• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Wild Man?

A

Anonymous

Guest
I was just thinking about the identity of the Yeti/sasquatch etc. Now, I've heard of, I think they're called, 'ferrel children'. These are children who have grown up in the wild. Normally, due to their diet, they grow hair all over their body (See what I'm getting at?). I was thinking then that perhaps these wild men are just that, wild men. Possibly a primitive tribe that grew up in the wild and, I guess, over the years natuaral selection would produce the creatures that we know now as the yeti. To me this theory seems more plausible than the missing link or ape theory and it may even be accepted by sceptics who can't complrehend that creatures like these could possibly co-exist with us for so long without being found.
 
I've never heard that their diet should make them grow fur. I know a few people have been born with fur because of genetics, but I doubt this is it.
 
I can't find any info but I remember there was a program on channel 4 a while back that looked at the monkey man sightings in New Delhi and said that a child that grew up in the wild was a likely explanation, it then went on to do a segment on children who grow up in the wild and showed how they grew hair all over their body while living wild, I'm sure someone can back me up... it was called 'The secret lifes of Ghosts and Vampires' or something. I'm sure most poeple here saw it.
 
AdamRang said:
It was called 'The secret lifes of Ghosts and Vampires' or something. I'm sure most poeple here saw it.
Click to expand...

I didn't see it, but I remember the comments on here suggested it wasn't very good...

I've never heard of people growing excess hair through their diet or whatever, it's quite an old fashioned idea that hairy cryptids grew hair because they're normal people who have turned wild. But as I've said, I haven't seen that documentary, so I can't comment directly on the data you're using.
 
I would say its more likelyt he children have been abandoned by their parents because they have birth defects rather than they grew hair bcause of thier diet, but who knows perhaps this could happen.
 
I remember a program a while ago about a child that was discovered living in the wild and 'rescued'. This child had hair all over his/her body that fell out after a while. I only vaguely remeber this. I think there was also a pair of siblings that were found in the wild. They were covered in downy hair and ran around on all fours. I'll try and search for more info on this!Its got me intrigued now:)
 
Ah... now that thats cleared up, what do poeple think about Yeti being a Feral human?
 
I suppose it may explain some of the sightings-but I could only find one story about a feral child that was covered in hair. The other accounts I've read make no mention of this. My own belief is that bigfoot and similar creatures are undiscovered species of primate-possibly large apes. They may even be related to Gigantopithecus (spelling?)-I think this is the extinct giant ape? It seems plausible to me that a species of large ape could exist in the vast forests and mountains in remote areas of the world-think of the mountain gorilla! If they are intelligent enough they may be able to avoid detection as much as possible.
 
I did not see the show but understand that it is indeed
the case that feral children grow extra body hair which is
lost when they are "domesticated".

There is a good chapter on Wild Children in the book Phenomenon
by Rickard & Michell, a much thumbed volume on the piffle
shelf. :cool:
 
The possibility of Yetis, Yerens, Yowies, Orang-pendeks, Almas or Bigfoot being feral humans is very low. If the evidence that we have is to be believed then the footprints left by these creatures could never be human and some of the locations these footprints have been found would be extremely difficult for a human to survive in, e.g. High in the Himalayas , also the hair sample taken of the Yeti in Bhutan has said to come from an unknown species of primate, definitely not human definitely not a bear (as some people believe it is) Yes perhaps some sightings of these creatures could be explained as simply a wild man with a huge beard running thru the forest looking for berries but there are other sightings that just cant be that easily explained and don’t forget we have the Bluff creak footage that we all know is not a feral man out for a morning stroll.
The woodwose is possibly a wild man, the rest aren’t. That’s what I think anyways.
 
Tang> direct us to some stuff about the hair sample, if u could? I'd not heard about that...
 
Jack, the BFRO (Bigfoot Research Orginaisation) used to have a full spread dedicated to the findings but i went there hoping it was still there but it seems they have redesigned their webpage. http://www.bfro.net. Its still worth a look tho if your interested in the subject. if anyone finds their report please post a link in here as they have the best one ive read so far.

Here are some more links that talk about the hair sample. I dont know if anyone saw the tv program that the scientists made when they found this sample but it was really interesting. It made me think that there are more than one species of Yeti living in the mountains as some poeple say it looked like a bear and others said it definately wasnt a bear, then it went on to show some of the yeti foot prints where smaller altho still large with 4 toes than the better known yeti footprints that look like giant human prints with 5 toes. 4 Toe prints are usually a bears, also the scientists took a hair sample from a pelt that was supposidly that of a Yetis and after analysis they found out it was a type of bear but the species was unknown to science, could this be the bear like creature that walks on 2 legs known as the Kuma or Mande Burung that also lives in the mountains with the more human like yeti? i think there is a strong possibility that this is the case.

Anyways here are the links jack, enjoy mate.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20010402/yeti.html

http://www.cosmiverse.com/paranormal04030101.html

http://www.rense.com/general9/ydna.htm

http://www.unmuseum.org/soearch/over0501.htm

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/byeti.htm
 
I saw the program where they found the hair sample inside an old tree. I think it was a local guide that pointed the tree out as a resting place for a Yeti, or whatever the local name is? It was a fascinating show. Was this finding ever announced in the mainstream news or in any scientific publications?
 
Wild humans might account for some of the Central Asian reports, like the Russian almas. They can supposedly interbreed with humans, so (I think) they would have to be at least from genus Homo.
 
Foul Ole Ron said:
I saw the program where they found the hair sample inside an old tree. I think it was a local guide that pointed the tree out as a resting place for a Yeti, or whatever the local name is? It was a fascinating show. Was this finding ever announced in the mainstream news or in any scientific publications?
Click to expand...

Yes Ron thats the program that they found the hair sample of the mygure or yeti as its more commonly known, i thought the program was really good what did you think ron?
Also i think that such a finding like this would be world news but no there was nothing mentioned on the tv or anything besides this program and since there hasnt been any news about the hair sample, if this was a court case it would be over by now. It just goes to show the lack of interest from the public on this subject and people think that there are people out looking for bigfoot and yeti everyday.

here is another good link if your interested, its bhutanese stamps with the yeti on them, pretty cool dont you think?

http://www.pibburns.com/cryptost/yeti.htm
 
Cheers for the links, Tang

I have recollections of the news story now, but didn't take much notice... It didn't get the exposure that Graham Hancock finding the latest "Bimini Wall" has got today...
 
It was an excellent programme. Its sad that when a scientist discovers evidence for a new species of bird or bat, for example, it is usually published in journals or announced somewhere on TV. If only Cryptozoology was taken more seriously and had better funding:(
 
I guess also when we all the time hear that _now_ they have found proof of the yeti or so, and it turns out to be nothing, they don't really feel like reporting it. It's actually amazing we can still get headlines like "Peace in the Middle East", they should have learned a lesson by now.

So any nudists out there? If I look at my body hair it seems that there is less in areas I'm wearing a lot of clothes. Like my leghair seems to stop where my boxershorts begin. I guess it just gets worn off. So what about when you run around naked a lot, do you find the body hair gets more excessive in any way?
 
Xanatic said:
Fijnding a new bird or bat is also cryptozoology.
Click to expand...

I need to learn more about Cryptozoology before making statements! Sorry:)

In the programme mentioned above the hair sample was DNA tested. They discovered it belonged to no know species. You would think an exciting find like this which appears to be the best evidence yet for the existence of Yeti creatures would receive more attention from the scientific community.
 
Hmm, yeah honestly.

Didn't they say they believed it was from a bear, but not from a known kind?

Also do anyone here know something about how a DNA test is performed? Do they need to match it with other DNA samples or can they look at them alone and say where they are from?
 
Have there been any main stream expeditions to find the yeti, big foot etc? I would have thought that it would be far easyer to find than a newspecies of bat or bird.
 
Xanatic said:
Hmm, yeah honestly.

Didn't they say they believed it was from a bear, but not from a known kind?

Also do anyone here know something about how a DNA test is performed? Do they need to match it with other DNA samples or can they look at them alone and say where they are from?
Click to expand...

They took a hair sample from a pelt that monks believed was a yeti skin but that turned out to be some type of unknown bear and the hair sample they found in the tree was studied and they found that the hair was like nothing that has ever been found before. The scientists also brought back other hair samples they found which turned out to be wild board and other stuff and the guy that did the hair analysis said its the first time that they have not been able to pin an ID on a hair sample.
 
There seems to be maybe something about all this that's sort of a side-effect of the Multiregional Hypothesis. Over a vaguely-defined period of time, vaguely Homo erectus-type creatures wandered out of Africa, and eventually filtered into most suitable habitats in the Old World. And then they gradually evolved into various versions of Homo sapiens. But they couldn't have all "gotten the memo" at the exact same time, and there must have been isolated populations off the main migration tracks who "got it" quite a bit later than everybody else, if at all. What became of them? The Homo not-quite sapiens, the Homo sapiens wannabes, the transitional Homos who missed the evolutionary boat. The hinterland hold-outs, did they just die off, or get killed off by the more evolved H saps? Did they flee or get driven into the wild inaccessible places, dispersed into ever smaller and more isolated groups, eventually losing whatever limited proto-culture they may have had, becoming truly "feral" at last, with little or no language or tool-making skills, no mastery of fire, etc? And, did they endure for any length of time? Maybe long enough to be described by a few ancient writers as "wild men" or ogres or similar names? Long enough to be in a few myths and legends, eventually in medieval heraldry etc?
 
Did they flee or get driven into the wild inaccessible places, dispersed into ever smaller and more isolated groups, eventually losing whatever limited proto-culture they may have had, becoming truly "feral" at last, with little or no language or tool-making skills, no mastery of fire, etc? And, did they endure for any length of time? Maybe long enough to be described by a few ancient writers as "wild men" or ogres or similar names? Long enough to be in a few myths and legends, eventually in medieval heraldry etc?
Click to expand...

No, it's just that we've always been intrigued by the idea of a more animalistic version of ourselves. The roots of the wildman story come from inside the modern human mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top