In this week’s issue of The San Diego Reader in the News of the Weird column one story is on an event in Colorado where a store owner found she had a visitor. That visitor being a young doe who was taking a look around the place.
The animal was calm and collected, had no trouble associating with a human, and after some coaxing let herself be led out following a treat.
So the deer was enticed out and the human went back to work on her store. Only to find an hour later that the doe was back, and her three fauns. And all were looking for food from the human.
You get right down to it, the doe had no reason to be afraid of the woman, and since she trusted the human her fauns could trust her as well. They just didn’t see the woman as a threat. What you basically had here was an example of what domestication really involves. You take an animal such as a deer, a raccoon, or even a sugar glider from Australia who isn’t afraid of human. Who indeed is accepting of humans and who takes us pretty much as a source of food, assurance, and comforting. Pretty much as a parent in other words. That’s pretty much what I got from the story; Human gives good to a deer, along with a soft voice and may even have petted the deer much as deer mothers pet their fawns. And that’s really what it is, only we use our fingers to lick instead of our tongues.
The message the doe got was, she’s mommy. She feeds me, she comforts me, she assures me. I have kids to take care of. She took care of me, she’ll take care of them. That’s what domesticated animals do, they adopt you. To that fox or bobcat you are mother. That’s the same role you fit in the life of a tasmanian devil or Australian sugar glider. You provide for the animal much as a mother animal would, which makes you mother for all intents and purposes.
At this moment there are ranchers in South Africa who keep southern white rhinos as pets.Rhinos who pretty much behave as though the humans taking care of them were mother. Safari Park in San Diego County has its own population of southern white rhinos, who behave pretty much the same way as their cousins in South Africa.You get right down to it, we have domesticated rhinos and all your fussing about how this just can’t be doesn’t mean a damn thing.
Not only can we be wrong, but more often than one is ready to accept we are wrong. Much of what we know about nature is based on what we think should be, and not on what we actually see. Red foxes in England and bobcats in the eastern woodlands of the U.S. are known for going up to kitchen doors to beg for food. Those who do ask for and get food from humans tend to be healthier, live longer, and have more young than those who don’t. What you’re seeing is evolution in action and whatever promote survival and the continuation of the species wins out over any bollocks involving such malarkey as “dignity”. Dignity doesn’t fill your belly, dignity doesn’t raise the kids.
Thought you’d be interested, and I thought I’d asked if you’ve heard of more stories like this.
The time is the Pennsylvanian, the latter half of the Carboniferous. The first of the reptile like reptiles and mammals have become established, though true reptiles and mammals have yet to appear. One of the proto reptiles is the archosaur, the ruling lizard though it just looks like a lizard instead of being a true lizard.
This animal—though it may be a juvenile instead of an adult—is a foot long diapsid with sprawling limbs and socket’s for the teeth. The brain is small, and apparently not well organized. Divination has produced varying results, and it is suspected that those diviners who have used such castings on the fossils have shown a bad habit of insisting on producing results, so actually getting honest results can be rare.
It should also be noted that there are some who insist this specimen can’t be an archosaur. Some say that it is an archosauriform, some an ancestor of the latter. Again, there is disagreement regarding the divinations used to investigate the subject, with again some researchers refusing to accept findings that disagree with their prejudices.
But I tend to say that it is close enough, and it has features that tie to to later archosaurs such as dragons, dinosaurs, saurischians, and ptersosaurs. Changes are coming, but they will take some time getting here.
I recently picked up the Jan./Feb. 2018 issue of The Skeptical Inquirer and found an article on p12 By Joe Nickell. Under the title “The Giant Panda: Discovered in the land of Myth” Dr. Nickell tries to use how the giant panda of China was discovered to demonstrate that the sasquatch can’t exist. As far as the panda goes he’s right, but where Bigfoot is concerned all he really does is demonstrate once again his animosity and distaste for the animal he so despises.
As I understand it, an ad hominin is a statement about a person regarding his character that is irrelevant to his claim. To say that Dr. Nickell hates Bigfoot is not to my mind an ad hominin because his hate of the animal does affect how he approaches the subject and renders his approach untenable. Thanks to his prejudice it really can’t be trusted on the subject.
As the saying goes, a special claim requires special proof. That I agree with. But is the claim that the bigfoot exists really all that special. Does it rank up there with claims of psychic powers?
Not to my mind. Where the sasquatch is concerned all the claim is, is that at sometime in the past a great ape managed somehow to migrate from north-east Asia to north-west North America over the land of Beringia. Something we, horses, and tyrannosaurs did back when.
The claim is that back during the Wisconsin Glaciation we couldn’t get here through Beringia thanks to a thick ice sheet. Yet the web sites I’ve consulted about the subject have pretty much all said that there was no such sheet over the land. Instead Beringia was an arid grassland, a steppe. As long as you can walk you can cross a steppe and that is apparently what we, equids, tyrannosaurs, and bigfoot have done.
But, Mr. Kellogg
I could be wrong, but I see nothing that says primates can’t adapt to a cold climate. The Canadian Inuit have done so, the Neanderthals did so, and we seem to have done so if the layer of fat we seem to grow in a cold clime is any indication. I see nothing in a primate that would keep it from adapting.
Where the sasquatch is concerned keep in mind that the descriptions I’ve read and the pictures I’ve seen are of large animals, and rather solidly built. I suspect that they are insulated by a layer of fat, and the large size is fairly typical of cold clime animals. It’s what you would expect.
But They’re Bipeds!
They’re not alone. We are bipeds. Bipedal apes to be precise. In the past there have also been Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus, and Weberpithecus—my preferred name for what another decided is a species of Homo. Bipedal apes aren’t impossible.
What I see here is the thinking that we are somehow special, and that only we can have such special features as bipedality. Paranthropines and the like get to be bipedal because they’re dead. Extinct that is; and being extinct they can’t hang around reminding us that we’re really not all that special. There is nothing in Heaven or Earth that I can see that would keep another animal from becoming an erect biped under the same conditions as we did.
You get right down to it our becoming bipedal is an example of convergent evolution, us converging with the Bigfoot. They were first, we just copied them.
What it comes down to in my mind is that by denying the possible existence of the Sasquatch is that we are insulting Charles Darwin. In his work he basically said that we as an animal are really nothing special. There is nothing that says that only we can be this human-like. Given the same conditions and the same course of events other animals like us are possible. There can be more than one.
There is the matter of the evidence. Now Dr. Nickell is right on the matter of evidence. As I understand him he has said the circumstantial evidence is no good, not being real evidence at all. Something that would come as a surprise to legal courts around the world.
According to the Wikipedia entry circumstantial evidence is evidence used through inference to support an assertion. Direct evidence on the other hand refers directly to a particular subject. Nickell’s assertion that such as hair and body impressions can only be circumstantial evidence is contradicted by the fact that such as dinosaur footprints have been used as evidence of the onetime existence of a particular animal. I would cut the man some slack, but I suspect his mistake his based more on his need to reject Bigfoot than on most any other reason.
In short, he’s a bigot, and it is that bigotry that leads him to make such outrageous claims. An ad hominin? Not hardly, for it is his bigotry, his prejudice which leads him to make the anti sasquatch claim he does.
The Over Reaction
It comes down to the reaction some parties had when the Patterson/Gimlin film was first released. It would seem that back then some people had never even heard of Beringia, or that a bipedal ape, human or sasquatch, could walk across it. So people claimed that there could be no great ape native to North America. That the only primates there could be in this continent would have to come from South America, and among them there are no apes or anything like apes. And they and their successors have stuck to their guns despite the fact that what they hold are rubber band guns with rotted rubber bands. As far as I can see Professor Joe Nickell has a need for the approval of others, dedicated as he is to denying the existence of a North American ape. Other than us that us, and we’re essentially an import.
So we get parties having what amounts to tizzies over claims that could easily be investigated, because the implications and consequences of what proving the claim could mean. Their claim is, for all intents and purposes, that there can be only us. That, I say, is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof.
How do you prove that the Bigfoot doesn’t exist?
You look for the evidence of absence. For all animals have an impact on their environment, and be there no sign of any such impact odds are the animal in question is not to be found there.
My conclusion is, that there is a second species of great ape living in North America—besides us that is, and that there is direct evidence pointing to it.
And further that there are people such as Dr. Joe Nickell who have no idea what they’re talking about, and as far as I can tell haven’t the courage to learn.
Nothing says they can’t exist, it’s about damn time we got over our little snit and got back to doing science.
In Sorry, Grumpy Cat the author David Salisbury points out that dogs actually are smarter than cats, though both are rather dumber than humans. Of course both are smart enough to get along with us, for we can be a tolerant and understanding beast.
One thing to note is that according to the article the North American raccoon is a remarkable intelligent animal for the brain size it has. Sorry, Europeans, but your raccoon settlers will be a part of your environment for a long time to come.
Another thing to note here is that in the environments we supply to the life around us the fact that an animal is better able to accept the presence of humans means that that animal has a better chance of survival, and so a better chance at reproduction. And that the smarter an animal is the easier it is for him to accept human presence, and even interaction with humans. Though sometimes, as with cats and tasmanian devils, how the animal associates with his mother makes a difference, for it would appear that both species see us as mother figures.
I’ve been wondering about how animals got between Asia and North America when conditions are right, and it occurred to me to find out what I could online. What I learned came as something of a surprise.
First, that Beringia was never what you would call icebound. Not to point that it was impassable to life. The Chersky Mountains in the west and the Alaska and Brooks Mountains to the east may have been snow capped, but the low lands were pretty much ice free and comprised a tundra animals could cross easily.
Knowing this I have to wonder if humans were really restricted to the south and the southern coast. Given that we are an inquisitive and inventive beast, was there anything really that stopped these early migrants from hunting, exploring, and settling as far north as the Arctic Ocean. As far as I can see they could and did.
And not just them but other animals as well. Bigfoot for example. But what did they eat?
Well, in the early sixties the then young Farley Mowat was sent to the Canadian Arctic to a study on the local wolves of the study area. In his book Never Cry Wolf, and the movie made from it, he recounted just how he answered the question of just what those wolves ate when the caribou were not available to eat. His answer was the local mouse, which abounded in such abundance as to keep Mowat himself well nourished. So plentiful were they that there was no reasonable way either the wolves or he could ever but a dent on their numbers.
And where did the mice find their food? Evidently from the local grass, grain, leaves,and roots.
Now extend this to Beringia, a steppe of hundreds of thousands of square miles. An ocean of grass. God only knows how many mice—the billions maybe, and animals such as wolves, humans, and bigfoot to feed off them. Other than the cold the place was a damn paradise. Last I heard the proto-indians may have spent as many as 10 thousand years dwelling there until the way became clear to migrate into the lands south an east of Beringia.
And where and how did that happen? Where and how did the ice covering the Canadian Rockies and the Canadian Plains melt? Did it have to be a coastal route, or is that just an assumption caused by our profound ignorance of the local conditions?
We hate not knowing so we speculate, often with inadequate information. And in time our speculations take on the patina of established fact, at least until we get evidence that we are wrong. But it can take time for us to realize and accept that we are wrong.
But my point here is, according to what I have learned it was possible for at least one large bipedal ape to cross into North America from Asia, and very possibly two. In short, the North American Sasquatch could live here and be discovered by us. You get right down to it, there was nothing stopping it.
Next I’m going to take a look at the Indonesian Hobbit and how they might have made it to Flores Island.