HAS THE REAL BIGFOOT OR SASQUATCH BEEN FOUND? SCIENTIST SAY YES

[BIAD]

I was listening to an American chap talking to a guy from the UK today in a live-stream and there was something that the
laid-back Californian said that struck one of the strands of my mental spider's web.
The discussion was in regards of trends and on of his hopes that the recent 'social justice' storm was coming to an end.

He of the West Coast, then spoke of his love for professional wrestling during his youth and how the falseness of every act
in the these noisy, character-focused bouts of showmanship didn't dilute his enjoyment.

Recalling some of the names of these 'steroid-infused' entertainers, the thirty-something American regaled the Brit on the
swagger, the boasting and the overall excitement he felt when sitting in the stadium.
It had been everything to him and important in his past. Yet, a trend he feels has now gone.

Then sighing with an agreed resignation that things we perceive as all-important in a moment of time just come and go,
I clicked onto a recording of a radio Sasquatch show and heard a guest remark about someone titled 'Man-Tracker'
I sighed again.

The phenomena of the alleged hairy beast roaming the United States has also evolved from the rustic days of reluctant
prospectors, land surveyors, hikers and confused truckers reporting that something that science guarantees does not
and could not exist, was observed.

From the days of Native American legends being listened to, up to nightly radio shows discussing blood-chilling encounters
with a fanged monster, the mythical Sasquatch remains a thorn in rational minds because it's believed it doesn't exist...
it 'can't' exist.

We assume that Science knows our human ancestory, we accept hypothesise that the space between modern man and
chimpanzee is empty and no 'aware' cousin could have stayed the course without detection.
No bodies, no bones, no accepted DNA, nothing tangible for science to risk their standing on and agree that sometimes,
things get missed.

But for those same witnesses, the impartial world of science shows it's basically in the same position of those who glimpse
something they struggle to recognise.

The Smithsonian:
'...The history of human evolution isn’t a straight line from fish to monkey to human. You know that.
The family tree of the genus Homo is full of diverging paths, with branches and dead ends.
But new research, says Nature, could prune back some of those branches.

Many ancient Homo species are identified from a few samples—sometimes even a single one.
All we have of some of our ancient evolutionary ancestors is skull and some teeth.

At a site in Dmanisi, Georgia, though, researchers found a set of five skulls, presumably representing different
individuals of the same species. The individuals were, obviously, individual.
But the features in these skulls overlapped with the features of skulls representing different Homo species.
That observation, say the researchers, led them to a controversial conclusion.

Nature:
"..The wide variability in their features suggests that Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus,
the species so far identified as existing worldwide in that era, might represent a single species.

…If the three hominin species inhabiting Earth about 1.8 million years ago were collapsed into one, H. habilis
and H. ruldofensis would be subsumed into H. erectus -largely owing to the similarities of the Dmanisi skulls
to those known for the latter species, says Zollikofer..."

If the researchers’ idea sticks, it would reshape the Homo family tree. Here’s what that tree looks like right now:



Cutting of branches from this tree would change what we think about human evolution.
Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, as we think about them, were more cousins than grandparents.
The new idea, says the BBC, would roll the three species into one that would have led to modern humans.

But that’s if this new idea holds up, and it’s already being questioned. Other scientists are saying that the technique
that led to this conclusion wasn’t really the right tool to use. The various hominid species, erectus and habilis and
rudolfensis, are differentiated by differences in the shapes and features of their skulls.
The comparison used in the current research, says Fred Spoor to the BBC, didn’t highlight these important markers.

This isn’t the first time that paleontologists have tried to cut whole chunks out of the human family tree, says Darren
Curnoe for the Conversation. It didn’t work those times; it’s not clear if it will this time, either...'

SOURCE:

I've heard it said that when you encounter the massive, man-shape watching you in the manner that humans are
supposed to be watching wildlife, it changes your perception of reality. No clothes, hair all over the body, a height
and strength that matches ancient accounts of giants, the stuff that science doesn't dabble in.

One can only imagine what that would do to the academic grasp on reality, but it might decrease the gulf between
the ensconced, self-certain realms of science and the regular guy staring at the large bipedal footprint in the mud.