• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      It's Time Again For Sc Member Nominations   08/18/2016

      It's that time again to make your nominations for the Steering Committee. We have three seats up for a vote (currently held by BobbyO, norseman and Cotter). Please take a moment of your time to visit this link and nominate some folks...http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/54368-it-is-time-for-sc-member-nominations-2-nd-cycle/          
       
Guest shady grove

Different Types Of Bigfoot

51 posts in this topic

How many different types of BF do you know of?

 

Im told around my area there are 2 types- large black ones that are not friendly and smaller red ones that are more docile.

 

Just for the record I have seen neither.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a DJ on a bigfoot tv show say the 3 toed skunk apes are cranky and listening to Black Sabath

Wile the ones in the northwest are more kumbaya nature loving harmless types.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many different types of BF do you know of?

 

As of today, not a single "type" has been proven to exist, let alone two or more.  In order to prove different "types", I assume there would need to be a sample of each for comparison.  There lies the problem.

 

Remember what Frank Zappa said "The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe."

Edited by WRabbit
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there is not  perhaps more than two species. What I think the confusion is, is behavior. for instance Orcas (Orcinus Orca) behavior  is significantly different

between resident and transient pods. resident pods are typically feeding specialists  and by definition have a home range. Transient pods are opportunistic feeders

(fish, pinnipeds, even other cetacea) they are typically more aggressive. I think folks are mistaking BF behavior for multiple species, big guys are mellow and little guys are a-holes.. We also have to address  sexual maturity, most male mammals when approaching sexual maturity get belligerent (generally teenage dumbasses).

Combine this with a juvi. male being run out of a family group by the dominant male as it reaches competitive sexual maturity. You have a cranky, lonely BF who isn't

in its comfort zone. You could also have a transient who is a loner (for multiple reasons) having to be entirely self reliant, behavior would be different than a troupe/ family member. We may have two regional subspecies, I doubt we have many distinct species running about.. just my 2cents

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Druid,

 

Is there any similar behavior documented in any of the great ape species?  That sort of comparison would make more sense regarding sasquatches than orcas, just sayin'.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the southern ones, skunk ape, smaller generally, and the Northern ones. Not sure about Texas, with no swamps.

There are black, brownish, orangish (juviniles) blond, white, grey. Black flesh, grey flesh, pink flesh. Stringy hair, straight groomed hair. 7-9 ft tall average, 10-12ft+ alpha males.They change color over time, but Smeja said the juvies were black, (but probably the same species).
Southern BF are also inbred or something because they sometimes have only 3 or 4 toes.

Also, redish hair is the best color for amature hunters-Ive heard, it hides best at dawn and dusk. That Juvies are sometimes red makes sense in that respect.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Druid,

 

Is there any similar behavior documented in any of the great ape species?  That sort of comparison would make more sense regarding sasquatches than orcas, just sayin'.

Bobos, and regular chimps is one comparison. But the juvi male comarison made I think is a good one. Chimps have an alpha male, but if he is too much of a pain the the rear, the females may drive him out. The females can choose the alpha they want, and they may not want the badi all the time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes similar amongst the greater apes. Chimps show the greatest variety of behavior,  Orangs, live semi solitary.  Another thing, is individual temperament, some animals (yes we are included in the term animal) are more easygoing than others some more prone to D bag behavior.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I believe and what is proven are two things entirely. So obviously this is my opinion.

I have experienced the reality of the SSq in FL as some might call Skunk Ape.

 

I do believe there are several different kinds of SSq not unlike there being different races of

civilized documented human beings. My experience indicates to me they are closer to us than

to a wild animal or an ape. There are stories from now back until the beginnings of recorded

histories and in every region of the world of SSq like creatures, and the accounts of their

said characteristics from each varies slightly from region to region so I feel this all anicdotally

points to the theory of differences between them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes similar amongst the greater apes. Chimps show the greatest variety of behavior,  Orangs, live semi solitary.  Another thing, is individual temperament, some animals (yes we are included in the term animal) are more easygoing than others some more prone to D bag behavior.

Something that the primatologist Jane Goodall observed-

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a DJ on a bigfoot tv show say the 3 toed skunk apes are cranky and listening to Black Sabath

Wile the ones in the northwest are more kumbaya nature loving harmless types.

Hahahaha that was Chester Moore. Is he still in the game??
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the theory that there are multiple species is almost a negative theory towards the truth of existence of Bigfoot... if there has to be thousands of individuals of one species for a population to exist and not crash, then you need the same amount for every species, unless they integrate, which would make them relatively indistinguishable from eachother over time anyway. Variation within species, however, makes a lot more sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is how I see it: sasquatch most likely originated in Asia, or at least somewhere outside of North America. They traveled to North America during a period of high glacial activity, likely over the Bering Land Bridge. However, I also believe that it is at least possible they came over long before most people would place the human migration into North America. But it is hard to say whether they sort of followed humans, or were already here, or even came long afterwards. Either way, they originated somewhere else, most likely anyway. So when they came into North America, they would have been congregated in the Pacific Northwest, before they had a chance to spread out over the whole of North America. 

 

Now, it really depends on how long it took them to spread out to such a large degree. If it took a really long time, I would think there would have been more time for changes to occur. Sasquatch likely travel great distances in their lifetimes, but I would doubt that a single sasquatch would travel all over North America in its lifetime, therefore there are going to be gene pools that are somewhat isolated from the remainder of the population. So it stands to reason that there will in fact be differences among the population as a whole. But, I do not think that these animals have been here long enough for any great changes to have occurred. I believe that it is more likely that some superficial types of changes have occurred, but nothing as drastic as changes in the structure of the foot, for instance, or anything else of that nature. Therefore I do not believe that there is a population of sasquatch who only have three toes. I find it almost ridiculous to tell the truth.

