hiflier

The Sasquatch Mind.....and Body

126 posts in this topic

I had the same concern no matter what put it there since one could make several interpretations of the intent behind it.       Many log trucks have seen me parked there.   I try to avoid any obvious connection to BF when I am in the field, as I know how some loggers can be hostile to bigfooters.      Those that have something like a BFRO or gone squatching sticker on their vehicle are asking for trouble.   It is bad enough in Western Washington just worrying about vehicle break ins to steal stuff when you are parked at a trail head.    Incidentally that location was one where I was sitting watching a military helicopter, land,  then fly off to the SE and come back about every 20 minutes.   I watched it for over an hour and a half, and then it seemed to notice me, and head right towards me.   When I jumped in the truck and drove off,  it continued the shuttle trips to the SE.    

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur that they are reasonably sentient, though different from humans.

 

Their physical capabilities obviate the need for many tools and eliminate necessity - as in "necessity is the mother of invention".

 

That said, they are hominids and share many basic behaviors; including social, stalking, hunting, foraging, etc. with us.  When confronted with humans engaged in behaviors we share on the interspecies behavioral Venn diagram, they seem to understand quite clearly what we are about.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ Well, yes.   Looking at your first two statements, I would say they are different from humans BECAUSE they don't need the tools thus natural selection favors something else rather than tool creation. 

 

Looking at them, so similar, has made me re-question my assumptions about what makes us who we are.   It's enlightening.  Uncomfortable sometimes.  We're not exactly wrong but not exactly right either, we gloss over things that need examination.   They really are the mirror we can see ourselves in if we dare to look.   I see lots of people working pretty hard not to look that closely. 

 

MIB

4

Share this post


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

I would say they are different from humans BECAUSE they don't need the tools

 

You may be right along with some others on that note but I still need to stand by the idea that they simply cannot make tools. I think it perfectly natural for Humans, because of their brains, to make tools and advance through ingenuity and imagination. I would therefore think that a being that also has the qualifiers for being Human even in a more primitive state should also advance- at least in making more elaborate shelters or handling fire. They don't have to build computers but a spear or two or even a simple bow and arrow would speak volumes but, alas, they do not and I do not think it only because they don't need them. They have watched Americans for thousands of years use these simpler devices with effect but it seems to be lost on Sasquatch to follow suit. The epitome of a Homo living thousands of years with an underdeveloped brain while those around it progressed. So Human-like body; NOT Human-like brain.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hand axe is roughly approaching 2 million years old. And flaking rock tools is even older. They were made by human ancestors.

 

https://www.livescience.com/26637-ancient-handaxes-discovered.html

 

If Sasquatch is a human cousin, which it undoubtedly is as a bipedal primate? Must have diverged very early from the human line. OR it may be an even older cousin who happens to be a Asian great ape that evolved bipedal locomotion independently of human ancestors in Africa.

 

Regardless I do not hold to the notion that it does not create stone tools simply because it chooses not to. I don't think it's a conscious decision.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norse, gimme a couple more days to turn in my hand axe, please. I've almost got it correct! My wolf-hybrid ran off with my best example, just last week.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Norse, gimme a couple more days to turn in my hand axe, please. I've almost got it correct! My wolf-hybrid ran off with my best example, just last week.

 

Dude...... your 1.75 million years too late!! You might as well use it as a paper weight for the rest of your super late assignments! And fer god sakes stopping rubbing those two sticks together! Fire has been invented for some time now!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, norseman said:

If Sasquatch is a human cousin, which it undoubtedly is as a bipedal primate? Must have diverged very early from the human line. OR it may be an even older cousin who happens to be a Asian great ape that evolved bipedal locomotion independently of human ancestors in Africa.

 

Or .. sometimes I wonder if it could be monkey-based, not ape-based.   There are examples of parallel evolution to fill niches like old world hares and patagonian mara.   Maybe there was a niche for a biped.  That might account for the tapetum lucidum.  True there are no identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the new world, but there are also no currently identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the old world, either.   0 = 0. 

 

13 hours ago, norseman said:

Regardless I do not hold to the notion that it does not create stone tools simply because it chooses not to. I don't think it's a conscious decision.

 

I don't either.  We create tools, clothing, etc because we NEED them to live in an environment we have migrated into but we're not adapted to.   Wolves, bears, antelope ... don't need tools because they live in environments they evolved and adapted to.    Bigfoot's lack of tools might suggest they evolved in exactly the places they are currently found ... or have been in them a very long time and have evolved and adapted removing the need.  

 

I wonder what the future holds for our species since we are able to make tools and reform the environment instead of having to adapt ourselves to it.   There have been theories put forward but not enough time has passed to test any of them.   It remains a question .. not a new question, but a question none the less.

 

MIB

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Or .. sometimes I wonder if it could be monkey-based, not ape-based. 

 

 

That would explain the speed and agility reported. I always wondered if the Dogman that's reported is some type of bipedal baboon. Explains the limited tool use to.

Edited by WesT
fix typo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bipedality in humans may have resulted from the advantage gained through the higher vantage point and ability to see longer distances.

 

This makes sense on the African savannah, but not so much in the forest which is supposed to be Bigfoot's primary habitat.  In a forest, there's nearly as much still over your head when you're standing as there is when you're on all fours, so the advantage of bipedality is considerably less.  It might improve your ability to see over the bushes interspersed around the trees.  Perhaps this is the reason Bigfoot is much taller than humans, in order to gain the maximum advantage from bipedality in a forest environment, but I still imagine that the gains might not be worth the other physiological and behavioral trade-offs.

 

Another possibility would be that Bigfoot developed bipedality in a previous habitat, prior to migrating to North America.  It is not known if Gigantopithecus, a possible ancestor of Bigfoot, was bipedal or not, but bipedality would have indeed been more advantageous among the bamboo than in the forest.

 

Regarding tool use, it may be that the Bigfoot hand simply is not sufficient for tool use.  In the image below of a possible Bigfoot handprint cast, the thumb appears to be relatively smaller than in humans, and in a position that might reduce its opposability.  If that's the case, Bigfoot's hand just isn't ideal for tool use.  Widespread tool use among early humans is one of the primary things that made further brain development advantageous, so if Bigfoot is still in a stage where its hand anatomy hinders tool use, then perhaps this is why Bigfoot doesn't display all of the characteristics of humanlike intelligence.

 

As an aside, the thumb in this hand cast is perhaps more reminiscent of a panda's "thumb."  The panda's "thumb" aids in grasping bamboo, which is suspected to have been a dietary staple of Gigantopithecus as well.

 

 ____6457718_orig.jpg

1

Share this post


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

 

Or .. sometimes I wonder if it could be monkey-based, not ape-based.   There are examples of parallel evolution to fill niches like old world hares and patagonian mara.   Maybe there was a niche for a biped.  That might account for the tapetum lucidum.  True there are no identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the new world, but there are also no currently identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the old world, either.   0 = 0. 

 

 

I don't either.  We create tools, clothing, etc because we NEED them to live in an environment we have migrated into but we're not adapted to.   Wolves, bears, antelope ... don't need tools because they live in environments they evolved and adapted to.    Bigfoot's lack of tools might suggest they evolved in exactly the places they are currently found ... or have been in them a very long time and have evolved and adapted removing the need.  

 

I wonder what the future holds for our species since we are able to make tools and reform the environment instead of having to adapt ourselves to it.   There have been theories put forward but not enough time has passed to test any of them.   It remains a question .. not a new question, but a question none the less.

 

MIB

 

 

 

Humanity is setting itself up for a mass extinction event by becoming dependent on technology for daily existence.    Large portions of our society, especially in the United States, would die if there was a wide spread failure of the power grid.    There was a solar coronal mass ejection in the 1800s that had a direct hit on earth that pretty well melted down what telegraph and power infrastructure that existed at the time.   Reports of glowing wires, and rail road tracks were common.      Today such and event would kill 10's of millions because of loss of electricity,   heat, inability to store or prepare food,  and damage to vehicles that move food around the country.   Much of the population today has little ability to rough it any more and subsist in primitive conditions.   When natural disasters hit, and the only thing a lot of people know to do is head to shelters and expect the government to provide for them.    That is common even when a disaster like a hurricane has days of notice to prepare.     A direct CME hit would throw the country back into the 1800s in a few minutes.    BF on the other hand would probably not notice anything other than suddenly the humans stopped driving into the woods and pestering them.  

2

Share this post


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

 

Or .. sometimes I wonder if it could be monkey-based, not ape-based.   There are examples of parallel evolution to fill niches like old world hares and patagonian mara.   Maybe there was a niche for a biped.  That might account for the tapetum lucidum.  True there are no identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the new world, but there are also no currently identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the old world, either.   0 = 0. 

 

 

While previously discounted (for example by Reed in his chapter in "The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominoids"), the possibility of Bigfoot originating from New World monkeys is worthy of further inquiry.

 

Chilcutt, who studied the dermal ridges of nonhuman primates and compared them with those found in Bigfoot footprint casts, once mentioned that the closest resemblance in his collection to the dermal ridges of the Bigfoot casts were those of the spider monkey, which lives in Central and South America.

 

Also, during preliminary work using Glickman's method to analyze Bigfoot sighting data at the county level, I've noted that the apparent geographical distribution of real Bigfoot populations in the United States makes just as much sense as a result of a migration northward through Mexico, as it does being the result of a migration from Asia via the Bering land bridge.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/24/2017 at 10:23 AM, SWWASAS said:

Humanity is setting itself up for a mass extinction event by becoming dependent on technology for daily existence.    Large portions of our society, especially in the United States, would die if there was a wide spread failure of the power grid.    There was a solar coronal mass ejection in the 1800s that had a direct hit on earth that pretty well melted down what telegraph and power infrastructure that existed at the time.   Reports of glowing wires, and rail road tracks were common.      Today such and event would kill 10's of millions because of loss of electricity,   heat, inability to store or prepare food,  and damage to vehicles that move food around the country.   Much of the population today has little ability to rough it any more and subsist in primitive conditions.   When natural disasters hit, and the only thing a lot of people know to do is head to shelters and expect the government to provide for them.    That is common even when a disaster like a hurricane has days of notice to prepare.     A direct CME hit would throw the country back into the 1800s in a few minutes.    BF on the other hand would probably not notice anything other than suddenly the humans stopped driving into the woods and pestering them.  

Something I have ponder on for a while now is that the Earth appears to have had natural world wide catastrophic events every so many thousands of years where many humans perished and those that survived the harsh environment afterwards have had to contend with the Sasquatch's who I believe will stock the remaining humans. Humans will be at a great disadvantage compared to the Sasquatch's who will temporarily dominate the landscape until humans realize they have to band together as tribes to ward off the Sasquatch's. The Sasquatch's will be able to grow in numbers. Also I feel they will sexually force themselves on humans impregnating kidnapped women. How many times has this whole situation taken place over hundreds of thousands of years? I feel it has happened numerous times. If a world wide natural catastrophic event happened today, many would die due to humans getting away from living off the land. The Sasquatch's would thrive and repopulate in greater numbers. A great book to read about catastrophic events is called World's in Collision that came out in 1950.                                                        Just imagine taking your surviving Family Members into the mountains to survive with little food sources available and competing with Sasquatch's that you never knew existed. What little food sources now means you and your Family are the food source and you wouldn't stand a chance against the Sasquatch's. You survived a horrible catastrophic event and now have deal with what appears to be monsters roaming the devastated landscape.           Yep, I don't worry about Sasquatch's surviving the future, they been doing it better than any other living creatures including humans for hundreds of thousands of years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You actually believe this has happened in the past and will happen again?  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 10:52 AM, MIB said:

 

 

MIB

On 11/23/2017 at 10:52 AM, MIB said:

Or .. sometimes I wonder if it could be monkey-based, not ape-based.   There are examples of parallel evolution to fill niches like old world hares and patagonian mara.   Maybe there was a niche for a biped.  That might account for the tapetum lucidum.  True there are no identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the new world, but there are also no currently identified bigfoot ancestor fossils from the old world, either.   0 = 0. 

 

 

Mendoza:     "While previously discounted (for example by Reed in his chapter in "The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominoids"), the possibility of Bigfoot originating from New World monkeys is worthy of further inquiry.

 

Chilcutt, who studied the dermal ridges of nonhuman primates and compared them with those found in Bigfoot footprint casts, once mentioned that the closest resemblance in his collection to the dermal ridges of the Bigfoot casts were those of the spider monkey, which lives in Central and South America.

 

Also, during preliminary work using Glickman's method to analyze Bigfoot sighting data at the county level, I've noted that the apparent geographical distribution of real Bigfoot populations in the United States makes just as much sense as a result of a migration northward through Mexico, as it does being the result of a migration from Asia via the Bering land bridge."

  1

 

 

You both have a point that has bothered me about the Asia Bering Land Bridge vector of North American settlement.      The Precolumbian human population densities in my judgement do not support a Bering Land Bridge vector for human development in South America.   Those densities and movement outwards suggests to me that from population density and archaeological finds,   that humans moved as much out of Central and South America as they did out of the NW land bridge.       We know for example that there was a Mayan invasion of the Mound Culture in the  upper Mississippi and Ohio River Valleys.    The archaeology finds of Peru suggest advanced building culture that cannot be attributed to Nomadic tribes wandering out of the subarctic wasteland a few thousand years before.     Those Siberian wanderers had no history of being stone builders,      The Caral  location in Peru was being developed at 2600 BC,  at the same time the pyramids were being built in Egypt.      DNA of natives of South America shows a Pacific Islander origin.     Those islanders moved out of SE Asia,  swept to the South and East then began a migration to the West island hopping.   

 

The gigantopithecus theory of BF origin may have completely mislead researchers,   based on the assumption of a Bering Sea vector of movement into North America.   Instead of looking for fossil BF ancestors in Asia, perhaps we should have been looking in South America?      In other words most of the long accepted history of North and South America is simply incomplete and does not accurately reflect modern findings.     

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites