Lake County Bigfooot

Sasquatch Adaptability and Survival

153 posts in this topic

Clearly you guys know a lot about biolygollygee.

Edited by JDL
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using Koko as an example of an intelligent primate, not particularly human, she was actually concerned and asked about the after life of her kitten when it died, need you more examples of higher thinking in primates. Let me suggest that Sasquatch is the closest creature to human intelligence, perhaps so close it would be frightening to see what they could conceive. Bipedalist makes a pretty valid point, let me take it one further....What if they want to bedazzle us with their capabilities....which is what was being suggested. I think they could do that with relative ease. I think they could definitely plot to confuse the daylights out of us, even incorporating some forms of deception into the mix. Humans have learned how to master illusion as a form of entertainment, but this art goes back to an adaption for the need to survive.  These creatures might actually be able to throw a voice, or do something very clever in order to throw us off of the reality of what they are, do not put it past them. Hand tricks performed by a magician illustrate how our perception is fairly easily manipulated, if that is the case, perhaps they have gotten a hold of how to manipulate our perception to a degree, that seems to strike a chord in me for some reason. Even my vocal encounter had that effect, it was like it was happening in a slightly different space of reality, that is probably just my reaction to that situation, but couple that with the possibility of them being able to master some forms of illusion, just an interesting possibility when it comes to intelligence and adaption. Maybe I am giving them slightly too much credit here, but consider that in order to survive these creatures have adaptions driven by the need to remain a hidden very large creature at the top of the food chain, that does require spectacular adaptions in order to consider the creature a reality, so everything is in play.      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/magic-neuroscience-cognition-illusions/

 

 

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Mendoza suggest, most of these adaptions are not biological in nature, though the basic framework for survival at the top of the food chain was established in the biology of the creature over time. It always was a primate, probably not quite so large, but as with Bergman's law, being forced out of the temperate tropical rain forest habitat and into colder climates, it certainly increased its mass through natural selection. The result of the biology we see today took place over long periods of time, or if you may it was by design. Either way, it has resulted in a very large body mass, also a large brain. It has intelligence on par with our early ancestors, simply because it does not fabricate tools from non primitive sources, or use fire, does not require that it must be of a lesser intelligence, only that it does not need either. It is maximizing it's capacity of intelligence in it's means of survival, which is obviously completely other to ours. Certainly other animals exhibit brain capacity and intelligence and precognition in very human types of ways, Killer whales teeming up to create a wave that will knock a seal off of a small iceberg. That takes a good amount of understanding and intelligence to teem up with that express purpose. Perhaps it was discovered by accident, but none the less it shows that intelligence among mammals has surprising similarities at times. I have heard of coyotes faking being injured to lure prey out to the pack, these things litter the animal world when we look around. So the particular adaptions that allow Sasquatch to persist are ones that took place in the mind of the creatures, it developed this type of intelligence, necessary to its mode of survival. It is the boss of it's environment as the result, and other animals know that and avoid them...we might not be so intelligent in that regard. One need not be a scientist to arrive at certain conclusions, if it exists, it has specialized in some pretty unique manners.

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Many of the people on forums who claim to have had encounters are simply fabricating their stories for attention and also so that they can feel they have authority on the subject. They act as if their experience somehow gave them incredible insight, when in reality, real eyewitnesses are often left totally confused by their experience. A lot of the so-called researchers on this forum are constantly contradicting the experiences of legitimate witnesses.

 

Without proof of such fabrication you are doing exactly what you accuse the witnesses of:    fabrication and having insight others do not have.    It is not at all surprising that different witnesses report different experiences.     After all they are dealing with different Sasquatch in different locations interacting with different humans.    That there is variation,  in my estimation, lends credibility to most witness experiences.    Some, outside of the forum have reported experiences I do not believe.   Things usually fall apart if you look at the details and changes in the story each time the event is recalled.        If witness reports  and BF behaviors were all identical and all looked and acted like Patty, I would be very suspicious.  

 

  I think some evidence of that is in artists renditions.   Many of them look too much alike,  suggesting mutual influence.   As with humans, I would expect some wide variations on appearance of individual BF.    Especially since BF are geographically isolated from each other and have been for thousands of years.      An artist always brings in artistic license and preconceptions into their art.    Other than Patty, most images of BF are artist renditions.    While some may be accurate, I think artistic renditions may have been given too much emphasis and influence, perhaps to the point of influencing memories of witness experiences.      The human mind tends to fill in the blanks if memory or someone should have a fleeting glimpse of a BF through the trees.   Blanks in memory are filled in from prior experience.   Without that prior experience to draw from,   I would not be at all surprised if what is remembered is all the various artists renditions of BF a person has seen in their life.      

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intelligence is the capacity a creature has that allows it to learn. My opinion here: animal intelligence is far greater than what they need to learn how to survive. So there is plenty of reserve to learn more. Your Orca example is a good one. But since they don't possess hands or claws their body shape requires them to do things differently to gain the same results- get the seal. As I' have said intelligence in the animal kingdom is high. Given the right body shape, i.e. ours, an animal will be able to do a lot of what we do and perhaps more. I firmly think Sasquatch's intelligence quotient is pretty high and it's body shape will guarantee a good tool box for survival. So intelligence capacity isn't the issue. But the ability to do what we do is.

 

We don't need cars and computers to survive. The fact that primitively we made it this far proves that. But we do manufacture those things . It's because we have not only intelligence- like Sasquatch if you will- but that we indeed think on a higher plane. Put us in the woods and we will adapt for survival. Put Sasquatch in the cities and it will chase down and eat rats and other creatures it hunts. I absolutely do not think that in a city it will utilize anything a city has to offer. A Sasquatch will be  a Sasquatch no matter where it is. It will learn new things in order to survive but only as much as it needs to do that. It will never think to put gas in a car. Is it intelligent enough to do so? Probably. But is it smart enough on it's own to figure such things out? Doubt it. A bear is as intelligent too but its body shape will not allow it to do what a Sasquatch can do. And a Sasquatch's brain will not allow it to do what we are capable of.

 

Bottom line.....if we don't do something we will push Sasquatch out of existence just like we did the Neanderthal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Intelligence is the capacity a creature has that allows it to learn. My opinion here: animal intelligence is far greater than what they need to learn how to survive. So there is plenty of reserve to learn more. Your Orca example is a good one. But since they don't possess hands or claws their body shape requires them to do things differently to gain the same results- get the seal. As I' have said intelligence in the animal kingdom is high. Given the right body shape, i.e. ours, an animal will be able to do a lot of what we do and perhaps more. I firmly think Sasquatch's intelligence quotient is pretty high and it's body shape will guarantee a good tool box for survival. So intelligence capacity isn't the issue. But the ability to do what we do is.

 

We don't need cars and computers to survive. The fact that primitively we made it this far proves that. But we do manufacture those things . It's because we have not only intelligence- like Sasquatch if you will- but that we indeed think on a higher plane. Put us in the woods and we will adapt for survival. Put Sasquatch in the cities and it will chase down and eat rats and other creatures it hunts. I absolutely do not think that in a city it will utilize anything a city has to offer. A Sasquatch will be  a Sasquatch no matter where it is. It will learn new things in order to survive but only as much as it needs to do that. It will never think to put gas in a car. Is it intelligent enough to do so? Probably. But is it smart enough on it's own to figure such things out? Doubt it. A bear is as intelligent too but its body shape will not allow it to do what a Sasquatch can do. And a Sasquatch's brain will not allow it to do what we are capable of.

 

Bottom line.....if we don't do something we will push Sasquatch out of existence just like we did the Neanderthal.

 

 

Maybe the Neanderthal, Erectus, or Habilis adapted.  Or maybe there are as of yet unidentified cousins that survived.

 

We know diddly squat about they way they lived.  Maybe they took to the higher elevations and remote areas to survive.  Maybe they grew larger - like humans have grown larger.  Those medieval suits of armor - some really small guys.  (Probably why they didn't play basketball.)

 

Maybe they migrated from locations where we've found fossils to other locations, adapted, and survived.  Look at what the Irish had to do in the late 1700's.

 

I just don't think the field of anthropology is nearly as complete in totality as it represents itself to be.

 

So.  Where did these things we call BF come from?  Spontaneous generation?  Creation?  Evolution?  From what?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted this one up in the wrong thread by accident:

 

Along the lines of body shape.  What if Sasquatch does not have a thumb placement the same as humans on the hand (opposable thumb)?  Suppose it did.  http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8717  (love the time-calibrated color phylogenetic tree in this one)    Precision-grip vs. power-grip (Napier, 1965)

 

I propose that Sasquatch could not throw with the accuracy presented in manifold reports without having a human-like opposable thumb appendage (not offset lower on the hand like chimpanzee).  I also propose that Sasquatch could not place precise stick arrangements I have documented with a more primitive grip.

 

Also John Bindernagel's first book [ http://www.island.net/~johnb/  and John's new website visit and buy a book he has cancer http://sasquatchbiologist.org/   ]  analyzes a sighting of a Sasquatch clubbing ducks with many in hand also.  I find this harder to accomplish with a gorilla-like thumb.   Yes, there have been observations of the odd lowered thumb placement among Sasquatch sighting reports too however.  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1571064/

 

Also it is rather odd concerning the quadripedal sightings of Sasquatch locomotion as this would normally infer that they would not have the bipedal dynamic balance as bipeds to be accurate throwers or club-wielders.  

 

There are many conundrums in the anecdotal sighting records if you analyze them to the utmost.  Shape of the foot, mysterious trackways that come from nowhere and lead to nowhere?  Powerful mountainside ascents that seem like someone is heaving the Sasquatch up with a rope.  Mid-tarsal break or not? 

 

Barackman presented a reported research investigation that supposedly led to Sasquatch handprint fingerprint dermatoglyphics, yet the powerpoints were not distinct or that detail was absent.  I would truly like to see the dermatoglyphic evidence from that report from the Sasquatch Summit at Quinault Resort, 2016. 

 

Just a few musings, not comprehensive in any way. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I share your concern regarding the thumb placement and limitations it should impose which do not appear in the report data.   At least one close witness reported a thumb arrangement indistinguishable from ours.    That is congruent with throwing reports like Ape Canyon as well as some I've assisted in the investigation of, still unpublished, where great accuracy was demonstrated.  

 

If there is any validity to the alternate thumb position being suggested, it may point to a second species or to some kind of inconsistent but common genetic variation, something which will prove interesting and unexpected when we learn what it is.

 

MIB

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a side note on the hands.  (and feet)

 

Some have been reported as having six fingers and six toes.  Not many, but a few. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they no doubt can throw, some suggest underhanded. I have a hard time believing they do not have use of the thumb in a somewhat opposing fashion, it may not be as opposing as a human, but it must have some ability to apply opposite force. Maybe that is what is at work, natural selection is moving that thumb ever so slowly to an opposing position. Or, like the foot, we just have not understood the mechanics of the hand yet, perhaps it has some flexibility similar to the foot that we do not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't recall one single description of an ape-type hand on a BF, nor an observed limitation that would indicate an ape-type hand on a BF.

 

Another reason I think they're some kind of primitive man.

 

(And I don't trust all those footprints)

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they they have ape like hands those who have gotten on the wrong side of zoo apes know that they throw stuff at human observers.   So I don't see how an ape like hand is any detriment to throwing things.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Green's database shows eleven reports where a thumb is described. Three of those mentioned that the thumb was non-opposed as well as short with two of those reports saying the observation time lasted 15 minutes. Two other reports had the thumb opposed, one report had a long thumb, and five reports described the thumb as being short. One incident took place in 1947 and the rest between 1965 and1988  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Even if they they have ape like hands those who have gotten on the wrong side of zoo apes know that they throw stuff at human observers.   So I don't see how an ape like hand is any detriment to throwing things.   

 

It is not whether they throw or not, it is the reported accuracy of their throwing which (to mind and my current knowledge) could not be accomplished with a chimp-hand repeatedly with the documented accuracy with which MIB alludes.

 

In regard to throwing underhand, recent observations in anecdotals report a palm first hand placement when walking and running which suggests an odd elbow/forearm/upper arm arrangement and also a certain amount of joint laxity is described.  I think this might be conducive to underhand throwing however accuracy still becomes the issue.  Maybe Green lists overhand BF throwing observed?  

 

The science articles I posted up above on hand/finger placements and morphology in hominins and apes suggests the human evolution to shorter digits including the thumb with stronger thumb musculature in the webbed pad and thumb pad. So the Green reports weigh in favor of an opposable still their seems to be either two species involved or unusually high variability (perhaps inbreeding which would explain the polydactyly) which is difficult to explain. 

Edited by bipedalist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B. It will take a while to check as there are 35 instances of throwing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites