hiflier

The Sasquatch Mind.....and Body

46 posts in this topic

47 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I wholly agree as well. The idea for the thread wasn't new when I posted it a couple of days ago as you know. But, if I was to place a figure on it, 99.99 percent of reports, both from John Green's database as well as the SSR/BFRO's support the idea that Sasquatch is not a Human. It is a hominid that is pretty much animal in nature and behavior. It's only advantage lies in what it has been able to amass in its skill set due to its body shape and that skill set works for the kind of environment it lives in. Just for the sake of discussion, if Gorillas or Chimpanzees grew up and lived here their skill set might be similar to Sasquatch's but they are not the same kind of animal. Sasquatch, just by being bipedal, is much further along in it's development. But, in the evolutionary sense, it's still millions of years behind Humans     

 

Well, BF would have to be more intelligent than your average animal. Somewhere above them but below humans.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘fat-leonard’-scandal-expands-to-ensnare-more-than-60-admirals/ar-AAutF1r?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

 

It would seem that the manufacture and use of the stone hand axe gave modern humans our wrist bones. So that we could grasp and shape stone tools more accurately.

 

In many ways it doesn't make any sense that Sasquatch is bipedal and yet stone tool manufacture is not something it reportedly does. We don't find evidence of Sasquatch quarries and stone rubbish from flaking stone tools. We don't have reports of Sasquatch using stone hand axes, carrying stone hand axes or using any more sophisticated stone tools, like stone spear points.

 

It almost acts like a very large sized Australopethicus afarensis. If stone tools are used, its a hammer and anvil technique in which two stones are used and then discarded.

21 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

There are both mental and physical factors involved. Hypothetically speaking, their reasoning ability could be similar to that of the average human, but at the same time not have the motor/muscle control required to create certain tools. If we look at non-human great apes in general, they don’t have the required level of motor control, so even if they were as intelligent, they would struggle to create certain tools. Worth noting that there are motor control deficiencies and disorders can be found in regular Homo sapiens, which I think can provide some insight.

 

 

That's impossible.

 

Why would you need a big expensive brain if your not going to use it? Tools and the human brain have a symbiotic relationship. So do our hands and wrists and fingers.

 

Without the tool? You don't get big brains and crafty hands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s possible to genetically engineer people to not possess the fine motor/muscle control necessary for tool creation, while at the same time allowing them to keep the cognitive ability required to form complex plans for survival in a variety of environments. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

It’s possible to genetically engineer people to not possess the fine motor/muscle control necessary for tool creation, while at the same time allowing them to keep the cognitive ability required to form complex plans for survival in a variety of environments.

 

Yes, it's possible.

0

Share this post


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

Without the tool? You don't get big brains and crafty hands.

 

But somewhere along the line Humans got the ability to look at the rock and anvil and design it better and better through imagination and innovation all the way to placing a probe around Pluto and getting pictures back. That's because somewhere along the line Humans acquired the fine art of envisioning and being able to ask 'what-if this......"

 

In other words- "FUTURE thought". The imagination of workings and future shapes before they were created. But the process ALLOWED for their creation. The better mousetrap syndrome. The animal kingdom has that but only for securing the basic needs- food, mates, and, rarely if ever, defense. The closest thing I've read about is Koko and some primates who tie and untie knots and weave nests. Some birds do that too so things like that are about survival, procreation and food gathering. Far, far from developing a better spear point or manufacturing gunpowder along with the cannon it goes in. Is it only that missing gene that eliminates the Neu5Gc sugar on the surfaces of our cells that sets us apart from the animal kingdom? That has allowed our brain cells and brains to enlarge? Is that it? Is that ALL?

 

If that's the case then I want to know where on the DNA helix it is and how to see if it's there or not. The article about that gene was around 15 years back. We probably should have known about it here or have been told by someone who had read the article and maybe we were somewhere back on the BFF 1.0? Doesn't matter, we know it now and that's what's important. And I thank you, jayjeti, for just recently bringing it to light. If it hadn't been for you posting the article I would have know nothing about it. Starting this thread got me to research things and I found it yesterday- posted by you. See how that works folks? The information is out there, in pieces, just ready for assemblage.  

 

 

0

Share this post


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

It’s possible to genetically engineer people to not possess the fine motor/muscle control necessary for tool creation, while at the same time allowing them to keep the cognitive ability required to form complex plans for survival in a variety of environments. 

 

How do you know that this is possible? Has science genetically engineered people? What proof do you have?

 

 

33 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

But somewhere along the line Humans got the ability to look at the rock and anvil and design it better and better through imagination and innovation all the way to placing a probe around Pluto and getting pictures back. That's because somewhere along the line Humans acquired the fine art of envisioning and being able to ask 'what-if this......"

 

In other words- "FUTURE thought". The imagination of workings and future shapes before they were created. But the process ALLOWED for their creation. The better mousetrap syndrome. The animal kingdom has that but only for securing the basic needs- food, mates, and, rarely if ever, defense. The closest thing I've read about is Koko and some primates who tie and untie knots and weave nests. Some birds do that too so things like that are about survival, procreation and food gathering. Far, far from developing a better spear point or manufacturing gunpowder along with the cannon it goes in. Is it only that missing gene that eliminates the Neu5Gc sugar on the surfaces of our cells that sets us apart from the animal kingdom? That has allowed our brain cells and brains to enlarge? Is that it? Is that ALL?

 

If that's the case then I want to know where on the DNA helix it is and how to see if it's there or not. The article about that gene was around 15 years back. We probably should have known about it here or have been told by someone who had read the article and maybe we were somewhere back on the BFF 1.0? Doesn't matter, we know it now and that's what's important. And I thank you, jayjeti, for just recently bringing it to light. If it hadn't been for you posting the article I would have know nothing about it. Starting this thread got me to research things and I found it yesterday- posted by you. See how that works folks? The information is out there, in pieces, just ready for assemblage.  

 

 

 

No its not.

 

Eating meat and its high fat content versus twigs and berries was a huge step forward.

 

And the "future thought" as you put it while holding that round stone, was all about feeding our hungry brain. Hand axes allowed us to butcher game and take the chunks with us. A mobile meat supply. Instead of camping out at the carcass and gorging ourselves while waiting to get bounced by the next super predator coming in to scavenge the carcass. Spears allowed us to actively hunt big game unlike every before. We became pack hunters taking the largest mega fauna on Earth. This was also to allow us more access to meat and fat previously out of reach. Which in turn allowed us to move out of Africa and into cold regions that didn't support much twigs and berries for most of the year.

 

It's all interconnected. The tools, the brains, the hands, and the meat and fat rewards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was meat, AND berries, AND fish, AND nuts, AND grains and the ability to collect, have, and survive on a varied diet. Omega 3 and iodine in the fish diet was as important as meat even though meat was by far the largest thing eaten. But meat eaters have been around a long time- as in Sasquatch, chimps etc.- and they no where near where Humans are today. Because the issue isn't about eating meat. It's about what allowed the evolution to do the things you listed: tool design, group hunting, migrating, cutting up and packing out food.

 

If it wasn't for genetics Man would be little more than Sasquatch, or Gorillas living in the mountains, or chimps, or Orangs. When Humans got off the evolutionary tree they did it genetically. Something happened that allowed us to leave every other primate literally in the dust. We grew a prefrontal cortex. If that came from eons of eating meat then EVERY meat eating primate would be building rockets and landing on the Moon today ;) 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no it was not. Our big brain would not exist if it wasn't for meat. Specifically meat scavenged around the great rift valley of Africa. What meat eating primates are you referring to excluding Bigfoot which is unproven to exist? And which ones are bipedal? If Chimps suddenly began eating nothing but animal protein? They are still knuckle walkers and would not be able to fully realize their potential. The use of fire and cooking also allowed us to pre digest our meat, allowing us to get more out of it. But that came later.

 

What is a human brain mostly made up of? Fat.

 

Science is overwhelmingly in support of the theory that eating meat was the catalyst that left other apes in the dust in brain size. And innovations like fire, cooking, tools, allowed us to continue the arms race, getting more meat and growing bigger brains. Evidently until the female homo sapiens pelvis said........enough.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying meat wasn't part of that process, especially the use of fire to make the consumption of meat more efficient. But it was also the body physiology that allowed the casing for that larger brain. I read in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-Glycolylneuraminic_acid where there was an ancient strain of Malaria in which the virus attached itself to the Neu5Gc sugar on cell surfaces. This was around 2-3 million years ago. At around that time hominids evolved /were naturally selected, that no longer carried the gene that made the sugar. We still though have traces of the Neu5Gc in Human tissue and intestinal environments if red meat or some dairy products are consumed. The sugar is also present in high concentrations in cancer and cancerous tumor cells.  But for the most part Humans simply pass the sugar through their systems. It is interesting to note that it can cause tissue inflammation if it is present in the body. Nowadays the newer strain of Malaria prefers the Neu5Ar sugar which we do have. But this is way, way off topic now.

 

Suffice it to say that the branches Pongidae and Homo had different dynamics where the Pongidae line grew bigger bodies compared to brain size https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064932/ and Homo stayed fairly steady relative in brain to body ratios. Smaller Human ancestors had smaller brains but were within a similar relative brain to body ratio. I read where the exception may have been H. floresiensis where the brain was smaller for their body size.

 

The larger Sasquatch body makes me think that it didn't follow the Homo line but perhaps stayed on the Pongidae branch. Brain size to body size ratios would see a smaller brain. Somehow though, Sasquatch retained a more bipedal Homo branch type body with the the non-splayed great toe, but also kept the mid tarsal break, the hair, and size from the Pongidae line and, more to the point of this thread, its more undeveloped animal brain. Not the creative brain of Homo. It may have also have retained the non-Human Neu5Gc sugar-  from the animal gene that produces it.   

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, a report was just posted in the Sightings/BFRO reports section (http://bigfootforums.com/topic/58211-hunters-on-bikes-have-close-encounter-with-a-sasquatch-near-randle-report-55658/) that has some similarities to the stories about the Wild Woman of Navidad. 

 

First, there's this:

 

"Another time, while camping in the same area near Yellowjacket Creek, something came by and emptied [the witness'] cooler all in a pile on the ground. All that was missing was a jug of milk. There was no mess or tooth marks, so it wasn’t a bear or raccoon."

 

Kind of interesting, that the Wild Woman of Navidad came into a house and took (along with pieces of other food items -- not the entire amounts) a half pan of milk, leaving the rest of the milk.

 

The report also mentioned the share-and-share-alike mentality -- the I'll-take-some-but-leave-some-for-you mentality -- of the BF, which to me shows the same consciousness that leads to their frequent returning of borrowed items: 

 

On his property on 5 wooded acres south of Tacoma, [the witness] said that he hears things that are not coyote or anything else he recognizes. On occasion, he smells “That sasquatch smell”. Once, he saw a large brown bi-pedal creature walk by in his woods. Apples are taken from the top of his tree, but the ones lower down are left. This behavior has been reported in other places.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More on borrowing and returning things, and a sense of ethics (this time from Chris Noel's Sasquatch Rising 2013, page 123):

 

The toy house is a playhouse filled with abandoned toys not played with any longer. As the main house overflows with toys they are crated up and moved to the toy house. Only to be forgotten. This year I checked the toy house and found that most of the toys were no longer there. On occasion, I find small toys scattered over our acreage. Based on the behaviors I am observing, the Shadow People [BF] never take anything they know belongs to some member of the family. It appears they only take what is ignored. This not only includes toys. At times garden tools will disappear and reappear months later in an odd place. 

 

Same book, and also on the subject of toys, page 110:

 

Other toys are moved or scattered at night, or taken, but are always returned eventually. 

 

Same book, page 17:

 

I left a big tupperware container, with no cover, filled with apples and nutty power bars on a platform, about five feet up in a spruce tree.... The next morning....the container is sitting on my back stairs, with this frozen, dried-up little bush: lemon mint.  

 

 

 

Edited by LeafTalker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an experience with a toy also.   This is the first time I have published this picture.      I had a place along a logging road where I would park and sit with a spotting scope and watch the valley and ridge line past it.    The field of view was quite good as I was high up and I could see for miles.    My intent was to watch for BF movement during the daytime and figure out where they traveling to and from.  .      I parked at the same spot several times over the period of several weeks and would watch for several hours at a time.     Never did see any BF,   but one day right where I normally parked, a stuffed toy was placed leaning up against the embankment where I parked.    One would think it was a toy thrown of a car,   except it was placed upright and  this was an active logging road in state forest and there were no human habitation anyplace along the road.   Unless loggers need their stuffed toy for comfort,  I cannot imagine how it got there accidentally.      Additionally that stick was physically forced through the crotch of the toy and the one hand placed on the stick.        Human or BF that seems to be the act of a sentient creature, sick as it is.     The location of the impaling stick seems to indicate some kind of warning or sexual display.   I will let you use your imagination about what.       

IMG_0911.JPG

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is quite bizarre and would make me feel not so comfortable coming back, which is what I'm sure the intention was.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's an amazing picture, SWWASAS. I will say that BF are not known for stabbing people in the crotch, nor for threatening people with effigies mangled in some specific way. They are, however, known for their sometimes crude humor, and this certainly would fall into that category.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

I had an experience with a toy also.   This is the first time I have published this picture.      I had a place along a logging road where I would park and sit with a spotting scope and watch the valley and ridge line past it.    The field of view was quite good as I was high up and I could see for miles.    My intent was to watch for BF movement during the daytime and figure out where they traveling to and from.  .      I parked at the same spot several times over the period of several weeks and would watch for several hours at a time.     Never did see any BF,   but one day right where I normally parked, a stuffed toy was placed leaning up against the embankment where I parked.    One would think it was a toy thrown of a car,   except it was placed upright and  this was an active logging road in state forest and there were no human habitation anyplace along the road.   Unless loggers need their stuffed toy for comfort,  I cannot imagine how it got there accidentally.      Additionally that stick was physically forced through the crotch of the toy and the one hand placed on the stick.        Human or BF that seems to be the act of a sentient creature, sick as it is.     The location of the impaling stick seems to indicate some kind of warning or sexual display.   I will let you use your imagination about what.       

IMG_0911.JPG

 

I dont think your dealing with Bigfoot.......

 

Be careful.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites