Sasquatch: Predjudices Live On, Long After The Evidential Picture Has Changed. (SASQUATCH IS ERECTUS.)

Here we must acknowledge Lloyd Pye for his insights. That may or may not be right. But that are nonetheless brilliantly original. I won’t insult him by suggesting that if he is right he would deserve the Nobel Prize. I wouldn’t want that sort of ignominy to befall him given the idiots, frauds and quackademics the prize has recently been handed to. This is important to our heritage, future and survival. So listen up.

Last time we rejected the Sasquatch, back in the 70’s, the thing was he didn’t fit into the alleged evolutionary picture of that time. He didn’t fit into the predominant “Whig Theory Of Evolution” (Paraphrased from the more well-known concept of the “Whig Version Of History.”)

We humans, were supposed to have evolved from being Erectus, and then modernised our act to be Neanderthal, and then we were supposed to have evolved further from being Neanderthal to being Sapiens.

So where would homo-Sasquatch have fitted into this sort of narrative back in the 1970’s? Well we know the answer to that. Sasquatch did not fit into quakademic notions even a little bit. Bigshots throw an evolutionary party but homo-Sasquatch? He’s not invited. He is like how Rambo describes himself in First Blood Part II.

“What means expendable?”

“Its like someone invites you to a party and you don’t show up, it doesn’t really matter.”

Unlike back in the 1970’s (when the Sasquatch craze hit its first peak) we now have a different understanding to how the lineage of hominids worked or did not work. We of course now know, that Erectus, Neanderthal and Sapien all overlapped. They did not morph simply one into the next. So the question now is “Where did these other blokes go?”

Where are these other gentlemen? We Sapiens are still here. Yet we believe that Erectus and Neanderthal are not.

THINK AGAIN!!!!!

“I never died” said he. “I never died ” saith Erectus.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” I don’t know who this quote is original too. But I read it from Carl Sagan. A bloke not known for fantastic wisdom in the field of epistemology. However there is something in this statement of his. Especially as it refers to the fossil record.

SINCE absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence ……………… it then follows that:

THE FOSSIL RECORD IS NOT THE HISTORICAL RECORD. RATHER IT IS MERELY THE “ON-CAMERA” HISTORICAL RECORD.

Lets go over that again. Too often humans and quackademics look at the fossil record as if it were the historical record proper. This is implausible. Since there is a filter there. You have to become a fossil to get into the register. And its not always easy to become a fossil. The likelihood of a species showing up REPETITIVELY in the fossil record is by no means independent of the ecological niche in which he flourishes.

Evolution is a strange beast. Most of its work is off-camera. It doesn’t work with anything like the forward momentum that most folks seem to assume.

Whatever happened to Erectus and Neanderthal? Being pretty intelligent, powerfully strong, and bipedal, surely has its advantages? So its a mystery where these other blokes got to. Humans could have banded together to defeat Erectus clans. But would this mean extermination? Would we as a race, have hunted them down Nazi-style and murdered every last one of them?

This is simply not plausible and it is a fact that apart from ourselves, these two species faced no credible predator that could possibly deal them a mortal blow AS A SPECIES. No what would have happened is we would have evolved “off-camera” in the niches not condusive to entry into the fossil record. But when we finally emerged fully formed and successful, we then would have driven the other two species (Erectus and Neanderthal) off to the niches that we didn’t particularly care for. Niches that we didn’t care for and that we weren’t powerfully well equipped to compete within.

Whereas the Sheriff and his men, in the book version of “First Blood”, had their act together in the streets of that town, once they stepped into the bush, well they were then in John Rambo’s territory. The Sheriff owns the towns and the open land. But the dense forest belongs to Rambo.

(((((Teasle: He was just another drifter who broke the law!
Trautman: Vagrancy wasn’t it? That’s gonna look real good on his grave stone in Arlington: Here lies John Rambo, winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, survivor of countless incursions behind enemy lines. Killed for vagrancy in Jerkwater, USA.
Teasle: Now don’t give me any of that crap Trautman. Do you think Rambo was the only guy who had a tough time in Vietnam? He killed a police officer for Christ’s sake!
Trautman: You’re goddamn lucky he didn’t kill all of you.)))))

While Sapiens could band together in bigger numbers (the sort of co-ordination that language allows) and with better weapons, all this would be for nought if we followed Erectus into the deep forests. We would soon find ourselves as vulnerable as those guys trying to chase down John Rambo in First Blood. In this way the niches would have been divided up in terms of military effectiveness.

((((Teasle: Are you telling me that 200 of our men against your boy is a no-win situation for us?
Trautman: You send that many, don’t forget one thing.
Teasle: What?
Trautman: A good supply of body bags.)))))

At first we have the coast. If Erectus shows up we can all go into the water to get away from him. Of course the problem with being a coastal species is that great natural disasters will tend to wipe out your numbers from time to time. But this constant thinning of our numbers allows us better to evolve out of the glare of the fossil record. Essentially the picture would be that we emerge from the coast, and into the fossil record, and chase Erectus and Neanderthal into the niches where they can easily defeat us. We are off-camera for millions of years of our evolution, then we chase them off-camera but we do not send them extinct. Point of fact there was no way we could have sent them extinct, except by utterly gratuitous and evil intention, co-ordinated on a species-wide basis.

So whereas the quackademics of the 1970’s, simply could not fit Sasquatch into the evolutionary fairy-story they had put together, now in 2010, homo-Sasquatch helps add to the picture.

SASQUATCH IS ERECTUS FOR SURE.

He is Erectus for sure. But our prejudices change more slowly than the evidential picture. If he’s there than most likely he is our closest relative. We ought to take him seriously. Seriously enough to go out to the bush with the night vision goggles and pop a dart in his ass. But we will have to hit him with so much tranquilizer as to err on the side of killing him. Because we own the oceans, the open land, the cities, the light forests, and even the dense forests during the daytime hours. At night the dense forests still belong to Erectus. Aka homo-Sasquatch.

The tattooed lady left the circus train,
Lost all of her pictures in the rain,
I wonder if you’re happy,
I wonder if you’re free,
I wonder if you’ll ever know,
The marks you left on me.
I’m the wild man, from Borneo,
The wild man, from Borneo
You come to see,
What you wanna see,
Ah, you come to see,
But you never come to know.

See Lloyd Pye for more of something reasonably close to this version of events.

Now I have an ulterior motive for bringing the movie “First Blood” into this story. Apart from the obvious motive of making the parallel with John Rambo to help people grasp the reality of the situation. Or at least the LIKELY reality of the situation. If millionaires with too much time on their hands start getting busted making you-beaut footprints with fantastically realistic healed scars and dermal ridges, well then the paradigm which says the Sasquatch exists, will sink down below the contrary point of view in terms of ranking. As time goes on if more evidence, and more convincing evidence isn’t forthcoming, though we have the night-goggles and night-photography now …….. well its the same deal. Under these circumstances the idea of Sasquatch being real will lose its number one ranking. But I’m confident the evidence will keep coming in.

So what is the ulterior motive to bringing in John Rambo? Well I just think First Blood is a good and underated movie. The thing is its fundamentally a straight action flick. 90% action. 10% non-action content. But the small amount of content is truly excellent. Which is one reason why some of us are still absolutely delighted when Stallone does fine work, as he quite often does.

Here is the show-stopping scene for me from First Blood. Its like we never gave these kids a chance to grow up and just be kids. Then we expect them to kill people for a dispute not their own. And then we blame them when they get back to the world. All this concern for the Vets might be old hat but it was by no means old hat when this movie came out. Surely only “Uncommon Valour” beat it to the cinemas on this score. Uncommon Valour is one of these films wherein the first half is a sort of masterpiece. But the second part is ho-hum and B-Grade level. Its worth watching the whole thing once over, and the first half every five years.

Well again. Here is for me the show-stopping scene from First Blood. This fellow has run amok throughout the entire film. You only see him as a terminator sort of fellow. Still deeply traumatised, in some ways stubborn, but you never see him in this way, like a person robbed of his rightful late teen years. His speech, garbled though it is, mirrors exactly the true history of the war in Vietnam. Note that he talks AS IF what he is doing in the scene, right that moment, is simply an extension of the war in Vietnam. “Don’t say thatsover. Nothing. You just don’t turn it off….”

If we want to go into the deep forest and hit a Sasquatch with a tranquilizer there is no way to make it safe for the humans without risking the life of Erectus. Its no small mission.