• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
There are rare claims of relic hominins killing people.

Boris Porshnev believed the Troglodyte was a cannibal species that ate humans. Most of his theories have never been translated into english.

It has definitely been established that human ancestors were cannibals.
 
Boris Porshnev believed the Troglodyte was a cannibal species that ate humans. Most of his theories have never been translated into english.

It has definitely been established that human ancestors were cannibals.

His book on relic hominins is being reprinted and translated by CFZ Press.
 
Boris Porshnev believed the Troglodyte was a cannibal species that ate humans. Most of his theories have never been translated into english.

It has definitely been established that human ancestors were cannibals.
Icelandic folk tales feature cave dwelling cannibals and they have (possibly 'reading in' but still) a distinctly Neanderthal feel to them.
 
Interesting. Could you say which folk tales?
 
Take into consideration Iceland first became populated around year 870. It's possible they have taken their mythology with them from the Scandinavian countries.
 
Struggle for the Troglodytes.

Thanks. It will be good to finally have a quality English translation.

If you happen to know anyone involved in the translation, it is a really big deal for future Zana case research that the names of every Abkhazian involved in the Zana case are correctly nailed down and footnoted with the original language version.
 
From the Coast to Coast website via YouTube comes this footage from Utah, filmed on March 23, purporting to show a Sasquatch/Bigfoot on the side of a mountain during some rather chilly conditions.

An intriguing piece of footage from Utah appears to show a creature of some kind ascending a snowy mountain and some suspect that the oddity could be a Bigfoot. The video was reportedly captured by a man named Tanner Hargis on March 23rd, when he was in his backyard observing a nearby location known as Lone Peak. Much to the man's surprise, as he looked at the mountain through a spotting scope, he was stunned to see what appeared to be a bipedal creature making its way up the mountainside.

Fortunately, Hargis was able to capture some of the scene on video and subsequently sent the footage to a research group known as the Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization. An email exchange between the witness and the researchers added some additional details to the sighting. According to Hargis' estimate, the creature was located a whopping 8,600 feet above sea level when it was spotted on the mountainside and, by his estimate, it appeared to be around eight feet tall. The witness also noted that he could see the arms of the beast hanging by its sides and they seemed to reach down to its knees.

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/watch-sasquatch-filmed-in-utah

 
I watched a new-ish doco on the Sasquatch from the perspective of Canadian Native Elders. For those in Australia, you can watch it on the SBS on Demand service for free. No idea where to see it elsewhere. But there is a website about the doco:

https://scenicsasquatch.com/2018/03/04/sasquatchn-the-documentary/

The most important points there for me were that, according to the Native Elders:
a) The Sasquatch is always female (often with young ones)
b) They inhabit both the physical and the spiritual realm (more the latter than the former)
c) They have a message for us
 
I watched a new-ish doco on the Sasquatch from the perspective of Canadian Native Elders. For those in Australia, you can watch it on the SBS on Demand service for free. No idea where to see it elsewhere. But there is a website about the doco:

https://scenicsasquatch.com/2018/03/04/sasquatchn-the-documentary/

The most important points there for me were that, according to the Native Elders:
a) The Sasquatch is always female (often with young ones)
b) They inhabit both the physical and the spiritual realm (more the latter than the former)
c) They have a message for us

Interesting. I'll give this one a go when time allows.
 
I watched a new-ish doco on the Sasquatch from the perspective of Canadian Native Elders. For those in Australia, you can watch it on the SBS on Demand service for free. No idea where to see it elsewhere. But there is a website about the doco:

https://scenicsasquatch.com/2018/03/04/sasquatchn-the-documentary/

The most important points there for me were that, according to the Native Elders:
a) The Sasquatch is always female (often with young ones)
b) They inhabit both the physical and the spiritual realm (more the latter than the former)
c) They have a message for us

Here's something that really started me thinking KW. Large hominid, can survive on a Tibetan plateau and any relic of the Yeti has nearly always been hominid...Waderya reckon?

https://www.theguardian.com/science...WO33kxvUYQcXQbRhEsnXcOjw_TYE27oUFkQ1soP50aa6Q
 
You would have to explain 160,000 years of no other evidence of remains (so far). And the fact that Yetis match up really well with bears.
 
You would have to explain 160,000 years of no other evidence of remains (so far). And the fact that Yetis match up really well with bears.

No...I don't need explain anything Sharon, as this is pure speculation.
 
Last edited:
You got this cryptozoology (and ancient aliens) thing down!


Well...there's a time for seriousness and there's a time for conjecture - which, for me, knows no bounds. My specific post to KW was pure conjecture - which in my case allows for extreme flights of fancy.

If my conjecture CAN lead on to a serious hypothesis then I get serious Sharon.

Life can get too bloody serious sometimes.
 
I don't think we need to be too concerned with evidence from the last 160,000 years. We're always finding scant evidence of what must have been once significant populations of animals. It follows there have probably been many populations of animals, indeed entire species, for which no evidence is present or has never been found.

However, I'm still pretty convinced that by now we'd have found better evidence for surviving populations of large hominids.
 
I don't think we need to be too concerned with evidence from the last 160,000 years. We're always finding scant evidence of what must have been once significant populations of animals. It follows there have probably been many populations of animals, indeed entire species, for which no evidence is present or has never been found.

However, I'm still pretty convinced that by now we'd have found better evidence for surviving populations of large hominids.
Context is important.
 
You would have to explain 160,000 years of no other evidence of remains (so far). And the fact that Yetis match up really well with bears.

They don't match up with bears unless you know really freaky bears that walk upright, have opposable thumbs allowing them to pick up and hurl rocks and that have flat, gorilla-like faces.
 
They don't match up with bears unless you know really freaky bears that walk upright, have opposable thumbs allowing them to pick up and hurl rocks and that have flat, gorilla-like faces.
The pelts, prints, DNA samples, and many of the locals' understanding are of bears. There will always be descriptions that are exaggerations of reality. What is your opinion of Daniel Taylor's book where he concludes that the prints and ultimately the Yeti references the Asian black bear Ursus thibetanus?
 
The pelts, prints, DNA samples, and many of the locals' understanding are of bears. There will always be descriptions that are exaggerations of reality. What is your opinion of Daniel Taylor's book where he concludes that the prints and ultimately the Yeti references the Asian black bear Ursus thibetanus?

Some bear prints may have been mistaken for yeti prints when the animal has trodden in its own tracks. The folklore of the yeti having it's feet on backwards may come from this as the bear's largest toe is on the outside of it's foot. Another source of confusion is the therm Dzu-Teh a Sino-Tibetan name that translates as 'hulking thing' and is used to describe both yetis and brown bears. However bear prints generally show the very distinctive claws lacking in yeti tracks.
I think Taylor is wrong. Aside from both being large, forest dwelling omnivores they are not really alike. Its like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. All the witnesses from the hill tribes i spoke to knew all the local species of bear well and knew what they had seen was no bear. The general description was of a black haired, upright walking creature some three meters tall and looking like a bi-pedal, long haired gorilla or huge hair covered man.
 
Back
Top