For YOU Crypto Types

[BIAD]

There's one thing that strikes me in regards of discussing Bigfoot or whatever name one chooses, and that is that
it seems like a modern-day phenomena and hence, has no credibility in the academic and scientific community.

History is used by man to enhance a certain subject to give it credence and yet when it comes to explaining what
thousands of people are seeing during woodland hikes, witnesses describing a large bipedal are mocked by the
media and explained away as mistaken identity or a prank from unknown parties.

A pragmatic person could suggest the appearance of an elusive 'man-like' creature merely the result of a global
society that exists in a better world where fantastical abstract musings can be afforded and I can appreciate that.

Maybe -if we ignore any evidence from the past, it's all just a tourist-gambit with the observers not necessarily
involved, but the perpetrators performing the act in hope of acquiring fame and wealth through maintaining the
Sasquatch belief.

Social media and television programmes certainly promote this acceptance with tales of hairy monsters attacking
unwary campers and prowling the forests attempting to avoid blurry cameras.


An old article from the US. (Notice the stick)

Surely we can put the matter to rest due to the usual question from the sceptics and scientists "Where's the body?"
-and sadly, the response that the remains of a Bigfoot body would be quickly  lost due to nature's ravenous hunger
is not enough for today's demand of 'no pics or it didn't happen'!

However, the shaggy beast does have some historical evidence, even if those same agnostics attempt to tear down
the accounts with assurances that all the tales of yore are merely allegorical and guileful for reasons of religious
persuasion. They certainly make sure that cogency comes across.

But first, let's set-off in that scientific environment, where the idea of shambling giants are smirked at and microscopes
have replaced St.Peter's gates. These guys never make mistakes like putting the skull on the wrong end of a dinosaur
skeleton or even wrongly portray these creatures in their manner of balance.
No, we cannot be doubted and we eat our own.

Take Marcellin Boule, a French paleontologist who discovered a relatively complete skeleton in a cave in the
area known as La Chapelle-aux-Saints in France. it was 1908 and unearthing the find, Boule began a three-year
study on the remains that culminated in his publication known as 'L’homme fossile de La Chapelle-aux-Saints.'

The skeleton included the skull, jaw, most of the vertebrae, several ribs, most of the long bones of his arms and legs
plus some of the smaller bones of his hands and feet. The well-preserved skull shows the low, receding forehead,
protruding midface, and heavy browridges typical of Homo neanderthalensis.

The fossilised fetal position of the discovery and the scattering of flint-tools fitted well with the contemporary
knowledge that early man did have some idea of communal existence. Yet academics believed the cave wasn't
a living area as we know it, but possibly a place where the the elderly man -who would later produce his bones
for Boule, was kept until he was buried there.

In his explanation, Marcellin offered evidence of the posture and gait of the being he regarded as Neanderthal.
But because of his postulation that such early hominid must have struggle to walk upright -due to his findings
from the shape of the spine and other bones, we now see the stereotypical 'caveman' as a brutish being without
contemplation and animal-like.



It's said that Boule made an error due to missing the gross deforming osteoarthritis in the bones and science
rushed in to show how this disease was the obvious reason the French fossil-hunter described such walking habits.

Historians of science have argued that Boule’s story is an example of bias and preconceived ideas influencing
scientific study of fossils and creating an accepted belief to the mainstream culture of a dolt-like creature that
behaved with no real difference from other animals.

The media of our time still show this appearance and with lack of body-hair on the dumb-ass caveman, it gives us
a feeling of progress, an assurance of being better. And that's one of the main problems that the current scientific
community, the lack of hair.

The Scientific American explains why.

What is the latest theory of why humans lost their body hair? Why are we the only hairless primate?

'Mark Pagel, head of the evolutionary biology group at the University of Reading in England and editor of The
Encyclopedia of Evolution, fills us in:

We humans are conspicuous among the 5,000 or so mammal species in that we are effectively naked.
Just consider what your pet dog or cat (or, for that matter, a polar bear) would look like, and how it might
feel, if its furry coat were shorn.

Scientists have suggested three main explanations for why humans lack fur.
All revolve around the idea that it may have been advantageous for our evolving lineage to have become less
and less hairy during the six million years since we shared a common ancestor with our closest living relative,
the chimpanzee.

The aquatic-ape hypothesis suggests that six million to eight million years ago apelike ancestors of modern
humans had a semiaquatic lifestyle based on foraging for food in shallow waters. Fur is not an effective insulator
in water, and so the theory asserts that we evolved to lose our fur, replacing it, as other aquatic mammals have,
with relatively high levels of body fat. Imaginative as this explanation is—and helpful in providing us with an excuse
for being overweight—paleontological evidence for an aquatic phase of human existence has proven elusive.

The second theory is that we lost our fur in order to control our body temperature when we adapted to life on the
hot savannah. Our ape ancestors spent most of their time in cool forests, but a furry, upright hominid walking around
in the sun would have overheated.

The body-cooling idea seems sensible, but even though lacking fur might have made it easier for us to lose heat during
the day, we also would have lost more heat at night, when we needed to retain it.

Recently, a colleague and I suggested that ancestors to modern humans became naked as a means to reduce the
prevalence of external parasites that routinely infest fur. A furry coat provides an attractive and safe haven for insects
such as ticks, lice, biting flies and other "ectoparasites."

These creatures not only bring irritation and annoyance but carry viral, bacterial and protozoan-based diseases such as
malaria, sleeping sickness, West Nile and Lyme disease, all of which can cause chronic medical problems and, in some
cases, death.

Humans, by virtue of being able to build fires, construct shelters and produce clothes, would have been able to lose their
fur and thereby reduce the numbers of parasites they were carrying without suffering from the cold at night or in colder
climates.

Human lice infections, which are confined to the hairy areas of our bodies, seem to support the parasite hypothesis.
Naked mole rats, animals that can be described as resembling "overcooked sausages with buck teeth," also seem to
support the theory: They live underground in large colonies, in which parasites would be readily transmitted.
But the combined warmth of their bodies and the confined underground space probably negate the problem of losing heat
to cold air for these animals, allowing them also to become naked.

Once hairlessness had evolved this way, it may have become subject to sexual selection—being a feature in one sex that
appealed to another. Smooth, clear skin may have become a signal of health, like a peacock's tail, and could explain why
women are naturally less hairy than men and why they put more effort into removing body hair.

Despite exposing us to head lice, humans probably retained head hair for protection from the sun and to provide warmth
when the air is cold. Pubic hair may have been retained for its role in enhancing pheromones or the airborne odors of sexual
attraction...'

Scientific American:

So Bigfoot can't exist.
Bigfoot cannot be real because it walks upright like man, looks like a primate -and if it belongs on our evolutionary tree, it
should've lost its legendary 'fur' like we did. We did and that is the rule.
.................................

There was this guy back in the 13th century called Ugolino di Conti. He later became known as Pope Gregory IX and
came up with the idea of inquisitions to discourage heresy. But being eductated in Paris and Bologna, one would wonder
why such an industrious Roman Catholic leader would be mentioned here.

During his busy papacy of being God's right hand, he instructed a Spanish Dominican friar called Raymond of Penyafort
to scribble a few pages in order of replacing past collections of Canon Law.
These texts became known as 'The Decretals of Gregory IX'

Of course, no works of religious literature would be complete without illustrations and in these exciting images, a creature
that Europe labelled 'The Woodwose' can be seen. In modern day parlance, we might call it Bigfoot.


A knight slaying a wild man and rescuing a lady, who goes off with another knight.
The second knight is slain by a third and the woman attacked by bears.

The weirdness of this is that in most of the medieval artwork, the Woodwose carries a large staff and in many Youtube
Sasquatch/Wild Man videos, a large stick is often seen leaning against a tree. If it's all fake, then at least someone is doing
their homework!



So who's correct? The Catholic Church celebrated the hairy man of the forests and ignored the fact that it should've lost it's
fur due to hominid logic. Science says it's all wishful thinking and rednecks in gorilla suits. The scales of reason cannot help.

The thing is, if and when Bigfoot is finally proven and is possibly attached to our maturation as a species, what will it mean
for science's history? What will it mean to the current 'ethnic-rage' and our understanding of where we came from?

Maybe Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves was right when he murmured to himself regarding Will Scarlett... "I have a brother?"