You Are Sasquatch

http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Sasquatch-ebook/dp/B008CALN9C

Has anyone read this?
I was watching the FB/FB youtube videos on this and Patty film.

I am very interested in reading this now.
The connections they have made really makes sense to me from the video.

I think now that if what they see as being accurate will shake up both the scientific evolution theory and the creationism theory.

CMcMillan wrote:http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Sasquatch-ebook/dp/B008CALN9C

Has anyone read this?
I was watching the FB/FB youtube videos on this and Patty film.

I am very interested in reading this now.
The connections they have made really makes sense to me from the video.

I think now that if what they see as being accurate will shake up both the scientific evolution theory and the creationism theory.

While I'm always interested in advancing my understanding...these guys are on my **** list nd it will take a while to get me back on their site or to support their endeavors. Having said that...let me know what you think!

BTW: did you see the Glastonbury, CT historical account of an encounter? I will look out the Hilton and catch a Squatch! hahhahaha The town HAS CHANGED

I would not say that they are on my ****list... But I do not find them as credible as I once did. I think they were on the right track initially but they should have kept their "points" to themselves. They are basically training the next generation of hoaxers. However, I would take their word over Matt Moneymakers any day.

I enjoy watching their breakdowns of video, but I'm not sure there is enough evidence to say "You are Sasquatch". If we evolved from Sasquatch, then why are there still Sasquatch? Why did only some of them evolve and not all?

Please refrain from using profanity.

shoney wrote:I enjoy watching their breakdowns of video, but I'm not sure there is enough evidence to say "You are Sasquatch". If we evolved from Sasquatch, then why are there still Sasquatch? Why did only some of them evolve and not all?

The same could be send for those that feel we evolved from Chimps and Apes.
I just enjoy reading different ideas on stuff

CMcMillan wrote:

shoney wrote:I enjoy watching their breakdowns of video, but I'm not sure there is enough evidence to say "You are Sasquatch". If we evolved from Sasquatch, then why are there still Sasquatch? Why did only some of them evolve and not all?

The same could be send for those that feel we evolved from Chimps and Apes.
I just enjoy reading different ideas on stuff

To my knowledge, no one believes we evolved from chimps or any extant (currently living) apes. The theory of evolution maintains that we share a common ancestor with modern apes, and that common ancestor existed anywhere from 6 to 9 million years ago or more. Typically, as in the proposed ancestor of humans & other non-human great apes, when something evolves, it is doing so in order to keep up with changes in environment, food sources, etc., which render its previous form inadequate (otherwise it wouldn't need to change or evolve).

I own the Kindle version of "You are Sasquatch", and I have watched most of the videos produced by FB/FB, especially the ones that they used to put forth their Sasquatch origin hypotheses. Although they present a unique and fresh perspective in the book, it is unsubstantiated, as there is no tangible evidence at all to back up any of the hypotheses that they present. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, and I plan on getting the next two when they come out simply for the enjoyment of reading them. Just remember, a hypothesis is not validated unless there is actually substantial evidence to back it up.

In one example from the book, they use the theory of self-domestication promoted by a single biologist in regard to wolves, in which that biologist hypothesizes that wolves domesticated themselves into dogs by gradually coming closer and closer to human encampments to feed on scraps and leftovers. To further back up their Sasquatch domestication hypothesis, they take her wolf domestication hypothesis and make the claim that domestic dogs are smaller than wolves, and resemble the more immature stages of their wild ancestors, which are larger and more adult-looking. Thus, they say, we are a self-domesticated version of Sasquatch, and as such are smaller and more resemble an immature Sasquatch. However, it has well been established that humans domesticated wolves by capturing wolf pups (adult wolves coming close to camps would be seen as a threat and likely would be killed), and there are many breeds of dogs that are not only as large as wolves, but are much larger than any wolves in existence.

The average weight of a male gray wolf (the largest wolf species) is just under 100 lbs, with Alaska, Canada, and Russian wolves tending to be a little bigger, occasionally around 120 lbs, with a North American record of 175 lbs and a Ukrainian record of 190 lbs. However, there are many dog breeds, particularly various breeds of mastiffs as well as St Bernards that average over 250 lbs, with an English mastiff weighing a record 343 lbs.

I said all this just to make the point that it is very easy to discount many of the hypotheses put forth in the book as theories, which they aren't (there is a big difference between the two), with a minimal amount of research. Even with Wikipedia or a simple Google search, someone with little to no background in science can easily disprove them. By the way, I'm an anthropologist and a biologist.

Very interesting stuff, now if we could find a body or capture one we could really get some answers. Or maybe we will have more questions.