tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post4777690376192729138..comments2024-01-05T05:02:20.353+00:00Comments on CRYPTOZOOLOGY ONLINE: Still on the Track: LINDSAY SELBY: The ucuUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-38044569954879569382010-05-28T16:22:41.461+01:002010-05-28T16:22:41.461+01:00Well, the simplest and most pragmatic explanation ...Well, the simplest and most pragmatic explanation of Wildmen shown holding up leafy brances and with leaves woven in their hair, etc, is that they are doing it for camafloge. There is also the "Old Red Indian Trick" of holding a small tree or shrub in front of yourself and crouching down, and thus creep slowly foreward by stages under cover.<br /><br />And yes, the earliest colonial-European depictions of these South American Wildmen (all sizes) show them with the usual twined-twig leafy headbands and belts or loincloths. That and possibly clubs or bows and arrows, exactly like the European Wild Men (Wudewasas)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-53849424837430567002010-05-28T01:05:52.820+01:002010-05-28T01:05:52.820+01:00Dale Drinnon: '"Walking Trees" I tak...Dale Drinnon: '"Walking Trees" I take to be a metaphor for great height'.<br /><br />That's an interesting image, Dale - I've never encountered it in this context before.<br /><br />I'm wondering if it might be due to cultural contamination from Europe: many European images of wildmen - possible 'Bigfoot' candidates, of course - depict them hoisting whole trees around with them as if they were their walking stick.<br /><br />There's a sense of the dryad about those images, i.e., as if the tree and the wildman were interchangeable, and some tree-free depictions do render the wildmen's heads and loins covered in profuse foliage, almost inviting us to view them as weretrees, so to speak.<br /><br />alanborkyborkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05042275165058229970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-63018058779141536542010-05-28T00:29:16.470+01:002010-05-28T00:29:16.470+01:00Lindsay: "The Ucu is said to be the size of a...Lindsay: "The Ucu is said to be the size of a large dog and walks erect."<br /><br />Lindsay, don't you find that slightly odd they should compare it to a dog and yet speak of it as walking erect?<br /><br />Dogs aren't exactly famous for walking like people, so why not a bear or a sloth or, indeed, anything that's actually known for walking upright?<br /><br />What I'm getting at is doesn't this suggest there's something distinctly dog-like about it, say its ears? Because I'm pretty certain I can see a nice pair of werewolf style pointy ears on Patterson's Patty, pulled in close to her head.<br /><br />Even some of the myths about people being transformed into wolves seem less to be describing wolves as very hairy hominids with very pointy ears.<br /><br />Indeed, why werewolves at all? Why not werebears or - horror of all horrors - 'curbears'?<br /><br />alanborkyborkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05042275165058229970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16505569.post-15552218671535956972010-05-27T12:38:05.856+01:002010-05-27T12:38:05.856+01:00This is another sticky one. Ucu or ucumar does not...This is another sticky one. Ucu or ucumar does not refer to any one thing but it names a broad category of bearlike creatures. Its usual meaning is the spectacled bear of the Andes, hence the description of being the size of a large dog. It als means the Mono Rey and anything that might be considered a monkeylike bear, bearlike monkey, or ape or ape-man that is somehow bearlike. Some of the reports are definitely of the Mapinguari type but others could be the large bears rumored in South America (otherwise much like brown bears over much of the rest of the world. But it is also used to name Bigfoot-type creatures or "Walking Trees" in the region. "Walking Trees" I take to be a metaphor for great height, but some Folklore takes the metaphor literally and says that they are sorts of Ent creatures.<br /><br />There are many kinds of manlike creatures in Southern South America under a wide variety of sizes, shapes and names. Some of the earliest "Patagonian"(Big Foot) footprints on record are much the same dimensions as the more common Northern Bigfoot. That means specifically barefoot "Human" tracks eighteen inches long in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com