What Is A Bigfoot?

[Guest toejam]

toejam, YIKES!!! Were you not frightened? Were you alone? It sounds like you may have been *between* 2 male BF. I most *sincerely* never wish to be in that spot.

Okay, woods are off limits again for me. I *truly* used to love the woods, and spent many happy hours, days, and a week or two camping, or sharing a cabin. Usually I can convince myself it's safe, and not to worry.But since I've been a member I'm sorta scared(aka Terrified) of the woods..

Hey Susiq2, There were two of us present when this happened. We were looking for them in an area of previous activity and got very lucky. I was not frightened in the slightest. I was mesmerized! I was blown away! That event has changed my life.

I have ran into what I believe are the same two again almost 1 year later. I heard both vocalize that time. I think one was telling the other that I was coming. I chase wildlife in my spare time and this is the ultimate challenge for me. I love it!

I strive to be put in that same situation again. I'm on a mission

I don't think there's any reason to be afraid of going into the woods. I'm more afraid of running into a pack of coyotes or wolves than the big guy. To find out they really do exist only makes me want more. It is truly a fascinating experience!

[JDL]

It seems to me that tool usage has its pros and cons. My gal has a tool she uses to open stubborn lids on food containers when I'm not around. I, however, rely on my massively muscled physiology to remove the same lids in the blink of an eye without breaking a sweat. I wouldn't think of using a tool for this purpose. If I ever encounter a lid that defies me, I intend to simply break the container over my head. Now, let's suppose that I take it into my bruised noggin to seek out a mate who, like me, is better suited physiologically to survive in a world rife with stubborn lids on food containers with labels neither of us can read. Both of us, prizing our shared attributes, will be more likely to produce offspring with the same attributes and instill in them the joy of opening lids by means of the robust application of unaided physical force. Successive generations will never have have to rummage through the kitchen drawer that always gets stuck, looking for an infernal tool that's never where it should be anyway. In a thousand years or so you may find my progeny crouching amid brittle vitreous shards licking pet food from their fingers, which will by then have skin thick enough to withstand random insults from sharp, useless objects.

Likewise, my current mate, finally disgusted with my triumphant and mocking displays after each successful opening, seeks out a companion who appreciates the subtle wonder of devices that magnify his comparatively puny physical assets, and has a penchant for devising additional diabolical devices that continue to obviate their need to survive by means of innate physical ability. With less need for raw power to survive, successive generations will focus more on the ability to develop and use tools than on physical strength and, as a result, enjoy the advantages of not sporting excess, unnecessary, and biologically expensive muscle mass. Thus blessed, they will be able to survive on less food and, after many, many generations should be able to fit in their own pockets.

My point is that reliance on tool use allowed our ancestors to do more with less - to survive with less muscle, less hair, less visual acuity, less overall robustness. Characteristics that were liabilities, such as being smaller and weaker, were offset by tools that magnified the capabilities of the small and weak. Thus the small and weak were more prone to survive and pass on their genes. Over time we diverged into a distinct smaller, weaker species. The only thing that keeps us all from diminishing into hobbits is competition against each other for mates. Physical prowess is still a selection criteria, but the bar is lower for the species overall because the small and weak can successfully provide for their mates and offspring by means of tools.

By contrast, if our ancestors had selected instead for robustness, the outcome would have been different. We'd be stronger so we could smack a grizzly upside the head, we'd be faster so we could run down a deer, we'd have thicker skin, more hair and be physically larger (with a lower surface area to body volume ratio) so that we could withstand harsh winters, and we'd be more durable. The downside is we'd have to compete against those pesky homicidal, tool-using, gang up on you and chase you out of the valley cousins of ours. We'd have to develop traits that allowed us to survive in a world they dominate. We'd have to retreat to habitat that they don't use, or at least use the same habitat at night when they are inactive, and perfect other means of avoidance in order to survive. Ultimately we may completely abandon the use of anything that draws the attention of our cousins. Fire makes smoke. Smoke attracts attention. Attention get's you killed.

And that brings up another point. Keep in mind that bigfoot may very well be exactly what they are in part because they had to select for characteristics that allowed them to survive in a world they share with us.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

It seems to me that tool usage has its pros and cons. My gal has a tool she uses to open stubborn lids on food containers when I'm not around. I, however, rely on my massively muscled physiology to remove the same lids in the blink of an eye without breaking a sweat. I wouldn't think of using a tool for this purpose. If I ever encounter a lid that defies me, I intend to simply break the container over my head. Now, let's suppose that I take it into my bruised noggin to seek out a mate who, like me, is better suited physiologically to survive in a world rife with stubborn lids on food containers with labels neither of us can read. Both of us, prizing our shared attributes, will be more likely to produce offspring with the same attributes and instill in them the joy of opening lids by means of the robust application of unaided physical force. Successive generations will never have have to rummage through the kitchen drawer that always gets stuck, looking for an infernal tool that's never where it should be anyway. In a thousand years or so you may find my progeny crouching amid brittle vitreous shards licking pet food from their fingers, which will by then have skin thick enough to withstand random insults from sharp, useless objects.

