hiflier

Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

249 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, southernyahoo said:

Hiflier, do you own a copy of 50 Years with Bigfoot, by Janice Carter and Mary Green? I distinctly remember a quote from Janice that Sasquatch were "Bear People".

 

Whether you or anyone else believes her story, I think you would find her account to resonate with what is currently accepted about bigfoot today.  Much of her claims were not well received at the time of the release of the book, but are common today.

 

I personally think Sasquatch are great ape in origin, and retain both human and ape traits.

 

The hair does hide a little too much, and on that topic, I don't think Sasquatch hair should have an undercoat like a bear if it's great ape (apes don't have an undercoat). I mention this because Ketchum based her conclusion they were a people on the mitochondrial DNA results of over a hundred samples. My sample was like human hair in numerous aspects but differed in others but was determined to be fully human. 

 

I tend to think the same, (not that my opinion means anything). Sasquatch has been described many times as having unusually long arms and numerous times as having a sagittal crest on the head, or the beginning of one that people have noticed.

Aren't these prominent ape like features, rather than bear type features?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the bear idea is not holding much water with me. There are way more commonalities between BF and primate than BF and bear.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you enjoyed my response.  I hope to continue that warm feeling, but it's hard to talk about fishing to anyone who's never fished nor seen a fish.  Since you suggest such a creature/critter doesn't exist, I think it's safe to assume you've never had a close encounter - by intent or by accident.

 

Picture yourself in a very remote area, on a mountain, 8,000' elevation, on a narrow mountain cut (like a primitive road), and there's a small, thick cluster of trees - so thick that if there had been an eight foot diameter tree there - it would conceal whatever was behind it exactly the same.  You're getting growled at in a very voluminous, very deep growl, and you are experiencing sympathetic resonance in your own chest.  Got it?

 

You can't see what's in the cluster as the sun is starting to set, and the cluster is so thick.  What do you do?  In this case, it's a matter of deductive situational reasoning.  What large animal can growl, that can possibly be found at 8,000 foot altitude, in the middle of nowhere?  You quickly eliminate a cow, gator, Nile croc, African lion, etc.  Now we're down to three choices:  black bear, wolf, or mountain lion.  Those are the only possibilities.

 

I used to have a grey wolf - just over 7' long, and his weight varied seasonally between 170-175 pounds.  I know what a wolf growl sounds like, so a wolf is excluded.  That leaves a bear or mountain lion.  A bear makes some bear noises, but nothing like this growl, and besides, a bear will be moving - not staying in one place while growling.  So I can eliminate the bear.  That leaves a big cat.  As I never considered a "mythical beast" as an option.

 

Now a big cat is an ambush animal.  A mountain lion doesn't go around growling, instead electing to take their prey by surprise, from behind, and normally from above.  This is the only animal left in this entire region that can really growl - but they don't use growling as a warning - which means something is wrong with this big cat.  What could possibly be wrong with him to cause this unusual warning growling?  He's either injured (and doesn't want to be approached), or he's sick (and doesn't want to be approached) or he's rabid - in which case he's likely out of his mind.  If you can offer any other possibilities for my assumption - please feel free to share.

 

When the Big Boy I did see began entering into that cluster of trees where (what I still assumed to be a big cat) was in concealment, I began backing up much faster, as I've seen animals fight, and one will usually "squirt" out to get away - and it's a bad feeling when they "squirt" out in your direction.

 

But when Big Boy got into the cluster, the growling noise stopped.  No noise at all.  No fighting.  Nothing ran out.  Nothing but total silence.

 

Only later did I use INDUCTIVE situational reasoning to assume that likely there was NOT a big cat in the cluster of trees, but another critter of like kind.  Didn't see it, but the Big Boy did, and there was no fuss upon his arrival.  Could have been a juvenile, could have been a female - who knows? 

 

Of course, the BF could have entered the small cluster, used a Ninja strike, instantly broke the cat's neck, and did so without a sound.  Do you prefer this scenario?  I mean, if the idea of one mythical creature somehow troubles someone, the idea of TWO could be catastrophic.

 

I fogged it back to camp.  I didn't look for footprints - why would I?  I just saw something up close that didn't exist!  Footprints are for determining direction - and I already knew which direction he came from - I'd been watching him! 

 

Tracks.  Like there's not enough track castings - enough to make an artificial reef.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far Archer....really enjoyed your narrative of your encounter.  I got to ask about your wolf pet though. That is a mega-beast! I was sharing your account with someone not on the board and he responded with some doubts about how a wolf could be that large. I didn't know, but thought I'd ask. As you know, in these matters, witnesses are held to an almost absurd level of credibility on every detail (not that I need convincing, mind you). It is something I've seen often around here, almost like some do look for an "out" to keep their reality unmolested. Still, I thought I'd ask. Was that a wolf-dog hybrid who ate very, very well ? :D  Was your quoted length of 7' from the nose to tip of the tail? (I'd almost assume it had to be...but you know how it goes with some....but that is still pretty danged long)   Thanks again.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a client with a pair of great danes that weigh in at ~170-175#.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing up we had a lab/newfoundland mix that tipped the scales in the range of 150lbs, Big heavy dog, unfortunately we lost him to heart failure.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WSA said:

Far Archer....really enjoyed your narrative of your encounter.  I got to ask about your wolf pet though. That is a mega-beast! I was sharing your account with someone not on the board and he responded with some doubts about how a wolf could be that large. I didn't know, but thought I'd ask. As you know, in these matters, witnesses are held to an almost absurd level of credibility on every detail (not that I need convincing, mind you). It is something I've seen often around here, almost like some do look for an "out" to keep their reality unmolested. Still, I thought I'd ask. Was that a wolf-dog hybrid who ate very, very well ? :D  Was your quoted length of 7' from the nose to tip of the tail? (I'd almost assume it had to be...but you know how it goes with some....but that is still pretty danged long)   Thanks again.  

 

 

Generally, wolves in the wild don't get that large - they don't eat as well, and life is a bit harsh.  If you want one, you might read up on the McKenzie Valley wolves.  The largest one killed weighed 175 pounds, and if you raise one, he can get closer to 250 pounds.  You only feed them once a day - high protein - they make the rest of what they need.  Feed them any more often, and you'll regret the masses of poop from messing up their digestive systems.

 

When I say something, you can bank it.  May not understand it, may find it counter-intuitive, may find it offensive, or may find me offensive - and I have no problem with that.  But you can bank it.  As a young man, accurate information was to be gathered by me and reported to my superiors.  No room for exaggeration, no room for speculation.  Accuracy was paramount.  It just got to be a habit I've carried through the years.

 

Others, friends, from time to time would come back later, and tell me they were once again surprised to have gotten verification of something they previously found difficult to believe.  So  I just make a joke of it and tell them, "If I tell you a duck can pull a truck, just hook 'em up."

 

You asked about the measurement.  The length was from the tip of his nose to the tip of his tail.  Nothing on earth is a better companion for a family than a wolf - especially if you get him as a little cub.  You become HIS pack, and he assumes the least position - his level of status is automatically self-placed, even under the children.  

 

There's no such thing technically as a pure-breed wolf - as you never know what happens in wild country out of sight - so some sub-species with some dog in them from many generations back may be in there, but no way of knowing without detailed DNA testing.  Just full-blooded wolves are about as pure as one can claim.

 

Extend to your friend that I apologize for introducing him to new information - but now he can know.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, FarArcher said:

I'm glad you enjoyed my response.  I hope to continue that warm feeling, but it's hard to talk about fishing to anyone who's never fished nor seen a fish.  Since you suggest such a creature/critter doesn't exist, I think it's safe to assume you've never had a close encounter - by intent or by accident.

 

Picture yourself in a very remote area, on a mountain, 8,000' elevation, on a narrow mountain cut (like a primitive road), and there's a small, thick cluster of trees - so thick that if there had been an eight foot diameter tree there - it would conceal whatever was behind it exactly the same.  You're getting growled at in a very voluminous, very deep growl, and you are experiencing sympathetic resonance in your own chest.  Got it?

 

You can't see what's in the cluster as the sun is starting to set, and the cluster is so thick.  What do you do?  In this case, it's a matter of deductive situational reasoning.  What large animal can growl, that can possibly be found at 8,000 foot altitude, in the middle of nowhere?  You quickly eliminate a cow, gator, Nile croc, African lion, etc.  Now we're down to three choices:  black bear, wolf, or mountain lion.  Those are the only possibilities.

 

I used to have a grey wolf - just over 7' long, and his weight varied seasonally between 170-175 pounds.  I know what a wolf growl sounds like, so a wolf is excluded.  That leaves a bear or mountain lion.  A bear makes some bear noises, but nothing like this growl, and besides, a bear will be moving - not staying in one place while growling.  So I can eliminate the bear.  That leaves a big cat.  As I never considered a "mythical beast" as an option.

 

Now a big cat is an ambush animal.  A mountain lion doesn't go around growling, instead electing to take their prey by surprise, from behind, and normally from above.  This is the only animal left in this entire region that can really growl - but they don't use growling as a warning - which means something is wrong with this big cat.  What could possibly be wrong with him to cause this unusual warning growling?  He's either injured (and doesn't want to be approached), or he's sick (and doesn't want to be approached) or he's rabid - in which case he's likely out of his mind.  If you can offer any other possibilities for my assumption - please feel free to share.

