Some Observations on Bigfoot Observations"Do It Yourself Doodler" is the artwork/cartoon site where I got this cartoon of a lady Davy Crockett hot on the trail of a Tennessee Bigfoot woman. Besides providing humerous commentary, I thought the portrayal of the Eastern Bigfoot female was good and its actions true to the reports. The reports say that you can be looking straight at them and they disappear right from view-the more obvious solution being that they are exteremely adept at hiding.
On the other hand, this map from The History Channel (2009) shows the density of the reports as accumulations of the red dots. The accumulations of reports come in two areas, the Puget Sound area in the West and (surprisingly) Ohio in the East, Ohio probably represents the part nearest the Appalachians where the human population is densist: I assume the Bigfoot population is denser in the more uninhabited mountainous regions nearby, but that there are fewer witnesses there,
DERIVING FROM THE STATISTICS AT MY DISPOSAL,
"BIGFOOT" AS I TAKE IT IS A NON-SPECIES-SPECIFIC TERM, NOT ALL "BIGFOOT" REPORTS ARE DESCRIBING THE SAME THING. "SASQUATCH" SHOULD BE SPECIES-SPECIFIC AS THE WEST-COAST GIGANTOPITHECUS-LIKE CREATURE, BUT IT IS MISAPPLIED COMMONLY ALSO TO THE EASTERN BIGFOOT POPULATION. "EASTERN BIGFOOT" IS A SMALLER AND MUCH MORE HUMAN-LIKE CREATURE.
AND WE HAVE SKELETAL MATERIAL ASCRIBED TO EITHER SPECIES, BUT THE SCIENTIFICALLY-DESCRIBED REMAINS GO WITH THE EASTERN POPULATION, AND THEY ARE MUCH LIKE FOSSIL HUMANS FROM EUROPE AND ASIA.
Where is said "skeletal material?"
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting problem because a lot of people are not up on the literature.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the "Eastern Bigfoot" per se, Loren Coleman states in The Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide that it is the same as the "Marked Hominid" (pgs 46-50) and under the entry for "Marked Hominid" (pg 22-23) the statement is made that
"A fossil affinity for the Marked Hominids has only recently been discovered. In 1929, Anthropologist F.C.C. Hansen published a description of a massive skull including the mandible found in 1926 in an Archaeological dig near the former site of Gardar, Greenland. Hansen related it to the finds of ancient skulls`, such as the Rhodesian Man, and named the species Homo gardarensis. Mark A Hall recovered this information in the mid-1990s..." And Mark A. Hall surmised that the prehistoric-looking skull went with the reports of Prehistoric-looking men, in this case what was being discussed as the Marked Hominid.
Then again continuing in that vein there are a number of skulls found from both North and South America which resemble Neanderthals generally, or sometimes said to resemble Homo heidelburgensis or Homo erectus. Notices have been posted on this blog from time to time and a mention of this was made recently under the heading of "Neolithic Neanderthals". As mentioned on that posting the most recent of these remains are possibly as recent as the 1800s according to the original publications quoted. The Gardar skull is from sometime before 1300 AD.
In brief, we DO have the "Prehistoric Man" remains attributable to "Bigfoot" as a matter of long-established public record, the matter has simply for the most part been overlooked.
Now for the important part of classification: most expersts would say that the Gardar skull (or most often also even the Rhodesian Man skull) represent specimens of Homo sapiens. Coleman also speaks of a "Neandertaloid" subtype of reports including the "Bush Men" of the NW part of North America, while speaking of Neanderthals as being a subspecies opf Homo sapiens: and under the heading of "Proto-pygmy" he also speaks of the category as possibly also falling under the heading of Hom sapiens (pg 31)
So don't get your back up, this is nothing particularly strange or unsual and we are not talking about secret documents of any kinds. Most of these "Apemen" under discussion, from large to small, are supposedly only types of Homo sapiens as defined in the standard books by the standard authors. If anything, it will take an overhaul of the definition of our species to remove the classification of most of them as basically just hairy people
Best Wishes, Dale D.
Funny, I found this book in a Dollar Store in 2004. I t looked like it might be an interesting read and, hey, it was only a buck. I found it to be a pretty intense tale. When I got to the part about the Yeti, I believed him. It was a part of the story in so far as the group couldn't move past the family of Yeti and so they ended up taking much more time going way out of their way to get on with their journey. For me, that made it read authentically. I guess it could have been a made up part of the story but it was so out of left field. A rag tag group of starving escapees making a harrowing journey makes a big story. Bumping into a family of Yeti who won't get out of the way? Who would embellish such a tale unless it were true?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, that's how it read to me. I'm enjoying your blogs, interesting stuff. I found your link on Sasquatch Lives? Facebook page. Thank you-Teresa