Likewise, my current mate, finally disgusted with my triumphant and mocking displays after each successful opening, seeks out a companion who appreciates the subtle wonder of devices that magnify his comparatively puny physical assets, and has a penchant for devising additional diabolical devices that continue to obviate their need to survive by means of innate physical ability. With less need for raw power to survive, successive generations will focus more on the ability to develop and use tools than on physical strength and, as a result, enjoy the advantages of not sporting excess, unnecessary, and biologically expensive muscle mass. Thus blessed, they will be able to survive on less food and, after many, many generations should be able to fit in their own pockets.

My point is that reliance on tool use allowed our ancestors to do more with less - to survive with less muscle, less hair, less visual acuity, less overall robustness. Characteristics that were liabilities, such as being smaller and weaker, were offset by tools that magnified the capabilities of the small and weak. Thus the small and weak were more prone to survive and pass on their genes. Over time we diverged into a distinct smaller, weaker species. The only thing that keeps us all from diminishing into hobbits is competition against each other for mates. Physical prowess is still a selection criteria, but the bar is lower for the species overall because the small and weak can successfully provide for their mates and offspring by means of tools.

By contrast, if our ancestors had selected instead for robustness, the outcome would have been different. We'd be stronger so we could smack a grizzly upside the head, we'd be faster so we could run down a deer, we'd have thicker skin, more hair and be physically larger (with a lower surface area to body volume ratio) so that we could withstand harsh winters, and we'd be more durable. The downside is we'd have to compete against those pesky homicidal, tool-using, gang up on you and chase you out of the valley cousins of ours. We'd have to develop traits that allowed us to survive in a world they dominate. We'd have to retreat to habitat that they don't use, or at least use the same habitat at night when they are inactive, and perfect other means of avoidance in order to survive. Ultimately we may completely abandon the use of anything that draws the attention of our cousins. Fire makes smoke. Smoke attracts attention. Attention get's you killed.

And that brings up another point. Keep in mind that bigfoot may very well be exactly what they are in part because they had to select for characteristics that allowed them to survive in a world they share with us.

Your understandings of tool use and human evolution are pretty flawed. First of all, people didn't evolve shorter and weaker than our ancestors; we're actually among the tallest members of the homo genus, along with Homo Erectus and H. Heidelbergensis, who grew to similar heights. Neanderthals were smaller than us and stronger. Homo Habilis was about three and a half feet tall; the changes you're talking about just didn't happen.

Second, we didn't start using tools to make up for being weaker. Evolution just doesn't work that way; with us, it actually worked exactly the opposite. Greater tool usage meant more meat, which meant more protein, which led to larger size and (more importantly) bigger brains. Don't forget that for most of our history, we were hunter-gatherers. Size and physical ability is still pretty important for that lifestyle.

Third, around the time our ancestors started to become more like us (when the gracile Australopithecines and H. Habilis showed up), there were species of robust hominids that evolved; they're called the robust Australopithecines. Paranthropus Robustus and P. Boisei are the two best known examples of them. The robust Australopithecines were an evolutionary dead end. Being more robust isn't always better. They died out because they couldn't compete with their more intelligent relatives. By the way, we didn't kill them off, we were just better at surviving than them. Look at Neaderthals, we coexisted with them for thousands of years, and there's no evidence to say we killed them; they just died out.

Finally, tool usage is a huge advantage to a species. Especially tools that early and primitive. Our predecessors weren't doing things like opening jars, they were killing animals they weren't adapted to kill. They were making their general survival easier by building shelters and fires. None of them would have (or did) give that up. Your example goes beyond that into personal subjectivity, and doesn't apply as a comment on the advantage of tools. If we didn't have things to open jars just because some people don't need them, the people that did need them couldn't open jars. If we abandoned using some tools just because we don't need them, or could get by without them (say cars, metal tools, houses), the species would suffer incredibly. Once a species starts using tools, they become dependent on them, and without them, they'd probably die out.

[JDL]

Your understandings of tool use and human evolution are pretty flawed. First of all, people didn't evolve shorter and weaker than our ancestors; we're actually among the tallest members of the homo genus, along with Homo Erectus and H. Heidelbergensis, who grew to similar heights. Neanderthals were smaller than us and stronger. Homo Habilis was about three and a half feet tall; the changes you're talking about just didn't happen.

