Leaderboard

The perspective is entirely human centric. It assumes that the success of a sapient species is dependent upon it's ability to develop and use technology, and also assumes that technology is the only measure of sapience. It also defines "human" based on these constraints. I would submit that a non-technological approach can also be successfully pursued by a sapient species. Keep in mind that as we create technology that increases success, we also create vulnerabilities that increase failure when deprived of that technology. Drop 99% of the human race in the woods naked and they will not thrive. Put 99% of humans up against an aggressively competitive group of other humans willing to kill to survive, and they will not thrive. In fact, we create specialists within our society to protect us from such people. Deprive humans of food distribution, electricity, gas, and water, and many will die. Many more in cities than in rural areas. To say that I am superior because I can develop and use tools (which many people actually cannot), is little different than saying one is superior because one can be a Vegan. But, loss of tools is the short route between thriving and dying. And starvation is the short route between Vegan and cannibal. The more technologically successful we become, the more dependent upon our technology we become, and the less important physical weaknesses become. Something as simple as near-sightedness, once a major impediment to successful hunting and avoidance of danger (i.e., survival), is no longer an impediment to success, provided that you have access to, or can make, corrective lenses. But take the technology away and the simple weakness impedes your survival, and impedes your ability to pass on your genes through a selective mate. An additional measure of intelligence might be considered the ability to survive in a world humans dominate. Without speculating on their specific origin, Squatch certainly developed in tandem with us. They had to adapt strategies and find a niche that allowed them to survive in a world where we aggressively eliminate competitive threats. We're very good at exterminating our own and exterminating others. How smart does something have to be to adapt to that and survive? Permanent structures, fire, and recognizable tools left about are all evidence that a competing hominid is present, allowing the dominant hominid to detect, locate, and eliminate them. To coexist with us while simultaneously employing strategies of elusiveness and pilferage has to say something. Many of us feel like they are running circles around us when they want to in their environment, and in shared environments. In our environment they can't do that, but they can simply rip our heads off and return to theirs. How smart do they have to be to out-smart us?

Now wait a second. We've introduced a well-documented source evidencing that the Smithsonian collected large skeletons in the past, and we've documented the Smithsonian's Powell Doctrine, which actively and explicitly discourages investigation into or consideration of Native American archeological studies as anything more than a cataloging with the most primitive interpretation. We've also put the Powell Doctrine in historical context regarding its relationship with Manifest Destiny, and the relocation of Native Americans. Do you simply dismiss this evidence with a casual sweep of your hand? Have you actually bothered to read the reference provided before doing so?

A single large skeleton that appears to be fully human at first glance, 7.5 feet in the case of the male, would not be that remarkable. A race of such people would be. There were three such skeletons in the Museum and dozens others found in Lovelock Cave. These people were technologically adapted to their stature in that they continued to use the atlatl long after the bow was developed. Their longer throwing fulcrum gave their atlatl darts greater range and power than an arrow from a short bow employed by a contemporary human of shorter stature could achieve. Why didn't they make bigger bows? The materials available were unsuitable for bows of the required length. If distinct technology is the measure of a Neanderthal, then a technology distinctly consistent to a larger race must also say something about the legendary large people referred to as "Stick-thrower people".

Do you ever read your own posts and have you found large bones in north america? Honestly man there comes a point when you must realize you're posting with neither filter or logic.

Pleased to have DWA disagree with me!

The Anti-science side has what? Old stories, not unlike that to which the forum is devoted. Both (Anti-science and bigfoot believers) have about the same amount of evidence, or lack thereof. One side welcomes competing views, just provide the evidence or logic to supplement one's claim. The other side? Not so much.

Science as presented by humans containing many theories, opinions, assertions, "we believes" "thought to be's" and such supports one opinion.....still nothing leak proof

Yes back to the original post. I personally have been all over the place on BF capabilities. Some witnesses who seem credible and have frequent interaction, attribute near god like paranormal powers to BF but cannot produce a single bit of supporting evidence. To others it is a big dumb ape. Now that I am getting my own contact, and getting some data, the data and evidence I have to date does not support either extreme. BF are very adept in their environment. So much so that we as humans are at an extreme disadvantage in that environment. But animals like wolverines are too and are probably seen less frequently than BF is. Some BF seem to have a sense of humor. Some like to play and I think scaring humans time to time may be part of that. Glyphs of stick and rock suggests some level of intelligence but lack of tool, spear, arrowhead or fire use seems to indicate something missing that ancestral and modern humans have had for a very long time. Data and lack of artifacts suggest some creative or problem solving part of their brain must be very small or underdeveloped in comparison with humans. A species with near human capabilities should have progressed along with humans just by watching human development. That does not seem for have happened. The BF deity crowd would argue that they do not need that. They are perfectly adapted for their environment. But that environment is changing, habitat is disappearing, and I see nothing other than migration to compensate for it. Evidence does not seem to support adaptation. Deity BF would have made logging, and human presence in the woods too dangerous for humans to even be there and tried to protect their habitat. BF habitat would have been a human forbidden zone with humans disappearing in large numbers. Unless federal forest and BLM closed areas are evidence, that has not happened. For sure humans would have fought to protect their lands as did the Native Peoples. Or peaceful BF would have formed lines of protest and sat down in front of approaching logging equipment. That has not happened either. In the years I have been doing research, the once very active area in the 1990s, has been mostly clear cut and there is little cover left. Evidence suggests that BF can do or has done nothing but migrate out of the area to survive. Randy

You can bet your bottom dollar that I can, indeed! No, we don't want no stinkin' proof. We just enjoy those that come hear and claim a certain knowledge, yet somehow never produce any evidence. My friend, you're one of the many to come here and claim everything from Bigfoot following people home over some 50 miles to leave a book in their truck bed, to claiming that the Big Hairy has provided them with clues to their inner selves. Like you, they claim to have the goods, yet choose to withhold it for whatever reason... usually because we haven't submitted to the will of the enlightened squatch. In other words, we're not worthy, in their opinion. So, forgive me if your reluctance to share the evidence you claim to have doesn't impress me, nor does it surprise me. We've all seen it before. Why would you poll a bunch of people you don't know as to whether to present the evidence? That was never a condition of your previous offers. Again, this isn't a surprise, although the 5th member letting it rip would be. Sorry, but your claims are unsubstantiated, no matter how grandiose those claims are. Up to this point there's plenty of evidence to support my claim. Nobody's turned down any evidence. The person making the claims has refused to provide it after saying they would do so. It's now conditional based on what seems to be the input of other members... other "knowers." Regardless, I know that this train has left the station, as it appears that the OP chooses not to produce the evidence as they claimed they would. They're just dangling the proverbial carrot. After the Smeja and Ketchum claims, this stuff is minor league.

Don't be jealous if someone upstages hinted knowledge, I always say.