopithecus’.
Lucy was more ape-ish than modern human. What my prof taught me in the world of anthropology, was that we got big brains because our gut got smaller.
Look at our closest, known great apes. They have narrow shoulders and a larger gut than a modern human. This is one differentiation in biology that anthropology has made a claim on. A claim that separated us from all other primates.
I am being taught that humans have the brain they have as a result of our gut getting smaller. I am taught that we traded our gut to allow our brain to get larger. In essence, we have up the need to digest complex foods to allow our brain to access that same energy. Our brain uses 90% of our glucose.
It takes lots of energy to digest raw foods. Humans began to cook food at the same time that we lost our gut and got larger cranium capacity. This is even referenced with Neanderthal.
So, the gut dilemma for me enters when folks describe Sasquatch. They are build like a human body builder.
Thy are described with big muscles like a body builder, and not an orangutan. No big gut is described by eyewitnesses.
The only primate/great ape known on planet earth by science is a modern human (if you don’t take Sasquatch teatimony into account).
This is the gut dilemma.
I don’t think that Sasquatch cook their food. Which is something that humans do.
How does another primate keep the musculature of a modern human and still maintain a small gut?This has to with origins. This is something we share with Sasquatch that is not shared with any other known primate.
I love that theory! :).
I was taught to hunt at an early age too.
But I visit the grocery store.
Every day.
Your elders teach you to provide. They teach ou to kill when jillion is necessary.
When is it necessary? When your social group deems it is necessary. Either for for food or because the animal threatens the group. Correct? Or is there more?
Let me know.I am not Choctaw. I am plains cree and Sioux Indian by blood.
this topic goes far beyond anything elders taught me.
Thy know it is real. But not everyone buys into that. Actually, wasn’t the Choctaw Indians history made revalant by way of stories? A verbal history?
And then DNA was provided?
Both sources of evidence validated the history of the Choctaw?
Both of these are in place for sas cris.
How come it’s not been validated?
I’m not a gun nut. All I know is that I thought it was strange that my hunter friend won’t go into the woods without his 460 whetherby.
BYW here was a show where one guy told a story about taking down a Sasquatch with one of those.
I think it’s wrong to shoot it. Yet it seems it’s the only way to stop the ridicule of those who tell stories that have seen it.
People on Africa told many stories of an anal on the forest that killed people. Most never saw it. It wasn’t until a body was produced that people believed those old stories told by Africans.
Now we are in the exact same predicament.
What is your peacful solution that will vindicate eyewitnesses and make believers of the masses?
@criss422.
It seems for some specie that a blurry pic is ok to identify. Just look at all the new aquatic species found during submersible explorations.
Other species only need a little DNA, and it’s good enough.
Sasquatch has had both. It also has numerous eyewitness testimony. This is called qualifiable data. This has been used to build entire histories of a people.
All of these sets of data are in place of Sasquatch, yet no scientist or forum of publi option that supports science will use the data.
All we are left with is to produce a body. The best body to produce that will shock most folks is one that has breasts and includes a baby.
That’s how humans work. This topic is complicated. It has numerous variables influencing it.
I wish that a blurry pic would be evidence. I wish that qualifiable data was enough. But it is not enough to convince enough people.
Produce a body and the more drama surrounding the body the more people will take notice.
You have to get folks off of reality TV to take a look AND believe.
thos topic has a major social an economic hurdle to over come. How else do you suppose that it be done?
Would not have saved gorillas I a dead body wasn’t dragged in.
Humans are violent and aggressive. If thy don’t see a body, it doesn’t exist.
No I don’t want to shoot one. If shooting one and producing a body is what it takes to aknowlege their existence and help to protect and study them, then yes…
A breastfeeding body is what it will take.
That’s what science wants.Listening to witness reports, I have heard folks who brought down. BF with a 460 whetherby. I have also heard advice from reaserchers to use alternating slugs and buckshot in a 20 gauge.
I would like to carry a 416 rigby.
You would have to go for ‘big-game’ guns as per those witness accounts.
New a guy who hinted and wouldn’t go into the bush without his 460. Now I understand why.
James, I drive a jag and wonder why you needed a biologist rather than a car guy?
Dave I actually can’t top that!
Charles, three long toes like that is scaring me!
My “strangest thing” in the forest was just the creepiest, scariest feeling that both my cat and dog felt too. Doesn’t even come close to a jag bones, a Nekkid old couple or even a huge three toes monster!
That feeling has kept me from going back alone out there though.