 

This is not to say that certain individuals could not have mutated into developing something like this, and despite the relative isolation of the population, I find it hard to believe that such a trait would rise to the surface. The one exception that I have thought of is that bigfoot in the South, further away from the point of origin in the PNW, could have even less genetic variation, and a smaller population, since I believe that the majority would have remained in the lush environment of the PNW after getting away from the ice that was found in the North. The ice would have extended into the PNW, but not all of it would have been covered, and it would have been easy for them to move a little further North after the ice began receding. The game would have done this as well, so it makes sense that they would have followed these other animals. So I suppose it is possible that there is a bit of inbreeding going on within the population of sasquatch in areas more isolated from the main population, which would be areas further away from where most sasquatch settled. This is highly speculative though, and I don't know enough about sasquatch in general, much less about genetics, to say whether this is plausible.

 

If one looks at the major differences among humans, I think we would see similar differences among the sasquatch population. And that is a lot of variation compared to other primates, at least in my opinion. One does not see marked differences among the chimpanzee or orangutan populations, at least not to my knowledge. I believe that sasquatch hair color varies to a great degree, but I believe that these differences will be found among any local sasquatch population, and is not determined by the geographic location of the animal. So for instance, the yeti, as found in Nepal, has been thought of as being white. But, the yeti are not any whiter than some of the sasquatch found in NA, and the likelihood of being white, brown, black, or reddish is the same for the entire sasquatch population around the globe. 

 

Something interesting to think about is the widespread location of sasquatch. They are found, for sure, in North America, Asia, Australia, and possibly in smaller numbers on other continents. This is partly why I believe they originated in Asia, as that is the most central location when compared to every place they are found. And for them to have gotten to a place like Australia, they must have been around for quite a long time, as it takes time for a population to spread that far. Not to mention that Australia has not been connected to Asia for some time. Therefore it is more likely that there would be certain variations among the population located in different parts of the world, but I still do not think these variations would be all that big of a deal. Time, more than location, plays a part in the genetic development of a species, at least from what I understand. This is because mutations are strictly chance developments, and the longer the amount of time, the greater the likelihood of mutations having presented themselves in the population.

 

And if the mutations are beneficial, the animals who posses this advantage are more likely to leave offspring, as compared to the animals that do not have the same advantage. I would think that having five toes, as compared to three, would be more beneficial, and thus would be more likely to take over the population. The advantage, in my opinion, comes from the fact that the animal could balance better, and probably run swifter, than if it had only three toes, which would give less stability at the front of the foot, or the platform we bipedal animals balance on and use for locomotion. I am not saying that someone couldn't see a three toed sasquatch. But I think it is highly presumptuous to see a three toed sasquatch and then assume that there is a large population of three toed sasquatch.

 

For someone to make this claim, they would have had to observe dozens of sasquatch, and I just do not believe that. Because if they could observe sasquatch that often, they would have really good visual evidence as well. So be leery of anyone who claims such things without the proof to back it up. Speculation is fine, but one shouldn't claim it as fact, or at least should differentiate between opinion and fact. 

 

As I am sitting here pondering related sasquatch issues, I have come to appreciate the possibility of groups of sasquatch, groups that are isolated by location. I believe that sasquatch "migrate" or at least move great distances compared to other animals. Why they do this is hard to say, possibly it is a seasonal thing, having to do with locating food sources, or it could relate to finding other sasquatch to mate with. I am pondering whether sasquatch could have a certain instinct to branch out away from their usual stomping grounds, so as to make inbreeding less of a possibility. So maybe they travel these great distances when they are looking to mate with another sasquatch. I would think that males would come in from other areas, instead of females covering such great distances. I suppose it is possible at least.

 

I have gotten sidetracked since I have been thinking along many tangent lines while writing this post, so I will go ahead and wrap it up. So to once again answer your question regarding different types or species of bigfoot, I would still have to assume that these animals are all fairly similar, even though there could be reasons as to why they would differ. But as I said, there is going to be more variation between sasquatch that live in different habitats. Most of the habitats of North America are similar as well. But Southern habitats are not going to have the same cold winters that are found in the North and in Asia. So Yowies may show more of a resemblance to Southern bigfoot, and to the rock apes of Vietnam, while PNW sasquatch may show more resemblace to the Yeti and the sasquatch found in areas like the Caucases, throughout Russia, etc. BTW I think Russia is an ideal place to hunt for sasquatch. People don't realize the amount of habitat for sasquatch in North America, and there is way more room for them in Russia, seeing as how there is much more unexplored territory. I mean think about the fact that there are still areas in the PNW that no human has ever been to.

 

More often than not a human has at least passed through an area, at the most, which is of no consequence to sasquatch. I think their populations will be larger in the areas where humans never go. And seeing as how we are having more and more sightings outside of these locations, I think my hypothesis of a rapidly growing population is feasible. I think we will continue to have more sightings closer to human habitations, as the sasquatch are pushed out from their ideal habitats, which have no humans, due to an increasing population.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the individual we had around for winter '11-'12 through late Feb '12 was a transient or an adolescent. We all also have to not give into Anthropomorphism, since

we do not have a wonderful Ms. Goodall spending years with a troupe/family. we are on almost all levels speculating at best. We have similarities across primate species. This does not mean that an unknown primate shares behavior with us and others in the family. possible? yes probable? more than likely. But fact remains

 

we don't know. I think if we look at Billi and Bonobo behavior and the metabolic governor of the Gorilla. we are getting into the behavior range of our elusive beastie.  We don't know  what a very long time of isolation after crossing to N.A. (as Jiggy put it ) did to  original behavior. On a side note, I've always wondered how man and our large friends contended with Ursus Arctodus  &( pristinus). These guys make todays bears look like.. well.. teddy bears.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites