• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      T shirt fund drive   07/17/2018

      norseman has designed a t shirt and started a fund drive on custom ink. He is going to split the proceeds between the BFF and Project Grendel.  "We all owe this website a tremendous debt of gratitude. Our community and history would not exist without it. As far as the Project Grendel proceeds, I would like to see it go towards the purchase of a thermal scope."
      -norseman     https://www.customink.com/fundraising/sasquatch-hunter
hiflier

The Sasquatch Mind.....and Body

126 posts in this topic

We haven't found certain / sure bigfoot fossils anywhere we've looked so we should not be dogmatic about where we choose to look yet.    There are exactly the same number of recognized fossils from North America as there are from Africa or Asia.   Zero.    That might suggest they are a very very recent development, coming from forested areas with acidic soils that don't preserve fossils, or until geologically recently lived on coastal margins that are now underwater, or something of that nature.

 

The lack of fossils IS an issue.   It's not a show-stopper but it requires consideration for anyone conducting serious research.  

 

Regarding N/S America, it seems that the sites being touted as proof of long human history in S. America were contamination.  They were not pristine locations archeologically, local geological events seem to have stirred the layers causing recent human artifacts to mix with very old carbon deposits.   We counted too heavily, too optimistically, on evidence that wasn't as strong as we thought.    By the same understanding, we need to be very careful about jumping on the bandwagon with the purported 130,000 year old "evidence" of human habitation in N.A.   By this I do not mean scoff or dismiss, I mean really REALLY study it carefully before pronouncing any judgement about age or legitimacy.   If we build our understanding on false foundations, it's only a matter of time before that understanding crumbles.

 

MIB

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If BF origin was not on this continent and they arrived between,  during or after the last ice age,  we cannot expect to find any fossils.    It takes longer than that to make fossils.    Skeletons are a different story and if buried in the right soils they might be preserved and found.   The question for me is have they been found, boxed up, and hidden or ignored by the Smithsonian.     The Smithsonian leadership during the 1880s through 1920 was strongly influenced by religion.    Anytime something butts heads with religious beliefs,   it tends to disappear to protect those beliefs.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thoughts there!  

 

If I were taking a best guess based on what is available to me, I'd say they arrived over the previous, not most recent, land bridge.   A very small population, isolated, and under extreme selective pressure may reinforce mutation that would buffer out of a larger population.   They could be very very close to us DNA-wise while having high selectivity for less human-like traits like mass and body hair because of environment.   Anomalous, at least in the context of our assumptions and off-track expectations.

 

I don't know about the Smithsonian angle.   I was reading not long ago about a box of something or other they finally got around to opening and examining that'd been in line but unprocessed for 70 years.   They could indeed have bigfoot fossils ... and might or might not know it, they might just be in another box among 100K inbound boxes in the basement awaiting processing.   Or, if sufficiently "explosive", they might not merely have been hidden, they could have been deliberately destroyed and not taken to the museum at all.   There's no way to know, plenty of ways to speculate.  

 

I'm trying real hard not to get up in conspiracy stuff and instead stick with things that are within my ability to ascertain with certainty. 

 

MIB 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We never found fossilized remains of chimps before 2004. How can we possibly expect there to be fossilized remains of sasquatches which might number 1/100 to 1/1,000 in number compared to chimps?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How could BF be in so many areas of the world like Australia. Since BF doesn't build rafts that could sail across the oceans, how did they get to Australia? I have two different theories on this. First, when the continent was connected to the whole of the landmass way back and broke away, BF became part and stuck on a new continent. So if this is the case, then BF must of been around for hundreds of millions of years. They evolved to be the best suited for this planet and pretty much explains why they are so well adapted to most conditions. Their sixth sense I would think is so far ahead of any other living creature too.                                                                            From my pass years being around highly evolved humans that I've come across, they had abilities that the average human doesn't. This now leads to my second theory and this may be too far out there for many, but having certain abilities of my own due to my spiritual training from years ago, I have a better understanding on this second theory.                                                                                   From hearing stories from witnesses seeing BF disappearing before their eyes, and among other things like telepathic communication, could it be possible that the Bigfoot's are so evolved that they have the ability to go anywhere on the planet through dematerialization? If so, then there wouldn't be a need for a land bridge.                                                                          Yeah I know, little too far out there for most, so I'll stick to the first theory. But honestly I would be letting myself down if I didn't go with the second theory. For me it makes the most sense. If I didn't go with any of these theories, the Bigfoot subject wouldn't make any sense what so ever, it would be like a dog chasing it's own tail in endless circles. Fortunately for me, Bigfoot research came many years later after spiritual growth which in turn gave me a much better and swifter understanding of Bigfoot. 

Edited by MindSquatch
Spelling
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say "neither."   If the yowie is real, it is not bigfoot.   Similar, perhaps, but not same.  No more than almasty or yeren.   The similarity without sameness is suggestive of biological reality.   Sameness would not be IF you understand evolutionary biology.   There is no testable evidence for any sort of dematerialization of any sort, never mind rematerialiation, never mind preserving organization of structure and life through the process.    Suggestions of similar processes shows lack of understanding of those processes, it amounts to word salad.

 

If yowie is real, likely they arrived in a manner similar to human arrival: over water in the geologically recent past when the sea levels were lowered by glacial ice on land.   Or aliens transported them.  Even that, ridiculous as it sounds, is far less "out there" and far more scientifically supportable than your suggestions.

 

MIB 

3

Share this post


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

I would say "neither."   If the yowie is real, it is not bigfoot.   Similar, perhaps, but not same.  No more than almasty or yeren.   The similarity without sameness is suggestive of biological reality.   Sameness would not be IF you understand evolutionary biology.   There is no testable evidence for any sort of dematerialization of any sort, never mind rematerialiation, never mind preserving organization of structure and life through the process.    Suggestions of similar processes shows lack of understanding of those processes, it amounts to word salad.

 

If yowie is real, likely they arrived in a manner similar to human arrival: over water in the geologically recent past when the sea levels were lowered by glacial ice on land.   Or aliens transported them.  Even that, ridiculous as it sounds, is far less "out there" and far more scientifically supportable than your suggestions.

 

MIB 

Agreed.

 

Mindsquatch, you may have some interest in the threads in the paranormal section of the forums. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sasquatch does indeed exist, and I am mostly convinced it does, I say that because I have never seen one in order to know it exists for certain. We must conclude that it is in the ape family, and that it's traits would resemble those of greater apes like Chimps or Orangutan's, or gorilla's. An example of such intelligence I have used on this forum is KoKo the sequestered ape. Many vidoe's display her intelligence and use and understanding of language, although she must sign the words. She uses pretty simply sentences and words quite appropriately for any given situation. So when we begin to discuss a creature like a Sasquatch existing, we must at least assume it is of equal intelligence as say a mountain or lowland gorilla. The behavior's of Sasquatch do seem to often line up with this level and, form of intelligence. I would suggest that it might also be more intelligent than say a gorilla and fall between humans and gorillas in higher cognitive abilities. The fact they do not use tools or fire does not necessarily suggest they could not use them, or understand their use, only that they do not necessarily need them to exist. Fire is for cooking or warmth, and not needed by them in anyway. Tools are for weapons or building, they also seem to not need much more than a rock to get the job done. As far as building, stick structures show some definite intelligence and purpose, maybe even a touch of art if you will in some cases. Language, well we need not look further than the sierra sounds. It is all a byproduct of a large brained animal, and such large brained animals of all kinds demonstrate this level of intelligence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be more accurate BF are not known to use tools or fire,   but we have had such a limited opportunity to observe them in their own camps,   I would not rule out either one totally.    They might be total opportunists with the use of either as was early mankind.    If they find a club handy when they feel the need to tree knock, they might grab it and use it as a tool.    Fire from a lightning strike could be used until it goes out.     Mankind used fire of opportunity for a long time before it learned to carry embers,  learned friction methods of ignition, and learned the use of flint and steel to ignite fires.     I have heard of BF lurking around human camps that seem to play with the camp fire after humans have gone to bed.   Could be juvenile curiosity or practice with cultivating or prolonging a fire as they might find burning from a lightning strike.   Humans have reported hearing movement in camp then suddenly the fire flares up.    So while they may not use it on a regular basis, they sure seem curious about fires use.   Perhaps some time in the future some BF Einstein will learn how to light a fire and it will be used from that point on.    Smoke whisping up from some remote BF camp sure would make them easier to find.    It is not inconceivable that BF knows that and like Native Americans in hostile territory knew how to avoid smoke being visible to potential enemies.   We just don't know enough to know what they use.  

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:42 PM, hiflier said:

 

OS, they cannot create 'certain tools'. They don't even steal and use the ones WE create. They simply lack the capacity for most anything that  requires imagination beyond social interaction. Maybe hitting something with a club or a rock but that's as far as it goes from the all reports I've read. There's nothing to indicate anything remarkable brain-wise. If bears had hands they'd probably throw rocks and pine cones too. That's about the level of accomplishment for the species as far as I see. Curiosity, skilled at hiding, and other rudimentary animal abilities is about it. And they can be habituated as much as raccoons squirrels, deer, or birds can be. They learn from the past, live in the present and have no capacity for the future. Stocking up for winter doesn't count because many other creatures do that already

 

Look, I'm not trying to belittle Sasquatch. It's an amazing creature! But Humans have habitually placed I on a pedestal that it doesn't belong on. It deserves our respect for itself and it's habitat. Good common sense and study has helped me to arrive at these conclusions. These are my opinions, but the opinions are drawn on what is available for evaluating the mannerisms and characteristics of this creature which also includes some of the super-Human things it has been reported to perform. And none of it says Human. Not even feral Human. I also think because of it's lower state it's very survival is in serious jeopardy- because of us- but that's not for here  

 

I often toy around with the two conflicting theories about sasquatch in my mind. On one hand it has to be incredibly smart and intent on hiding and keeping it's entire species off our official books, yet primitive enough to live without fire and elaborate tools and shelters. If they have a language they'll be on the human side of things, and it would nearly take a language to convey the message they have to hide among themselves.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption underlying these points is that production of technology is necessarily an indication of greater intelligence, or that any sufficiently intelligent species with the means to produce technology will do so. That's an anthropocentric attitude, one that likely doesn't always hold up. Try to imagine how they might see the issue:

 

Poor humans, having to spend all this time and energy fussing over making things just to eat, or withstand the cold, or sleep comfortably. What a distraction it must be from what life is really about.

 

Accomplishments of the species? How about enlightenment.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am holding back my opinions about bigfoot cultural artifacts until we have a better knowledge of what they really use on a daily basis.     In other words I don't have enough evidence to make the judgement at this point.    Meldrum claims they exhibit no evidence of culture.      However his definition of culture is outdated and more appropriately should be called cultural artifacts which are things like weapons and tools.     .   Whales and elephants are intelligent and have a culture in a wide definition of culture,  yet have no cultural artifacts.     Ioyza,   I would be interested in the evidence you have that makes you believe BF are particularly enlightened?      I do not recall people claiming whales and elephants are enlightened but merely display intelligent activity.    Enlightened to me implies superior to normal human intellect.   If that exists in BF, I have not seen evidence of it.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far, bigfoot is scoffed at because people, on the whole, don't seem t want to acknowledge existence.

 

So far, among those who will consider existence, certain reported behaviors are scoffed at because people don't want to seriously consider the intelligence those behaviors might imply.

 

And now, among those who will consider the intelligence, apparent cultural artifacts are dismissed or "re-spun" into something else because people don't want to consider what those artifacts imply.

 

Hmmm ... nobody else sees a pattern here?   Nobody sees that others are scoffing at what they accept but that they, themselves, become those others scoffing at someone else yet?   Nobody has a mirror that functions, nobody dares to look and apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others?    Disappointing.  Very disappointing.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
2

Share this post


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

Ioyza,   I would be interested in the evidence you have that makes you believe BF are particularly enlightened?      I do not recall people claiming whales and elephants are enlightened but merely display intelligent activity.    Enlightened to me implies superior to normal human intellect.   If that exists in BF, I have not seen evidence of it.  

 

Ohhh, none. In truth I was being a bit glib about presenting a speculation: perhaps they progress along a different axis of cultural or intellectual advancement, one that can't be measured by technological achievements. 

 

Although I'd also say, though it isn't direct evidence per se, that consistent evasion of 50+ years of our efforts to prove their existence demonstrates a certain superior intellect. 

 

But consider it this way: some humans have achieved some remarkable things through meditation, controlling heart rate or body temperature for example. Perhaps there are powers of mind far beyond our comprehension, and sasquatch, not being so consumed with material problem solving by necessity, progressed along that path perpendicular to our own. 

 

There are reasons to think that could be the case. The Native Americans seem to think along these lines, and habituators frequently talk about them this way too. There are also those who claim experiences with sasquatch that transcend what we think of as "normal," and we insist that those posts get their own home down below the general section. I think MIB's point is astute and that's kind of been my creeping realization with myself over the past year or two: who am I to scoff at others' alleged experiences, when I seven or eight years ago would've scoffed at my own experiences since then? 

 

One final line of reasoning on intelligence vs culture: the Sierra Sounds and their spoken language. This is evidence-based, and it certainly indicates we're dealing with something way beyond extant great apes. If they have a spoken language, is it reasonable to expect that they produce no cultural artifacts because they're incapable? If they're too primitive of mind to produce technology, why do they seem to understand the uses of our own, such as guns and cameras? If they do understand our technology to some extent through observation, why don't they try to emulate it? Why don't they steal a grill lighter and build a little fire to cook over? 

 

My assertion is that they don't need to, they realize it would draw unwanted attention, and they choose not to. 

2

Share this post


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

So far, bigfoot is scoffed at because people, on the whole, don't seem t want to acknowledge existence.

 

Sorry, but that's silly. People, on the whole, scoff because of the dearth of convincing evidence.

 

Now, go ahead and berate me because I've not contributed to the effort to produce that evidence, but do try to discount my contention. In fact, I want to acknowledge existence. Very much so. But for people, on the whole, wants are a hill of beans.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.