were banging our Moms.

There's a whole book on the subject by a geneticist who studied the topic,

https://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Yeti-Last-Neanderthal-Geneticists/dp/193887515X

"you're talking about a Yeti or Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Well now, you'll be amazed when I tell you that I'm sure they exist."
Jane Goodall on NPR

This is "The Big Book of Yetis." What the reader gets here is a world-class geneticist's search for evidence for the existence of Big Foot, yeti, or the abominable snowman.

Along the way, he visits sites of alleged sightings of these strange creatures, attends meetings of cryptozoologists, recounts the stories of famous monster-hunting expeditions, and runs possible yeti DNA through his highly regarded lab in Oxford. Sykes introduces us to the crackpots, visionaries, and adventurers who have been involved in research into this possible scientific dead-end over the past 100 years. Sykes is a serious scientist who knows how to tell a story, and this is a credible and engaging account.

Almost, but not quite human, the yeti and its counterparts from wild regions of the world, still exert a powerful atavistic influence on us. Is the yeti just a phantasm of our imagination or a survivor from our own savage ancestry? Or is it a real creature? This is the mystery that Bryan Sykes set out to unlock.

*** Admin note: Please make sure to mark the subject line when you use swear words in the body of the post. And no swearing in the subject line itself. Thanks! ***

Personally I think "Big Foot" is an oral tradition that has been passed down to us from when our ancestors were being raped by Neanderthals and Denisovans, who were much bigger, stronger and had much larger brains than us, but we made wolves our best friends after getting raped by Big Foot (Neanderthals) and Denisovans (Yeti) and the dogs helped us bastards cooperate to outcompete our foes, by hunting down prey, including our mother fucking rapist Big Foot forefathers, about 35,000 years ago, the same period we domesticated wolves.

There's a great book on the subject,

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150304-neanderthal-shipman-predmosti-wolf-dog-lionfish-jagger-pogo-ngbooktalk/

There was a pretty popular HBO series recently that followed the same script.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2019 09:41PM by Concrete Zipper.

When Bryan Sykes answers the question to your satisfaction, will it change the price of a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas?

The word "esoterica" exists for a reason. Perhaps there are instances when things 'esoteric' become things 'practical' and 'useful'.

I begrudge no one his/her quest for knowledge. But breathless bleatings about esoterica leave me, for the most part...the opposite of speechless.

We're not supposed to preach religion here, nor talk about non-mormonish politics. I guess I would not want to extend that ban to 'esoterica', but sometimes the urge rises in me. But then blathering on about it, as I am wont to do, seems to satisfy me.

Carry on...

From the folklorists' POV, it is more accurate to link ogres and trolls to such creatures. Bigfoot and yetis are rarely described as being as human as Neanderthals. Some of the stories in Central Asia have been suggested to come from Neanderthals, but that ain't Bigfoot.

Citation, please.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Citation, please.

Shackley, Myra "Wildmen: Yeti, Sasquatch, and the Neanderthal Enigma

Shackley was involved in an expedition to central Asia at the turn of the eighties to see if Neanderthals were still living in the region and postulated that certain folk tales were based on them, or at least an oral tradition of them.

Her work was treated as fringe or pseudo-science, and she didn't turn up very much at all.

There are other ones, but I don't wish to list them all. The alleged North American sightings of Bigfoot do not really match reconstructions of Neanderthals. Bigfoot is said to be far taller, hairier and have less of a material culture than Neanderthals. It sounds more like a giant gorilla or a gigantopithecus, if we are to look for any real world parallels.

Well, thank you!

I was trying to be silly. You see, you used this phrase:


> From the folklorists' POV, it
> is more accurate to link ogres
> and trolls to such creatures.


I found this sentence amusing. First, the position that ALL folklorists have the same POV? I have no evidence that I right in supposing that there are schisms. It just seemed silly to assume, or posit, that they did!

And then 'ogres and trolls'... That was out of left field, from my perspective. Bigfoot, Yetis, ogres, and trolls may exist, and good for them!


As to your cited author, whose particular book you cite, admitting that it is not seen as a conclusive... Canon Myra seems to be a delightful woman. Upon further perusal, she seems to have found her niche in her chosen field. This niche has nothing to do with two of her earlier books, the one you mention and "Neanderthal Man", from 1980. So as a supportive citation, yours could be said to be found wanting.



Some people say things, or offer conjectures or muse... But not you. You "State" things! You pontificate. You declare!

There seems to be a complete absence of doubt regarding your pronouncements.

Surely you've experienced in previous 'fields of battle' the same stiff rejection that you're getting here...

What do they call it when the same action is repeated over and over again, with the continued expectation that THIS TIME a different result will be obtained?

I've nothing against Myra Shackley. What gave you that impression? But at least I'm aware of her work. I first heard of it over thirty years ago.

"Some people say things, or offer conjectures or muse... But not you. You "State" things! You pontificate. You declare!"

Terrible! I state things. What next? No one should make a statement? You know, maybe possibly this might just be a statement in this sentence, but I don't want to offend people who might have a differing opinion, or who have nervous troubles, so I'm so dreadfully sorry, that this statement, which is not actually ex cathedra or typed by the fond fingers of Lot's Wife, and that when I make this statement, there could well be people who think something else and not a complete consensus within a set profession of what may be possibly, so sorry, is it alright to say this now, it's my opinion but might not reflect yours [contintues for another ten pages]

Is that good enough for you?
How much more mealy mouthed and abased can I be than that?


Pardon me for stating my opinion. What's next, "no platforming"?

I even go out of my way to insert disclaimers for the hard of thinking. You know people who can't the difference between my personal opinion and an absolute statement I might make. Also people who have to have jokes foreshadowed by big neon lights and a laughter track, because their reading skills aren't particularly honed.

What's that very old bit of verse? Ah, yes, from the Scottish poet, Robert Burns:

"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."

You honor his spirit.

>>Some people say things, or offer conjectures or muse... But not you. You "State" things! You pontificate. You declare!

>>There seems to be a complete absence of doubt regarding your pronouncements.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What's that very old bit of verse? Ah, yes, from
> the Scottish poet, Robert Burns:
>
> "O would some power the giftie gie us to see
> ourselves as others see us."
>
> You honor his spirit.

He also wrote "Nine inch will please a lady".

"It's no the length that gars me loup,/
But it's the double drivin'."

I would love ta hear yer literary analysis of his wee piece, laddie. Aye! What he be drivin' at here?

I shouldn't play into your fetish for deflections (and posting that bit of verse is doutless in violation of board rules), but what's the relevance of the historical reality that Burns also had a fondness for bawdy verse?

Does that detract from the other work's message?

#Fail

Shakespeare's work (the Bard is considered the greatest dramatist in English history) is replete with similar "bawdyisms," and for garshsakes don't read any William Blake; his metaphorical use of "worm" is similarly suggstive.

SLC
Still waiting for Jordan to speak to EOD's charges*;
The silence is pregnant and telling

(indulging in a bit of off-color myself)

*The M.O. is eerily similar to the avoidance of answering claims I've offered up involving Bigfoot. There's a pattern there...

Well, this has frack all to do with Bigfoot or Mormonism (what a combination!) but anyway...

Burns and Blake are poets I'm very familiar with, although Blake can be too mystical for my liking. I made a point of visiting both of their childhood homes when I was in the area. (Burns' home is a bit Disneyified, whereas Blake seems to gave little more than a plaque.) If you want to best me, try Herder, Dreiser or Petrarch, I'm not that familiar with any of these.

"The tygers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction."

Like Burns, Blake was a bit of a horndog (I suggest reading Suchard's book on the subject. I have a copy in my personal library.)

But I'll leave the last work to Burns -

Come nidge me Tam, come nodge me Tam,
Come nidge me o'er the nyvle;
Come louse and lug your batterin' ram,
And thrash him at my gyvel.

:D

This is another example of the typical shabby scholarship we've come to expect from you.

There's also this howler:

"I even go out of my way to insert disclaimers for the hard of thinking."

Say what?

Keep putting your cognitive dissonance on display for everyone to see... There's also the matter of your shell games and denial as well as projecting your own pseudo-intellectual garbage on me.

I'll repeat my question: If you're not a "Bigfoot believer" what earthly justification is there for offering statements such as the following: "Bigfoot and yetis are rarely described as being as human as Neanderthals."

Or: "If you believe such stories, it is worth pointing out that they are occasionally spotted in groups."

Also: "I know Bigfoot is supposedly sighted all over the US, but the Pacific North West seems to be the main area, which goes into a bit of Idaho."

Moving on, here are some copy-and-pastes from the link you provided that allegedly spoke to Bigfoot in the British Isles:

>>Man sees Sasquatch Killing a Moose, Alberta Canada

>>I, W. Roe of the City of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta make oath... The most incredible experience I ever had with a wild creature occurred near a little town called Tete Jaune Cache, British Columbia, about eighty miles west of Jasper, Alberta.

And here's my "last word":

>>This is the Rip van Winkle archetype. It occurs worldwide and not just with Bigfoot. Fairies. Aliens...

I'm familiar with the story of Rip Van Winkle, of course. Washington Irving was an early and famous American humorist.

Ol' Ripped, of course, disappeared for 20 years and came back with a wild tale of partying with Henry Hudson and coming back after a long sleep...

Anyone who believes he spent those years snoozing is in need of some serious treatment for codependency.

Irving was mocking human gullibility, honest.

'There's also this howler:

'"I even go out of my way to insert disclaimers for the hard of thinking."

'Say what?'

Oh boy... Where to begin? People who think that if someone posts a link that they must be in complete agreement with the entire contents of the webpage? Life doesn't work that way. Or those who are slow to pick up on jokes about financial corruption?

"I'll repeat my question: If you're not a "Bigfoot believer" what earthly justification is there for offering statements such as the following: "Bigfoot and yetis are rarely described as being as human as Neanderthals.""

Jesus wept... You do know that there are people who study "urban" folklore, and weblore? A lot of it has common themes. Very little of it is true. Bigfoot falls into these realms.

Bigfoot accounts do tend to conform to certain norms. The guy's hairy all over. The guy is very tall - usually at least seven feet tall, up to much bigger sizes. And Bigfoot is described as being as much animal as human. These three traits form part of the stories. Bigfoot descriptions tend to conform in certain ways, as do Slenderman sightings (who was completely manufactured on the internet, but who has inspired several killers.) That they conform is more to do with cultural expectations. Most people out there are not very original thinkers.

None of the three traits I've mentioned there sound like Neanderthals, who we know for a fact were much more similar to humans in terms of height, hair coverageetc, and had a material culture and wore clothing. Neanderthals were also social like humans. Most (but not all) claimed Bigfoot sightings speak of a lone individual.

However, even mythical animals can have some basis in fact. Pretty much no one claims that fire breathing dragons or unicorns are real, but both of these animals have possible real-life foundations - some would include crocodilians, dinosaur bones, rhinos, ibex, and even narwhal among them. One of the prime candidates for "real" Bigfoot and Yeti sightings is a bear.

"Irving was mocking human gullibility, honest."

Washington Irving was also drawing on folktales, of which it is a very common part. That story is more about social commentary than whether missing time is a real thing. It talks about how much things had changed where Rip lived. It doesn't really help if you take a literal interpretation of the story.

Missing time stories are aa old as the hills. That's a simile. Not literally of course. The hills predate human settlement in moat cases.

(again)

>>Washington Irving was also drawing on folktales, of which it is a very common part.

Seriously, I'm in awe at your capacity to embarass yourself with an inability to utilize common syntax. I'll borrow from William Zinser in trying to "analyze" this one.

Zinser wrote, "Muddy writing is a symptom of muddy thinking."

(See dissonance, cognitive)

And...

>>Missing time stories are as old as the hills.

You seem fixated on the notion of "plot" with this one; I pointed out this one offers us a theme ("Missing time" could only be an "element of plot" in the realm of science fiction), and it's the theme of Irving's "yarn" that offers up his humor and attendant insight into the human experience.

See Pope, Alexander: "The proper study of mankind is man."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2019 02:51PM by SL Cabbie.

"Seriously, I'm in awe at your capacity to embarass yourself with an inability to utilize common syntax,"

Written English is not the same as spoken English. Why should I use "common syntax" (whatever the hell that is)? To appeal to your National Enquirer reading level? LULZ totes ridic bae. ikr?!!?! pwnd!

You complain about too many subordinate clauses, and now "uncommon syntax" (whatever that may be), and yet at the same time count yourself as an expert on poetry and short stories. If you'd spent much time with either of these then you wouldn't find my style hard to follow. I'm not saying my writing style is particularly good, only that it is often much LESS COMPLEX than some of that used in classic literature. (I'm not counting Mickey Spillane and most westerns in that category although they are fun to read.) Nineteenth century literature loves to use very long complex sentences, sometimes too much so. Weirder is the syntax that they may like to use than mine. :) Go and read later James Joyce, and hopefully your wizened little head will explode. (Not Finnegans Wake though as that is full of such gibberish that not even Joyce could understand by the time he finished it)

>>Nineteenth century literature loves to use very long complex sentences, sometimes too much so. Weirder is the syntax that they may like to use than mine. :) Go and read later James Joyce, and hopefully your wizened little head will explode.

News to me that James Joyce was a literary figure of the 19th century. He died in 1941...

Not only that, James Joyce wasn't writing to reflect the popular style of the day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2019 12:51PM by Devoted Exmo.

What RACE is Bigfoot?

Probably not any of the sprints.

So 10,000 meters or longer...

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What RACE is Bigfoot?

Careful now. Some people will demand there must be a Bigfoot president, Bigfoot generals and will complain about the glass ceiling for Bigfeet in Wall Street and the tech industries.

Equal rights for Bigfoot!

As long as people don't start saying "that's so easy even a Bigfoot could do it."

That wouldn't be nice.

H.G. Wells suggested that boogeyman stories might be cultural remnants of Neanderthal encounters. It's in his History of the World.

Bigfoot seems highly possible to me. The most convincing story is probably the Denise Martin account from the Great Smokies that happened in the mid 1960s. There is a news paper clipping of the kidnapping and everything, so it's not made up. They had the green barays all over the mountains looking and called off the search after 7 days. This disappearance totally disrupted his families lives for decades later.

If your skeptical I would say listen to this story and weigh the evidence.

There's just barely enough compelling Bigfoot evidence to prevent me from dismissing it as nonsense.

- According to some analysis, there's evidence in some Bigfoot prints of a physiological feature called a mid-tarsal break. This is a flex point or hinge in the middle of the foot. Gorillas and chimps have this feature, humans do not. The foot smashes the soil in a different way for each foot type.

- Someone did an analysis of Bigfoot foot measurements and found that they fit a dual bell-curve. This matches with the size distribution found in animals with sexual dimorphism. If all footprints were hoaxes or mis-identified bear prints, it seems unlikely that they would fit a standard dual bell-curve where one sex is bigger than the other by a pretty consistent ratio.

- Supposed Bigfoot sightings are disproportionately near dusk or dawn, which is perhaps consistent with the creature having a diurnal lifestyle.

- There are native American artifacts from the Pacific Northwest, of pre-European origin, that very clearly show creatures with ape-like or monkey-like faces. So when there's a raven artifact, Native Americas obviously copied a raven, when there's a bear artifact Native Americas obviously copied a bear. But what about when there's a semi-gorilla faced artifact?

There's more evidence along these lines that's not conclusive, but also hard to explain as hoaxes (see various books by Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum and others who've looked into the subject). Jane Goodall and John Napier, both primate experts of note, both thought similarly -- case is not closed, but neither can was say it's all nonsense.

I already saw this movie.

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6348138/

I am a 'remote viewer' and have done 'very limited' work on Bigfoot. Only validating they exist a fairly simple RV procedure versus trying to actually 'view' them. Therefore, there was no contact at all with them. Therefore, I 'believe' in their existence but have not tried to get any deeper than that.

Some known 'remote viewers' have done a little work on Bigfoot but not a lot of 'known' viewers have published any work on Bigfoot. Two 'known' remote viewers have done far more 'remote viewing' and claim they are not of this earth but can travel through various dimensions and through time. This includes one previous 'military viewer' and one that just was taught by 'military viewers'. Both are recognized for their RV work and on the net paranormal talk shows and at RV conferences.

One told of an Indian tale where someone was helped by a bigfoot and taken back to it's 'family'. After 2 days he was healed by them and then taken back to his tribe ---- only problem was 70 years had past versus 2 days.

One RVer stated after RVing Bigfoot very strange things occurred like things started missing and weird things occurred with their electronic equipment. Experienced RVers claim some 'aliens, such as Bigfoot' are aware intuitively when they are remote viewed and communicate with the viewer, normally they are not pleased. Maybe that is why 'strange things' are occurring with the one RVer.

Just my 2 cents from 'people' that 'claim' they have the 'ability' to 'know' these type of things but they have no firm evidence.

"One told of an Indian tale where someone was helped by a bigfoot and taken back to it's 'family'. After 2 days he was healed by them and then taken back to his tribe ---- only problem was 70 years had past versus 2 days."

This is the Rip van Winkle archetype. It occurs worldwide and not just with Bigfoot. Fairies. Aliens...

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2019 11:37AM by SL Cabbie.

WE also have no idea how closely linked, genetically, these various widespread packs of Bigfeet really are, given the geological barriers separating the areas in which they have been sighted. Ice, sharp glacial rocks and gravel, and pine needles are not compatible with large naked feet. The idea that Bigfeet eat their dead, including the bones, would explain the lack of archeological evidence.

I know much more about trolls, personally, having attended school in Scandinavia, and also having been married to one for a few years. They eat their young. Coincidentally, my anthropologist cousin was also married to a troll. The two trolls were both of Danish descent, and had the same stumpy, mesomorphic bodies, reddish hair, protruding forehead, squinty blue eyes, oversized genitalia, and an innate primitive propensity to pursue females. My cousin and I had access to the genealogical records of both trolls, and their lines were so disparate, that they were, indeed, from two different species. Our studies were curtailed, when the trolls ran away and disappeared. There have been rumors of one being sighted chasing a female on BYU's old campus, and we suspect the other might be residing, and propagating, in the wooded area of upper City Creek Canyon.

Trolls are nasty little creatures. They, and Bigfeet should be avoided. Gorillas are scary, too. I would strongly advise mating within your own species.

I dunno, the space chicks on Star Trek were pretty hot.

Brian Sykes' work is available online, and to judge from this passage, your claims won't survive rudimentary fact checking. Even his own words are illuminating:

>>There are many good reasons for doubting the claims of the yeti-hunters. No body has ever been found and fully examined. There are no completely convincing films or photographs of these creatures, even nowadays when superb footage of extremely rare animals is on our television screens at regular intervals and everyone has a mobile with a built-in camera. And yet eye-witness reports of these creatures still come streaming in. Are these all the invention of vivid imaginations, phantasms of the mind of the harmlessly deluded or just plain fraud?

Worse, Sykes' own reputation is problematic. Per Wiki:

>>His work also suggested a Florida accountant by the name of Tom Robinson was a direct descendant of Genghis Khan, a claim that was subsequently disproved. (extensively footnoted)

https://www.amazon.com/Bigfoot-Yeti-Last-Neanderthal-Geneticists/dp/193887515X#reader_193887515X

And the coup-de-grace...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/28/scientists-dna-tested-nine-yeti-samples-they-didnt-find-bigfoot/?utm_term=.8b2bc170fc47

>>In a new genetic analysis, yeti bones, fur and other biological material turned out to be bear parts. “All the samples that were supposed to be yetis matched brown and black bears that are living in the region,” said Charlotte Lindqvist, who studies bear evolution at the University at Buffalo in New York and Singapore's Nanyang Technological University.

Finally, that notion of an "oral tradition" dating back to the Neanderthals is more nonsense (and that's an area I do have grad education credits in). Languages, particularly unwritten ones, morph very quickly, and it's absurd to suggest a connection would be identifiable after thirty thousand years or so. Connections that would be identifiable would include animals, plants, tools, and such, but not a mythical biped.

By this logic, we should look for an element of factual reporting in mythical stories of flaming chariots in the sky or a being capable of hurling thunderbolts.

"Finally, that notion of an "oral tradition" dating back to the Neanderthals is more nonsense (and that's an area I do have grad education credits in). Languages, particularly unwritten ones, morph very quickly, and it's absurd to suggest a connection would be identifiable after thirty thousand years or so. Connections that would be identifiable would include animals, plants, tools, and such, but not a mythical biped"

I don't see why not. Some of the same myths appear around the world. One of them is that the Pleiades are sisters who were put into the sky. Giants and dwarves appear in every culture's folklore. These ideas must be very pld indeed.

The Māori of New Zealand retained stories about the moa generations after it disappeared. The moa was a huge ostrich-like bird, much bigger than an ostrich and more dangerous in fact. Aborigines in Australia retain traditions about things which happened centuries or thousands of years ago - sometimes they are told from a primitive POV or heavily distorted. In some parts of the world, you can still see long extinct animals painted up on walls, not just in the deepest caves, but in the open.

The fact that humanoid monsters are often linked up with remote places is not just a fear of isolation IMO, but also could well be a distant memory of when Neanderthals hung on in isolated caves, forests and valleys (which was far more possible when the population of humans was extremely low).

"Languages, particularly unwritten ones, morph very quickly, "

Do they? When Captain Cook traveled around the island groups of the Pacific, he was able to use people from one island group to interpret. In some cases these people had never been in contact with each other, or their ancestral groups had split off centuries before.

As I see it, two of the major drivers of language change are a) a rapidly changing society (mostly a recent phenomenon) and b) contact with other languages. Some core words in English contain roots which have been around for thousands of years, and are still identifiable as being related to IE stock, and possibly even further back than that. Languages like Lithuanian (IE) or Basque (non-IE) seem to be throwbacks to much earlier times.

Where to start? Spare us the shell games and patronizing tones. The challenge for you is to speak to the science/history I cited and not engage in obfuscation.

Alas, even those attempts are lame. As far as the reference to the Maori goes, you're talking generations, perhaps a few hundred years. In the case of the last Nenderthal, we're talking thirty millenia, minimum, since the last one went extinct.

The information I gave on language evolution is accurate, and your claim one of "the major drivers of language change [include] a rapidly changing society" overstates the matter, and it's hardly a "recent phenomenon." We've seen six centuries pass since Galileo invented the telescope (and van Leeuwenhoek the microscope) and the effect of technology is creating additional lingistic complexity via "new words" or new meanings given to "old words."

Finally, a writing system would've been necessary to "fix" a language--actually it would only slow it down--otherwise sound changes that occur as a natural process would bring about massive changes and localized dialects."Cockney" English is such an example, or you're welcome to attempt to understand someone speaking English with a heavy Irish or Scottish brogue.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2019 09:30AM by SL Cabbie.

Thanks for this. It is correct.

The other thing that helps consolidate a language is a body of highly influential literature that people are required to remain conversant with, such as the Bible in European countries and the Confucian classics in China.

The one question you didn't answer, Cabbie, is whether Bigfoot is an orthodox or an heretical Marxist. That is what really matters.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where to start? Spare us the shell games and
> patronizing tones.

Then he proceeds to do just that himaelf...

> The challenge for you is to
> speak to the science/history I cited and not
> engage in obfuscation.

Just did. Captain Cook example.

> Alas, even those attempts are lame. As far as the
> reference to the Maori goes, you're talking
> generations, perhaps a few hundred years.

Yes, indeed, as stated, but a verifiable example. However, it is not so easy to write off apparent folk memories of Madagascar's version of the moa, the elephant bird, which was hunted to extinction thousands of years before.

The widespread giant flood myths have also been postulated to be connected to the end of the last Ice Age.

> In the
> case of the last Nenderthal, we're talking thirty
> millenia, minimum, since the last one went
> extinct.

That is the consensus just now. However, this figure has itself been revised over time and we know hybridization occurred in Europe (as at least one member likes to remind us) so it is possible that human populations with greater Neanderthal genetic input than modern humans, survived far later than that.

> The information I gave on language evolution is
> accurate, and your claim one of "the major drivers
> of language change a rapidly changing society"
> overstates the matter, and it's hardly a "recent
> phenomenon."

You left out the word "mostly" there, which is quoting me out of context.

Of course societal change has a massive influence on vocabulary. We see it all the time in English. I use dozens of words nowadays which I wouldn't have done as a child - these relate to technology, musical trends, and other fashions which were not around then (or were little known).

Society is changing faster now than it did a century ago. You can safely expect that to have an effect.

Other societal changes have had effects. Introduction of agriculture. Urbanization etc.

> Finally, a writing system would've been necessary
> to "fix" a language

This only half true. We can still see the similarities between a few pieces of English vocabulary, and certain words in Hindi. The ancestors of these languages diverged long before they were transcribed.

Also, rural dialects have a tendency to retain archaic forms, which are often discouraged by metropolitans and those who would standardize a language.

>--actually it would only slow
> it down--otherwise sound changes that occur as a
> natural process would bring about massive changes
> and localized dialects."Cockney" English is such
> an example, or you're welcome to attempt to
> understand someone speaking English with a heavy
> Irish or Scottish brogue.

I can understand most Irish and Scottish people perfectly well, and Cockneys, but then I put the effort in to do so. I can even pick up some of the more unusual vocabulary in these dialects since it is cognate with other languages, or is onomatopoeic (as is a surprising amount of Yiddish, and I can work between that and German to gain a non-fluent understanding of it). Often it is a case of tuning in. I couldn't do the same with Navajo, Xhosa or Turkish, except where they use loanwords.

Northern English tends to be more Scandinavian, as is Scottish dialect. It's not exactly hard to understand that "kirk" means church when German, Dutch and Norwegian have almost the same word.

Likewise in Iceland some years ago, I was at an information board which had "Thu* ert her", or something like that, and it didn't take much intelligence to work out this was exactly the same as "thou art here". (Thou and thee are not completely extinct in English outside religious and Shakespearean contexts by the way).

(* Actually using the letter thorn, but "th" will suffice here.)

If I'd written something as disjointed and rambling as this post, I would've been embarrassed to post it under my regular moniker as well.

Bigfoot exists/existed? As noted, no remains have been found nor has anyone offered up a viable hair or DNA sample. I also recommend learning a bit about primatology; there's no evidence in the fossil record, and all of the great apes--including ourselves--evolved in trpical regions, which means a possible arrival route in this hemisphere is nonexistent.

Other than proving the old adage, "Bunk sells," nothing of substance has come from "Friends of Sassie" squad, period.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/16/2019 01:39PM by SL Cabbie.

"If I'd written something as disjointed and rambling as this post, I would've been embarrassed to post it under my regular moniker as well."

Don't worry. You already do. More so in fact.

"Bigfoot exists/existed? As noted, no remains have been found nor has anyone offered up a viable hair or DNA sample." etc etc

Never said Bigfoot did exist. It may have some basis in something - race memory of Neanderthals or even the massive Gigantopithecus (which is around the right size), bad mushrooms, or whatever etc.

Anyway, ramble to your heart's content pardner.

If Bigfoot is an oral tradition passed down from Neandrathol times, then why did all these stories begin when the white men came to America? And why isn't there bigfoot in England? I suppose it could be argued that they picked it up from the Native Americans.

But the main reason to believe in the wild man is that people have gone missing in remote areas of the forest. If this was a serial murder they wouldn't be doing these crimes so far away and in such muddy weather, in the middle of a swamp (for crying out loud) far away from any kind of tools. Crimes happen where lots of people live usually by someone who knows our patterns and has a gettway car ready.

No one is going to go to a top of a mountain 15,000 foot mountain and wait for a hiker and eat someone up there. Yet that's what's going on!

Look at the evidence people, it's pretty clear!

Remarkable.

All of this, along with a chapter on the Brother of Jared bringing the gospel to Bigfoot, is covered in the sealed portion of the golden plates.

"why did all these stories begin when the white men came to America?"

Erm, they didn't. Native Americans long had these stories and made sculptures of them. Whether they concern something similar is another matter.

Sasquatch, wendigo, stick Indians (so called) etc - none of these originate with whites.

"And why isn't there bigfoot in England?"

Look up "woodwose".

So your mom was banged by bigfoot ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So your mom was banged by bigfoot ?

Our ancestors, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, were having sex with Neanderthals 35,000 years ago, before they went extinct.
Chances are it wasn't entirely consensual.

and some tribes do have distant memories of large megafauna like mammoths, slots, and bears.


I think you mean something more like the "Almas" rather than the Himalayan Yeti -- which is also a spirit and a natural force.

The Almas (Mongolian for "wild man")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almas_(cryptozoology)


"Wild Men" in Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_man

No one has found any artifacts or remains from the great BOM war, that obliterated the entire Nephite race, either.

My inspired impression is that da Bigfoots were cannibals, which ultimately led to their near-extinction. During the big battle of the white people (later identified in the BOM as Nephites) and the dark people (Lamanites) the North American Bigfoot troop waited in the trees, and when the battle was over, they ate the bodies, and burned the bones for cooking fires, to cook, dry, and cure the meat for later. Bigfoots had a natural fear of weapons and armor, so, using huge fires of bones super-heated with charcoal, they melted all the weaponry, and poured the metal into lakes, to hiss and steam, and release the evil spirits, and to cool and disappear into the silt at the bottom.

But, neanderthals were short and stocky, mostly red-heads. Wouldn't it be more like Barney Rubble coming over to bang your mom?

wowza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But, neanderthals were short and stocky, mostly
> red-heads. Wouldn't it be more like Barney Rubble
> coming over to bang your mom?

One facial reconstruction* of a Neanderthal produced someone who looked remarkably like Chuck Norris.

https://youtu.be/qpaH21e2lt8

* Please note, according to newknow (new science) it is impossible to reconstruct the faces of corpses as there is no such thing as race or species. Anyone who says otherwise is a horrific racist.

Facial reconstruction on corpses is done all the time.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wowza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But, neanderthals were short and stocky, mostly
> > red-heads. Wouldn't it be more like Barney
> Rubble
> > coming over to bang your mom?
>
> One facial reconstruction* of a Neanderthal
> produced someone who looked remarkably like Chuck
> Norris.
>
> https://youtu.be/qpaH21e2lt8
>
> * Please note, according to newknow (new science)
> it is impossible to reconstruct the faces of
> corpses as there is no such thing as race or
> species. Anyone who says otherwise is a horrific
> racist.

Horriblizing people as racists is what gave Individual 1 the launch codes.
But at a certain point you gotta ask yourself, who's side am I on?
Save your empathy for that side.
Personally if I find myself empowering people who have long been in power, I know I'm on the wrong damn side, because innocent people are dying because they are the wrong race. In the home of the free we lock up 25% of the worlds prison population, with 5% of the overall population. African Americans are over represented in prison, often because of laws targeting them specifically. More African American men in prison than college African American median net worth is 1/10 of whites.
And those in power are committed to maintaining the status quo.

Do you know why there is such a large prison population? There are a number of reasons, but one of them is that the state wants a tied down labor force. Prisons make big money for the government(s), therefore it is their interests to have a big prison population. It's a big state-run gray economy like the military-industrial complex, where tax payers fund it, and the government (and close friends) take the profit.

Of course the Soviets had the same idea and had people randomly arrested during the 1930s and sent to Siberia to work in mines and lumberyards. In the US, they make license plates etc. I

African Americans are deliberately undereducated by the state, law enforcement more or less abandons many of the areas that they live in for long periods, and there are also numerous crypto-socialist social programs which encourage failure and economic dependence on the state.

And the media encourages gangsta culture as "cool". White teenagers buy stupid rap records and slovenly clothing, which perpetuates the myth that this kind of culture is beneficial to African Americans, when it is in fact the opposite.

> * Please note, according to newknow (new science)
> it is impossible to reconstruct the faces of
> corpses as there is no such thing as race or
> species. Anyone who says otherwise is a horrific
> racist.

Can you cite anyone serious who says facial reconstruction is impossible?

Of course not. You are just blathering again, offering false dichotomies with no support from anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you cite anyone serious who says facial
> reconstruction is impossible?

Yes, you. Maybe leaving out the "serious" part though. Since you say there are no biological differences between the different varieties of human, therefore it is impossible to reconstruct human faces based on those biologically non-existent traits.

You seem to be under the impression that genetic variability (biological fact) equals race (cultural construct). It doesn't.

I used to think BF was not real, but than I met my mother in law. Not only does she have a big foot, but also big mouth, big head, big hair dew (picture Marge from the Simpsons), big gossip, and big nose (figuratively speaking).

Yes Bigfoot is real - it's my MIL I tell you!

Was derailed; essentially the simple question I raised was "What qualifies a 'world class geneticist' to speak to the issues of folklore and anthropology?"

I also pointed out that Sykes is hardly "world class," and the links with the mythical yeti and Bigfoot and the suggestion of an "oral tradition" stretches the boundaries of reason and is strictly the province of "theater of the absurd."

Finally, whatever the origins of this fable, Bigfoot is invariably described as a "hairy giant," and Neanderthals were shorter than modern Homo sapiens and lived in Eurasia and not North America.

(Edited to correct typo)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2019 12:35AM by SL Cabbie.