 

When the Big Boy I did see began entering into that cluster of trees where (what I still assumed to be a big cat) was in concealment, I began backing up much faster, as I've seen animals fight, and one will usually "squirt" out to get away - and it's a bad feeling when they "squirt" out in your direction.

 

But when Big Boy got into the cluster, the growling noise stopped.  No noise at all.  No fighting.  Nothing ran out.  Nothing but total silence.

 

Only later did I use INDUCTIVE situational reasoning to assume that likely there was NOT a big cat in the cluster of trees, but another critter of like kind.  Didn't see it, but the Big Boy did, and there was no fuss upon his arrival.  Could have been a juvenile, could have been a female - who knows? 

 

Of course, the BF could have entered the small cluster, used a Ninja strike, instantly broke the cat's neck, and did so without a sound.  Do you prefer this scenario?  I mean, if the idea of one mythical creature somehow troubles someone, the idea of TWO could be catastrophic.

 

I fogged it back to camp.  I didn't look for footprints - why would I?  I just saw something up close that didn't exist!  Footprints are for determining direction - and I already knew which direction he came from - I'd been watching him! 

 

Tracks.  Like there's not enough track castings - enough to make an artificial reef.

Once again I enjoyed your detailed response. I really do appreciate it. Thank you so much for taking the time to explain it in detail to me. Also thanks for not being rude about it this time. 

Please try and understand my position. I have a scientific mind and that is my approach based on my education. 

I certainly never meant to offend you. 

I of course can't accept your sighting as nothing more than a great campfire story. You have nothing to offer but your testimony. Which means absolutely nothing in the scientific world. 

No documented specimen carrys a lot more weight. .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you throw out eyewitness testimony, much of what we claim to know scientifically concerning many animals of many types can also be thrown out, because most often that is how we study behavior, and also how many species have been found and identified. Local legends have lead many a scientist to discover an unknown specie, unfortunately the legend of Sasquatch has never garnered much interest in the scientific community. What is most ironic is that the discovery of the last 2000 years is out there to be proven, and know one but a few hobbyists is trying to get that done. If I were a scientist of that type, I certainly would be looking for funding to produce a long term study in the field availing itself of both the people needed and the technology. You do not discover a creature that has been adapted toward remaining hidden without full use of every resource available. And no, sorry, it is not related to a bear, it is far more likely related to humans and our recent ancestors, and that is the rub, we do not want to realize we are not the only one of our kind, nor that something this monstrous is roaming our woods. The sasquatch like it this way, they could care less who believes in them.

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth noting the time component here.    When we talk about discovery of other unknown species, we're talking about a thing which has already happened.   When we talk about sasquatch, we're talking about something which has yet to happen.   Comparing the current state of each is an apples to oranges comparison.   If we look back at past discoveries of unknown species during the time when they were suspected but unproven we have a closer analog to the sasquatch situation today.    That still doesn't account for the cultural myth component of the picture.   I can't think of another unproven species which was so deeply and broadly ingrained in our cultural mythos prior to official discovery as sasquatch is today.     The picture, with context included, seems unique.    However, ignoring the evidence which DOES exist merely because the big picture is unique is a major mistake.   Evidence is evidence.    I agree with LCB ... the evidence warrants broader and more serious attention than it has gotten from the very people who should be most interested.

 

MIB

 

PS: That still doesn't make bigfoot a bear.  :)

Edited by MIB
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence IS evidence, indeed.

 

Sure, they are "just" stories. But then you see these kinds of correlations popping up, and they begin to be something more:

 

"... there is report on another website that describes a Class A encounter on the same day, made by an unrelated person, about an hour later, just a mile or so from this encounter. While I was not involved in the investigation from the other site, it reads as credible."

  

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversely, it's silly to be hurt and defensive when one's uncorroborated report isn't accepted. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MIB said:

 ... the evidence warrants broader and more serious attention than it has gotten from the very people who should be most interested.

 

The woods are full of naturalists that study the very areas that supposedly have bigfoot populations. 

 

Any one of them would love to document a new species of insect..... A 9ft 1000lbs North American squatch would be second only to the discovery of the Galapogos Islands.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Martin said:

The woods are full of naturalists that study the very areas that supposedly have bigfoot populations.

 

Cite your sources, please?    I don't recall anyone I've met on a trail, bigfoot country or not, identifying themselves as a "naturalist."     I've run into a "naturist" a time or two ... maybe that's what you meant?  (I don't think I'm allowed to post those hypothetical pictures here.  :))

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites