What Is Sasquatch?

[MIB]

Ya'll are asking a different question than I ask ... when I ask what are they, I'm asking about culture, intelligence, intentions ... not biology.   When I say people, I mean behavior.   What I've interacted with behaves more like a non technological person than behaving like a mere ape.   There appears to be higher cognitive function, deliberate planning, experiments performed to learn specific information, not just instinct, no matter how complex. 

 

I don't have any idea what their biological roots are.   We have no scientific basis to support elimination of any possibilities right now, only personal biases pressuring us to do so. 

 

MIB

[Guest]

Yup MIB they seem to have cognitive functions, agreed.

[norseman]

 I have to agree with just about everything SY posted at the top. The individual I seen in 09 was very human like in the face and over all build, imagine the body of an Olympic sprinter with almost no neck and long built arms that was covered in hair.

 

 The biggest reason I lean toward homo is that the sasquatch apparently use some form of so called ,, protolanguage ,, witch in fact may be a complex language equal to our own according to several qualified linguistic experts.   Some here would argue that we do not KNOW sasquatch are the source of these sounds but If recall correctly there are several written reports and at least one told to me of people witnessing a sasquatch make such sounds.

 

 Second, is that the known apes have a protruding mouth structure, where as in most of the reports I have taken or read seem to indicate a mostly flat face with very human features.

 

 I am still open to the ape theory but my experience pushes me toward Just my thoughts

 

 

 

 

 

There were apes with flat faces as well and it is not a exclusively homo trait.

 

http://primatology.net/2009/06/02/lluc-anoiapithecus-brevirostris-a-new-hominoid-species-from-abocador-de-can-mata-spain/anoiapithecus-brevirostris-ips43000/

I don;t look at it like a total regression, I think our ancestors were adapted for less reliance on tools, and a portion of them split off and evolved towards physical prowess rather than forming larger groups which depend on gathering of resources. They could simply be more adapted to roaming and physically taking what they need as they go.

 

There might be the simple explanation that they don't use hand axes, or it might be that a hand axe found just isn't attributed to BF as it is thought that no hominins who would depend on them are still extant. How might we know if we can't tell when it was made. with exception of those found in a strata dating to a certain period?

 

Compared to an ape, our ancestors relied heavily on tools, to the point that they carried them around with them. Again what would have been the reason a species of human would have abandoned this technology among others to live like an animal in the forest?

[NathanFooter]

norseman , interesting link there, I have not seen this before and I will say the face is very flat compared to other apes.

 

I also apologize for the sloppy post above, for some reason my post had several lines and an entire paragraph deleted from it during the posting process or something.

[Guest]

Since we are all 'shooting in the dark' ...

I think they might be descendants of a very early off-shoot of hominids or perhaps pre-homo that favored a robust - nocturnal existence. They simply did not need complex tools. Great strength + intelligence + night vision allowed them to take what they needed. The more robust surviving to yield larger offspring.

[NathanFooter]

Woooo NathanFooter gl with ur analysises. I'll have to disagree.

 

I know the posted I made was bit of a mess LOL,  but most of what I was trying to convey came through.

 

What points do you not agree on ?  Just curious really.

[southernyahoo]

1) that's true of course and I'm not opposed to squatch being somewhere on the family tree prior to the rise of the genus homo. But we do know now that there was one and possibly other apes that were bipedal as well, but of course we do not know if this adaptation was very similar to our own form of walking or something very different. As we seem to be the only known example still extant on the planet.

But there is ample evidence that patty's gait does differ significantly from our own as well as the anatomy of the foot. With her compliant gait and mid tarsal break does she represent some archaic form of human locomotion or does she like us represent the last of her kind in a parallel adaptation not related to humans at all? I think only a type specimen will solve the mystery.

 

We might eventually be splitting hairs on this. I don't dismiss the gait, the shin rise angle or the mid-tarsal flex. Meldrum also see's it in early hominin , (prehuman perhaps) tracks. 

2) again true, but this is a chicken vs egg question. Is it logical to assume that if you give up a life of swinging in the trees and become bipedal that you will lose your ability to grasp branches with your foot? I think so. And I think its logical to assume that this bipedal adaptation may have happened many times and not just once. Just as radiation out of Africa happened many times and not just once. And remember, oreopithicus fossils are found in Southern Europe.

 

I don't think there is debate among scientists currently whether bipedalism occured more than once. What would contradict science at the moment would be to assume these various hominids would not cross paths and hybridize. The seperation could promote variance and re-breeding can cause rapid change and benefical inherited traits weeded by selection.

3) yes but how do we vet vocalizations? If the vocalizations sound just like us? Then maybe they are us. I think that this field concerning squatch is in its infancy.....and I find it the least compelling. I've seen researchers assign squatch calls to known animals on a regular basis, and I've heard many calls that sound like uncle Bob hiding in the bushes.

 

We'd probably have to discuss those on a case by case basis, though from personal experience, it is reliant upon the circumstances, which you can dictate to a degree, on whether to assign them to modern human or not. There are some that exhibit both human and non-human elements at the same time. This can include the patterns in the calls, syllable sequences that repeat. Some occur in circumstances that can rule out typical human behavior.   

4) a hooded nose could be a temperate climate adaptation. Again very hard to pin down from the fossil record as it's soft flesh. Large canines have been reported before but I would agree not the majority of reports. But to be fair if a silverback is not baring his teeth at me I would not know the size of his canines either in a brief encounter. Also some extinct apes show decreased prognathism such as Anoiapethicus.

 

Well if we had a hooded nose as we radiated out of Africa, I wouldn't attribute it to climate alone.

5) what then would make us believe that we are not dealing with a human? I thought a lack of a medulla was unique vs a human?

 

Human caucasian head hair often lacks a medulla, so that alone is not unique to purported Sas hairs.  Hair from their heads might be the same as ours. The rest of human body hair will have greater trace of a medulla and is continuous but amorphous in pubic hair. I think some Sasquatches could be covered in a pubic- like hair covering. Other observations could include the filth on them from being in the wild, no cut ends etc.

 

[salubrious]

But there is ample evidence that patty's gait does differ significantly from our own as well as the anatomy of the foot. With her compliant gait and mid tarsal break does she represent some archaic form of human locomotion or does she like us represent the last of her kind in a parallel adaptation not related to humans at all? I think only a type specimen will solve the mystery.

What bugs me is that the hand axe is millions of years old, and the use of fire almost that long and I think pro homo enthusiasts need to do a lot of explaining as to why a member of our genus would regress backwards away from such technology that makes it easier to survive.

 

It seems that BF is more suited to its environment than we are. Hence, no need for fire, and it would be very hard to control fire if one was covered with hair. I do not think this reflects on intelligence at all. They have to be pretty smart to stay out of sight as well as they do.

 

I don't see any evidence for the mid-tarsal break. From the photos I have seen, that artifact is what is known in the world of tracking as a 'dish' and it occurs in human tracks as well if the substrate is soft enough and the speed of the person is right. IMO their feet are bigger because they are bigger, but otherwise is the closest thing in all the primate world to our own (if you wanted shoes for a BF the same height as a human, you could find a size that would fit) . They just have more hair on them

 

The gait is different as the shin is shorter relative to the thigh whereas humans have shins and thighs about the same length.

 

We know so little about them its hard to say if ape or homo (I lean towards homo) but environmental pressures could easily sculpt the same thing from either DNA...

[Guest lightheart]

I have considered Homo Heidelbergensis, perhaps Asian Erectus, and Neanderthal. The latest information seems to point to much interbreeding and perhaps all being the same. If that is true of humans maybe it is true of Sasquatch. I do think they display some signs of paleolithic culture, ie.protolanguage, use of paleolithic symbols, creation of shelter, gifting,group hunting techniques, clan style social structure.

[Guest crabshack]

What bugs me is that the hand axe is millions of years old, and the use of fire almost that long and I think pro homo enthusiasts need to do a lot of explaining as to why a member of our genus would regress backwards away from such technology that makes it easier to survive.

 

I agree with salubrious, they seem to do just fine without the use of tools, fire and technology.

 

If you think about it as a hunter those things can be a hindrance.

[Guest]

I have thought often about this and don't believe it to be a type of Homo. The lack of fire use is a big reason why. I wonder too about their communication skills but am also perplexed as to how Killer Whales work together to make waves to get a seal off a floating block of ice. Or if my dog barks at a dog walking down the street with its owner do the dogs understand what the other is barking? Or what is that Mockingbird singing about in the tree by my porch.

   I put out bird seed most of the year but hadn't lately because if I am not around the squirrels get it all. When I put some out this weekend I had lots of birds feeding that I hadn't seen in weeks, How did they all know I had put food out?

 My sighting was a road crossing and from what I saw the torso hair and thigh hair was very similar in length and color to a orangutan and reminded me of fringe on a old deerskin jacket

  .

[Guest]

Nobody will ever know anything about the sasquatch until we have one in the flesh. Real talk. Everything leading up to the discovery is 100% speculation. If/when we find one, we can look back at all the previous evidence collected and draw conclusions from there on out. My personal speculation is that of the Gigantopithecus identification, which would explain the creature's large stature. However, this isn't to say that some prehistoric human evolved to be 8 feet tall, but from what we know about Gigantopithecus from what little fossil evidence we have, it would stand in excess of 10 feet. Fits with the descriptions reported pretty darn well.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

This is harder than it looks. Good thread Norseman. Been doin' some thinkin'. Bears are very intelligent. They can perform some amazing feats, especially when it comes to food. So if Sasquatch has a highly developed animal brain...or one puts the bear's intelligent brain into a bipedal body...yeah, in order to even think that way one has to rule out Human. So, in a philosophical sense, body type could be synonymous to brain developement? Dolphins are highly intelligent, are they Human? One would say no because part of being Human is bipedalism. The great apes are bipedal but like Sasquatch they are covered in body hair.

So where does one draw the line. If it's a case of having the ability to self reflect then we have it all over everything else. Sasquatch, for all it's intelligence, doesn't strike me as being a vain creature. So puzzling out problems could be a side of the issue because Humans solve puzzles not just out of need or curiosity but out of pride as well. We need not discuss the lack of body hair aspect but it does seem to go along with the ability for higher reflective thought. If Sasquatch was Human they WOULD have developed tools, fire, elaborate shelter and larger more protective social groups with perhaps weapons.

Most animals are not even aware of their plight when hunted by clever Humans who use calls, traps and long range weapons. Sasquatch seems to be the same, unaware of the Human brain's design on them in our quest to prove them real. They for the most part behave like animals. Humans are driven by the same basic animal nature as Sasquatch but the apparent difference in ego is obvious. Sasquatch may never wonder why they are here. We have asked that question for millenia.

Sorry for the ramble.

[Branco]

I must have missed that post. Can someone point me toward it?

Boolywooger: Maybe this might help. It is actually a response to a PM I received some time back. I have edited and expanded the original a little.

 

I believe there are at  LEAST three different types (races, sub-species, or whatever) of these things. IF AND WHEN, science ever gets the DNA from all types, it will, in my opinion, show that:

 

(A) The largest and most intelligent of the three are the red ones whose DNA I think will show they are of mixed linage; Neanderthals and modern  Caucasians. Their hair is nearly  a perfect match to that of a Caucasian human's. This BF is the one most commonly seen across the country, and the one that has been shot, or shot at, hundreds of times during the past 200 or more years. They do not trust us, but continue to try to interact with us humans because they are our next of kin. They talk in their own language, and listen to ours's and imitate it in words and phrases. In the deep south, in and around very rural Black American communities, their imitations of human voices carry the distinct sounds of those folk's accents, although the basic sounds of the words are very coarse. They are devilishly smart, and very adept at figuring out deliberately arranged multiple complex latch mechanisms placed on rural feed barns, smoke houses and food storage buildings by older folks who tried to keep them from stealing food without having to shoot them. A very curious and common thing mentioned by older residents in the more rural parts of the South/Southwest was that if the Red BF made a habit of stealing domestic livestock or poultry, they would stop when they had stolen and carried off half the original number of that type of animal. In the mountains of KY, AL, AR and WV I repeatedly heard statement for years from residents who had found  caves, mine entrances (adits) and sheltered areas under rock overhangs that had been used as "homes" for family groups of the animals. One common element of their accounts was that the sites contained the remains of many types of birds and animals, and the remains were somewhat neatly piled and separated in the immediate area. The toilet area away from the "dens" was also reported  to be used by all the group. I was a little surprised fairly recently when I read a scientific article about Neanderthals in which the investigators stated those ancient people "Kept a very tidy home". I do know from my own experiences - and have mentioned it to many people - that the Reds are neat freaks. Bear, coyotes, 'coons and o'possums may eat packaged food left in the woods, but there will be teeth marks and torn packages scattered about, but if the food is eaten by a BF, the packages will be carried off or opened by hand and the packages left in a neat  pile.

(B)The second type's physical features are more like those attributed to more distant human ancestors. They are more ape-like in appearance and actions than the "Big Reds". Their hair is black, and curled close to their body. Their hair under the  microscope more closely matches that of an African human. They are more aggressive toward humans and prone to throwing objects directly toward intruders. If more than one is in the area of a human at night, they will charge as a group; just as the Howler monkeys of South America do.

(3) The third type also has black hair, but that hair is straight & finer. They are taller, slimmer and not as aggressive as the other black-haired one. I suspect their hair would be what Forensic Hair Experts would label as Mongoloid (Asian). This type apparently live in tight families, seldom stray outside their chosen territories and are not highly aggressive toward humans unless they approach a family group's "home turf" at night. Reports of sightings (or night-time vocal encounters) of this type of primate, at least as far as I know, have come from only the Deep South. Those people who have the most knowledge about them call them "Water Apes" because they live and forage alongside of or in deep creek or river channels.

 

What I have not mentioned is the odd primates seen and reported in some southern areas. Their tracks look like a cross between the tracks of baboon and a orangutan. (Photos of those weird tracks and the descriptions and actions of one of those weird primates is included in a long report I wrote of a family's long history of dealing with a mixed group of primates.)

[Guest lightheart]

 Wow thanks Branco! There is a lot of good information there. So do you think then that the three types represent Neanderthal, Archaic African, and Asian? Interesting that your base information for dividing the three types seems to be the composition of the hair.

You didn't mention language use for any of the types except Big Red. Do the others seem to have a language at all? One more question - sorry I respect your time in the woods and observations and I want to pick your brain a little while I have you here.LOL  You mentioned feet, hands, and foraging habits. How do these break down with the three groups?

 

Thanks again for taking the time to do this.