Second, we didn't start using tools to make up for being weaker. Evolution just doesn't work that way; with us, it actually worked exactly the opposite. Greater tool usage meant more meat, which meant more protein, which led to larger size and (more importantly) bigger brains. Don't forget that for most of our history, we were hunter-gatherers. Size and physical ability is still pretty important for that lifestyle.

Third, around the time our ancestors started to become more like us (when the gracile Australopithecines and H. Habilis showed up), there were species of robust hominids that evolved; they're called the robust Australopithecines. Paranthropus Robustus and P. Boisei are the two best known examples of them. The robust Australopithecines were an evolutionary dead end. Being more robust isn't always better. They died out because they couldn't compete with their more intelligent relatives. By the way, we didn't kill them off, we were just better at surviving than them. Look at Neaderthals, we coexisted with them for thousands of years, and there's no evidence to say we killed them; they just died out.

Finally, tool usage is a huge advantage to a species. Especially tools that early and primitive. Our predecessors weren't doing things like opening jars, they were killing animals they weren't adapted to kill. They were making their general survival easier by building shelters and fires. None of them would have (or did) give that up. Your example goes beyond that into personal subjectivity, and doesn't apply as a comment on the advantage of tools. If we didn't have things to open jars just because some people don't need them, the people that did need them couldn't open jars. If we abandoned using some tools just because we don't need them, or could get by without them (say cars, metal tools, houses), the species would suffer incredibly. Once a species starts using tools, they become dependent on them, and without them, they'd probably die out.

I was trying to be amusing and my key points may have been lost in the process. My thesis is as follows:

1. Adaptation to tool use has its pros and cons.

2. Tools are a blessing in the sense that they allow greater survivability, but they also allow individuals with previously (pre-tool) survival-challenged characteristics to pass on their genes. At some point the reliance on tools becomes derivative to the point that it is dangerous. Can all people who rely on tools make the tools upon which they rely? In the extreme should some become reliant not only on their own tool use but on the use of tools by others (services), can they survive when those services are no longer available?

3. Robustness as a survival strategy may be the more challenging course, but may well have resulted in the evolution of something bigfoot-like. I'll concede that there have been other robust species that have died out or been assimilated, but does that mean that all robust species must have died out or been assimilated?

4. Dependence on advanced tools may be a liability to a species that must avoid humans in order to survive. If, for example, bigfoot evolved from homo heidelbergensis or homo ergaster, they would have needed a compelling reason to become less reliant on tell-tale tools and more reliant on innate characteristics. With regard to fire it could be argued that such a hypothetical divergence occurred before the controlled use of fire was adopted. With regard to the limited use of crude stone tools by bigfoot, would it be likely that, if discovered, such tools would even be attributed to bigfoot?

5. The evolution of bigfoot may well have been influenced by their need to survive in a world where the choicest habitat is invariably dominated by humans and in which competition with humans is a constant challenge. Do not other species adapt to competition, developing characteristics specifically designed to ensure their survival against the threat of another species?

I suggest that there is room for broader interpretation. Point 4 above is key. Can you conclusively prove that no species has ever given up the advantage of a tool if the disadvantages associated with that tool outweighed the advantages?

[JDL]

Your understandings of tool use and human evolution are pretty flawed. First of all, people didn't evolve shorter and weaker than our ancestors; we're actually among the tallest members of the homo genus, along with Homo Erectus and H. Heidelbergensis, who grew to similar heights. Neanderthals were smaller than us and stronger. Homo Habilis was about three and a half feet tall; the changes you're talking about just didn't happen.

Second, we didn't start using tools to make up for being weaker. Evolution just doesn't work that way; with us, it actually worked exactly the opposite. Greater tool usage meant more meat, which meant more protein, which led to larger size and (more importantly) bigger brains. Don't forget that for most of our history, we were hunter-gatherers. Size and physical ability is still pretty important for that lifestyle.

Third, around the time our ancestors started to become more like us (when the gracile Australopithecines and H. Habilis showed up), there were species of robust hominids that evolved; they're called the robust Australopithecines. Paranthropus Robustus and P. Boisei are the two best known examples of them. The robust Australopithecines were an evolutionary dead end. Being more robust isn't always better. They died out because they couldn't compete with their more intelligent relatives. By the way, we didn't kill them off, we were just better at surviving than them. Look at Neaderthals, we coexisted with them for thousands of years, and there's no evidence to say we killed them; they just died out.

Finally, tool usage is a huge advantage to a species. Especially tools that early and primitive. Our predecessors weren't doing things like opening jars, they were killing animals they weren't adapted to kill. They were making their general survival easier by building shelters and fires. None of them would have (or did) give that up. Your example goes beyond that into personal subjectivity, and doesn't apply as a comment on the advantage of tools. If we didn't have things to open jars just because some people don't need them, the people that did need them couldn't open jars. If we abandoned using some tools just because we don't need them, or could get by without them (say cars, metal tools, houses), the species would suffer incredibly. Once a species starts using tools, they become dependent on them, and without them, they'd probably die out.

I was trying to be amusing and my key points may have been lost in the process. My thesis is as follows:

1. Adaptation to tool use has its pros and cons.

2. Tools are a blessing in the sense that they allow greater survivability, but they also allow individuals with previously (pre-tool) survival-challenged characteristics to pass on their genes. At some point the reliance on tools becomes derivative to the point that it is dangerous. Can all people who rely on tools make the tools upon which they rely? In the extreme should some become reliant not only on their own tool use but on the use of tools by others (services), can they survive when those services are no longer available?

3. Robustness as a survival strategy may be the more challenging course, but may well have resulted in the evolution of something bigfoot-like. I'll concede that there have been other robust species that have died out or been assimilated, but does that mean that all robust species must have died out or been assimilated?

4. Dependence on advanced tools may be a liability to a species that must avoid humans in order to survive. If, for example, bigfoot evolved from homo heidelbergensis or homo ergaster, they would have needed a compelling reason to become less reliant on the development of tools and more reliant on innate characteristics. Such a hypothetical divergence may have occurred prior to the development of the ability to use controlled fire. With regard to primitive stone tools, should such be discovered, whould they even be attributed to bigfoot?

5. The evolution of bigfoot may well have been influenced by their need to survive in a world where the choicest habitat is invariably dominated by humans and in which competition with humans is a constant challenge. Do not other species adapt to competition, developing characteristics specifically designed to ensure their survival against the threat of another species?

I suggest that there is room for broader interpretation. Point 4 above is key. Can you conclusively prove that no species has ever foregone the advantage of a tool if the disadvantages associated with that tool outweighed the advantages?

[Guest]

Once a species starts using tools, they become dependent on them, and without them, they'd probably die out.

How do we know this? If I lost my home, my electricity, my more or less modern life I would survive. I may never relearn the art of metal making but I could certainly chip a rock into an arrowhead, and with practice, learn to hunt. Fishing is an option and since I can crochet and knit, no big stretch to make a net out of grass for me. I would just swap my modern tools for the more primitive versions, but even without the primitive ones, I could survive if I did not object to eating earthworms, grasshoppers, and other insects. Would I like it? No, but I'll eat anything that doesn't eat me first if I am hungry enough. There are also plenty of edible plants in my location. I think you are making a big assumption on what would happen to us if we lack available modern tools. Once everything got smaller than you after the ice age, what would be the point in going back to using tools if they aren't needed? So how can we be sure it hasn't gone in the other direction? Have we found giant chips out of Mammoth bones from spear heads that were just a little too large? No one has ever said. Perhaps bigfoot got bigger once his diet became more well rounded and not limited to certain game? I just don't see how we could know this one way or another with any certainty.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

I was trying to be amusing and my key points may have been lost in the process. My thesis is as follows:

1. Adaptation to tool use has its pros and cons.

2. Tools are a blessing in the sense that they allow greater survivability, but they also allow individuals with previously (pre-tool) survival-challenged characteristics to pass on their genes. At some point the reliance on tools becomes derivative to the point that it is dangerous. Can all people who rely on tools make the tools upon which they rely? In the extreme should some become reliant not only on their own tool use but on the use of tools by others (services), can they survive when those services are no longer available?

3. Robustness as a survival strategy may be the more challenging course, but may well have resulted in the evolution of something bigfoot-like. I'll concede that there have been other robust species that have died out or been assimilated, but does that mean that all robust species must have died out or been assimilated?

4. Dependence on advanced tools may be a liability to a species that must avoid humans in order to survive. If, for example, bigfoot evolved from homo heidelbergensis or homo ergaster, they would have needed a compelling reason to become less reliant on the development of tools and more reliant on innate characteristics. Such a hypothetical divergence may have occurred prior to the development of the ability to use controlled fire. With regard to primitive stone tools, should such be discovered, whould they even be attributed to bigfoot?

5. The evolution of bigfoot may well have been influenced by their need to survive in a world where the choicest habitat is invariably dominated by humans and in which competition with humans is a constant challenge. Do not other species adapt to competition, developing characteristics specifically designed to ensure their survival against the threat of another species?

I suggest that there is room for broader interpretation. Point 4 above is key. Can you conclusively prove that no species has ever foregone the advantage of a tool if the disadvantages associated with that tool outweighed the advantages?

1. Everything has pros and cons, just look at agriculture. Humans that started using it became less healthy, but none of them abandoned farming because it was such a huge asset, and it's the easiest way to support large populations. Tools are the same way, they provide a benefit, and any negative side tends to be negligible compared to the positive. Yes, people become reliant on tools, but survival in general is easier; that's why nothing has ever given up using tools.

2. Most couldn't, and that's another animals don't abandon tool use. If you need to hunt with a spear that has a sharp stone point (because you have no natural weapons), without that tool, you couldn't kill anything. That means less protein, and that makes surviving as a species harder. If you need to cook meat to kill bacteria, you'd get sick and possibly die without fire. Tool usage is adaptation, and when adaptations are useful, they're not abandoned.

3. If you're referring to robust hominids, yes, they probably all died. Robust Australopithecines have only been found in Africa, so there's no reason to think they're still alive in North America (I addressed this in another post). Or that they kept evolving, since there's no evidence for that.

4. There would be no reason to stop using tools in the first place. Or to avoid humans for that matter. If Neanderthals could live alongside humans for thousands of years, why would anything else be unable to do the same? Especially something bigger and stronger than us. If bigfoot tools were found, they very well could be attributed to bigfoot, Say for example, something was manufactured for use by bigger hands than humans have, or if it was manufactured using a different style than any culture was known to use. Every culture makes tools a specific way, if something was found that was different, an archeologist would know that something was up.

5. Why would they even need to compete with us? They're supposed to be bigger and stronger, and lots of people seem to think they're smarter than us. That sounds like something we should be afraid of. Something that should have beat us out. Animals do develop traits to adapt for competition (just look at our big brains or anything that's poisonous); everything is an adaptation for survival and competition. But, those adaptations don't venture into bigfoot-like territory. Nothing has, or can, adapt to become invisible to gamecams or incapable of leaving evidence of themselves behind.

Can you prove that any species has abandoned the use of tools? It hasn't happened. By their very nature, tools are developed to make something easier to do. They're always an advantage, and nothing, especially with primitive technology, would have enough negative effects to make their use a liability (if they had any negative effects at all). What would such a negative effect even be? No species would just abandon its adaptations for the sake of messing with us.

By the way, I'm honestly interested in spreading more information about anthropology (and how it relates to bigfoot), it's why I joined this forum in there first place. I'm not trying to be antagonistic or condescending. There's a lot of misinformation and mistaken wisdom floating around relating to it, and I just thought I'd try to clear some of that up and offer scientific counterpoints to them. I used to be a big believer, but then I realized there's too much evidence against bigfoot. If you (or anyone else) needs clarification about anything I've said, I'll do my best to clear it up. It's a little hard to keep up a good exchange when people meet your ideas with hostility, but like I said, I'm genuinely interesting in spreading my knowledge about this subject and trying to dispel misinformation.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

How do we know this? If I lost my home, my electricity, my more or less modern life I would survive. I may never relearn the art of metal making but I could certainly chip a rock into an arrowhead, and with practice, learn to hunt. Fishing is an option and since I can crochet and knit, no big stretch to make a net out of grass for me. I would just swap my modern tools for the more primitive versions, but even without the primitive ones, I could survive if I did not object to eating earthworms, grasshoppers, and other insects. Would I like it? No, but I'll eat anything that doesn't eat me first if I am hungry enough. There are also plenty of edible plants in my location. I think you are making a big assumption on what would happen to us if we lack available modern tools. Once everything got smaller than you after the ice age, what would be the point in going back to using tools if they aren't needed? So how can we be sure it hasn't gone in the other direction? Have we found giant chips out of Mammoth bones from spear heads that were just a little too large? No one has ever said. Perhaps bigfoot got bigger once his diet became more well rounded and not limited to certain game? I just don't see how we could know this one way or another with any certainty.

Most people really wouldn't be able to survive, they just don't posses the skills or knowledge. Everything that everyone does is in some way tied to modern technology. Some could probably get by, but the species as a whole would take a huge hit.

Could you really make tools? It's harder than you probably think it is, especially if you're never done it before. My only attempt at making a stone tool has been at an Oldowan-style chopper, and I was only marginally successful at that. Making something that could function as a hunting weapon would take a huge amount of a practice. Most people wouldn't even know where to begin with knapping; I know I had to be told and shown. Also, you couldn't just get by on eating bugs. Living without modern conveniences would require lots of calories, and it's hard to find those if you don't know exactly how, or have the resources to.

As far as I know, all known mammoth kills have been consistent with known manufacturing cultures. We can even identify what animals were killed by who, Neanderthals or a human, for example. Neanderthals were the most exclusive eaters known among hominids; they were almost exclusively meat eaters. Humans have always had a pretty varied diet, and we didn't get massive.

[Guest vilnoori]

They might very well be using simple stone tools, I don't think anyone is looking for Oldowan-style choppers in North America, for example. Searchers need a search image. I would really encourage BFers in the field to keep their eyes open for crudely shaped hand-axes and such. I have found some evidence along that line. Not enough to be saying, "here they are," but enough to keep me intrigued. Also, like Asian H. erectus they may be using more fiber and plant based technology that degrades quickly. There seems to be some evidence that they are good at weaving things and making shelters from branches etc.

Though it is probably true that they need less material support to live, they have had a lot of time (thousands of years) to adapt to their environment. They are larger and hairier and that means a lot more resistant to cold. Faster and stealthier, so better hunters. And they know all the available food sources in their environment and the best times to get them. They may migrate around to different areas to harvest, much as NA tribes did. I bet they are even incorporating crop availability from humans...ripe corn to eat as well as hide in in late summer, for example, berries in July, apples, nuts and pears in early fall. As long as they harvest after nightfall and keep to low areas where there is lots of underbrush/rushes/trees, such as waterways and marginal land, they are safe even in fairly developed areas. I've noticed a lot of the sightings in this valley are in summer. In winter they seem to retreat back to the mountain fastnesses. I often wonder if they have exploited the cave systems that I know are out there. There are some NA accounts that support this possibility.

[JDL]

1. Everything has pros and cons, just look at agriculture. Humans that started using it became less healthy, but none of them abandoned farming because it was such a huge asset, and it's the easiest way to support large populations. Tools are the same way, they provide a benefit, and any negative side tends to be negligible compared to the positive. Yes, people become reliant on tools, but survival in general is easier; that's why nothing has ever given up using tools.

2. Most couldn't, and that's another animals don't abandon tool use. If you need to hunt with a spear that has a sharp stone point (because you have no natural weapons), without that tool, you couldn't kill anything. That means less protein, and that makes surviving as a species harder. If you need to cook meat to kill bacteria, you'd get sick and possibly die without fire. Tool usage is adaptation, and when adaptations are useful, they're not abandoned.

3. If you're referring to robust hominids, yes, they probably all died. Robust Australopithecines have only been found in Africa, so there's no reason to think they're still alive in North America (I addressed this in another post). Or that they kept evolving, since there's no evidence for that.

4. There would be no reason to stop using tools in the first place. Or to avoid humans for that matter. If Neanderthals could live alongside humans for thousands of years, why would anything else be unable to do the same? Especially something bigger and stronger than us. If bigfoot tools were found, they very well could be attributed to bigfoot, Say for example, something was manufactured for use by bigger hands than humans have, or if it was manufactured using a different style than any culture was known to use. Every culture makes tools a specific way, if something was found that was different, an archeologist would know that something was up.

5. Why would they even need to compete with us? They're supposed to be bigger and stronger, and lots of people seem to think they're smarter than us. That sounds like something we should be afraid of. Something that should have beat us out. Animals do develop traits to adapt for competition (just look at our big brains or anything that's poisonous); everything is an adaptation for survival and competition. But, those adaptations don't venture into bigfoot-like territory. Nothing has, or can, adapt to become invisible to gamecams or incapable of leaving evidence of themselves behind.

Can you prove that any species has abandoned the use of tools? It hasn't happened. By their very nature, tools are developed to make something easier to do. They're always an advantage, and nothing, especially with primitive technology, would have enough negative effects to make their use a liability (if they had any negative effects at all). What would such a negative effect even be? No species would just abandon its adaptations for the sake of messing with us.

By the way, I'm honestly interested in spreading more information about anthropology (and how it relates to bigfoot), it's why I joined this forum in there first place. I'm not trying to be antagonistic or condescending. There's a lot of misinformation and mistaken wisdom floating around relating to it, and I just thought I'd try to clear some of that up and offer scientific counterpoints to them. I used to be a big believer, but then I realized there's too much evidence against bigfoot. If you (or anyone else) needs clarification about anything I've said, I'll do my best to clear it up. It's a little hard to keep up a good exchange when people meet your ideas with hostility, but like I said, I'm genuinely interesting in spreading my knowledge about this subject and trying to dispel misinformation.

Ok, now I understand you better.

We're operating from different data sets.

Yours are derived from diligent study of massive amounts of information produced by the most prominent and respected anthropologists and the best experts in related fields. You've also delved responsibly into practical application and exploration of various techniques as described by these experts. Given your accumulated knowledge you are still somewhat open-minded about bigfoot despite your current assessment that there is too much evidence against bigfoot in the materials you have studied. Still being somewhat open-minded you have fit the available pieces of the puzzle together from the sources you have studied, extrapolated to determine the the size and shape of the remaining void in the overall picture, and now determine what is possible and what is not with regard to the characteristics of something that you judge unlikely. You now sift through second-hand reports and select data points from those that you judge probable or improbable in order to construct a holistic picture of the unlikely subject. I applaud you for your time and effort and devotion to this process.

But you see, there is fact, what we know based on empirical evidence, and there is theory, what we believe based on extrapolation from an incomplete set of data. If the data set were complete there would be no need for extrapolation and theory. The mistake we sometimes make is to regard theory as fact and then tell people what is possible or not based on theories we regard as fact.

Now, I certainly haven't studied everything you have. I'm only now beginning to look into anthropology in the limited amount of time I have available. In fact, and I apologize to your sensibilities for this, I'm doing everything backwards from your approach. I will say that I've never been a believer in bigfoot. I can even go so far as to say that I don't believe that they exist at all - because I know for a fact that they do exist. You see, my data set is built from direct observations of bigfoot and limited interaction with more than one individual. I now seek to take my direct experience and see how it fits into anthropological theory so that I can determine how to merge fact into theory. And I find some of the theory incompatible with fact, most notably any theory that concludes that they cannot exist. So I discard those faulty extrapolations from fact and delve down to the underlying, and clearly misinterpreted, data. I understand that it is sacrilegious to some to so blatantly discard the extrapolated theories that they regard as empirical fact, but by going back to the data and merging the empirical data from my own experience I seek to refine theory to incorporate the inconvenient fact, that despite all of the evidence that some point to against the existence of bigfoot, they do, in fact, exist. I only do this because I am a scientist myself. I have an advanced engineering degree, am a state licensed professional engineer, and have even taught at a major academic institution, directing eighteen faculty in the instruction of over 900 students in the core science course I directed. But that is beside the point.

For me the questions are: How closely are they related to us? How did they evolve? Why do they possess the characteristics that they do possess? How do they inter-relate with us and survive in our world? And many others. I will tell you that they are intelligent (within the human range, though applied differently), that they do share many characteristics and behaviors with us, that they understand our behaviors when we are in their environment, and that there is nothing mystical about them.

I don't care much if some, or even most, reject the information I offer. I'm simply here to offer the information for others to consider - and to consider the information that others offer.

I will suggest, however, that you re-examine your knowledge base, identify what is empirical fact, identify what is extrapolated theory, and consider that it might not be accurate to state what can or cannot be based on the extrapolated theory. Theory is malleable and constantly evolves to incorporate new data. Theory can also be misused. I'll point out that not so long ago anthropologists steadfastly maintained that a certain race of humans were inferior, and that theory was used, in part, to justify their enslavement. Those theories don't hold up today.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

They might very well be using simple stone tools, I don't think anyone is looking for Oldowan-style choppers in North America, for example. Searchers need a search image. I would really encourage BFers in the field to keep their eyes open for crudely shaped hand-axes and such. I have found some evidence along that line. Not enough to be saying, "here they are," but enough to keep me intrigued. Also, like Asian H. erectus they may be using more fiber and plant based technology that degrades quickly. There seems to be some evidence that they are good at weaving things and making shelters from branches etc.

It's not that no one is looking for less advanced tools, it's that they've never been found. Plenty of anthropologists and archeologists spend time in the forests of the Pacific Northwest, and one the things they specifically look for is stone tools (they find them all the time). Some people that aren't scientists find things, too. To date, nothing has been found that doesn't tie to a known culture. If something has been living here from thousands of years ago into the present, making stone tools the whole time, it's safe to say they would be found.

Though it is probably true that they need less material support to live, they have had a lot of time (thousands of years) to adapt to their environment. They are larger and hairier and that means a lot more resistant to cold. Faster and stealthier, so better hunters. And they know all the available food sources in their environment and the best times to get them. They may migrate around to different areas to harvest, much as NA tribes did. I bet they are even incorporating crop availability from humans...ripe corn to eat as well as hide in in late summer, for example, berries in July, apples, nuts and pears in early fall. As long as they harvest after nightfall and keep to low areas where there is lots of underbrush/rushes/trees, such as waterways and marginal land, they are safe even in fairly developed areas. I've noticed a lot of the sightings in this valley are in summer. In winter they seem to retreat back to the mountain fastnesses. I often wonder if they have exploited the cave systems that I know are out there. There are some NA accounts that support this possibility.

An important thing to note about the Pacific Northwest is that the people here are one of the few examples of hunter/gatherers that lived in permanent settlements. People that lived here didn't need to move around to get enough food. If people lived that way, bigfoot might have too; after all, why would something make survival harder than it needs to be? Also, something that was eight feet tall and weighed 800 pounds would need a tremendous amount of food to support itself. If something that size was living in a group, as some reports say, that need would increase greatly. Something that needed that much food would leave a noticeable impact on the environment.

[Guest CaptainMorgan]

You only find tools where you look and not all tools are properly recognized or attributed, so the best you can say are words like probability. You can't looks everywhere and scientists look where there is already some evidences, not in random valleys. In this scenario miners and rock hound would be more qualified to make this discovery. I doubt folks who are out panning for gold after a torrential rain uncovered new materials, would distinguish a much older stone cutting tool from a more modern one if they found it. They would just pick them up and move on.

Since we don't know what their diet is, or how rich\poor it is, or how many individuals constitute a group, or what the territorial range of food supply is for said group, we can't really say with any certainty whether or not they would have an impact on their habitat\environment or not. We can gage grazing habits for deer and elk, but not for a *allegedly* reclusive omnivore with low population density.

Look on the map and square off a mere 100sq miles (just 10x10). Is that enough for one individual with dietary diversity? Now consider the vastness factor compounding the possibility that these individuals are not stationary.

.

Edited May 6, 2011 by CaptainMorgan

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Ok, now I understand you better.

We're operating from different data sets.

Yours are derived from diligent study of massive amounts of information produced by the most prominent and respected anthropologists and the best experts in related fields. You've also delved responsibly into practical application and exploration of various techniques as described by these experts. Given your accumulated knowledge you are still somewhat open-minded about bigfoot despite your current assessment that there is too much evidence against bigfoot in the materials you have studied. Still being somewhat open-minded you have fit the available pieces of the puzzle together from the sources you have studied, extrapolated to determine the the size and shape of the remaining void in the overall picture, and now determine what is possible and what is not with regard to the characteristics of something that you judge unlikely. You now sift through second-hand reports and select data points from those that you judge probable or improbable in order to construct a holistic picture of the unlikely subject. I applaud you for your time and effort and devotion to this process.

But you see, there is fact, what we know based on empirical evidence, and there is theory, what we believe based on extrapolation from an incomplete set of data. If the data set were complete there would be no need for extrapolation and theory. The mistake we sometimes make is to regard theory as fact and then tell people what is possible or not based on theories we regard as fact.

Now, I certainly haven't studied everything you have. I'm only now beginning to look into anthropology in the limited amount of time I have available. In fact, and I apologize to your sensibilities for this, I'm doing everything backwards from your approach. I will say that I've never been a believer in bigfoot. I can even go so far as to say that I don't believe that they exist at all - because I know for a fact that they do exist. You see, my data set is built from direct observations of bigfoot and limited interaction with more than one individual. I now seek to take my direct experience and see how it fits into anthropological theory so that I can determine how to merge fact into theory. And I find some of the theory incompatible with fact, most notably any theory that concludes that they cannot exist. So I discard those faulty extrapolations from fact and delve down to the underlying, and clearly misinterpreted, data. I understand that it is sacrilegious to some to so blatantly discard the extrapolated theories that they regard as empirical fact, but by going back to the data and merging the empirical data from my own experience I seek to refine theory to incorporate the inconvenient fact, that despite all of the evidence that some point to against the existence of bigfoot, they do, in fact, exist. I only do this because I am a scientist myself. I have an advanced engineering degree, am a state licensed professional engineer, and have even taught at a major academic institution, directing eighteen faculty in the instruction of over 900 students in the core science course I directed. But that is beside the point.

For me the questions are: How closely are they related to us? How did they evolve? Why do they possess the characteristics that they do possess? How do they inter-relate with us and survive in our world? And many others. I will tell you that they are intelligent (within the human range, though applied differently), that they do share many characteristics and behaviors with us, that they understand our behaviors when we are in their environment, and that there is nothing mystical about them.

I don't care much if some, or even most, reject the information I offer. I'm simply here to offer the information for others to consider - and to consider the information that others offer.

I will suggest, however, that you re-examine your knowledge base, identify what is empirical fact, identify what is extrapolated theory, and consider that it might not be accurate to state what can or cannot be based on the extrapolated theory. Theory is malleable and constantly evolves to incorporate new data. Theory can also be misused. I'll point out that not so long ago anthropologists steadfastly maintained that a certain race of humans were inferior, and that theory was used, in part, to justify their enslavement. Those theories don't hold up today.

Two quick points about science in general:

In science, nothing is ever a hard fact. Things are always "to the best of our knowledge" or "according to the evidence." There isn't a rule that says bigfoot can't exist, there just isn't any evidence to say that it does, at least according to what is known. Also, the "backwards" approach that you're talking about isn't science. If people were trying to work to prove things, the hypotheses they suggested wouldn't be falsifiable. Conformation bias (and ignoring things you don't like) would always get in the way of reaching a credible conclusion. That's one of the biggest problems with how the bigfoot community researches their subject; they don't try to reach an objective conclusion, they look for evidence that agrees with the conclusion they want and make excuses for, or ignore, the evidence that doesn't. The same way of "research" can be seen with people that want to support Creationism or the idea that global warming isn't real. It just doesn't lead to credible ends.

But, that's beside the point, since my original intent in this thread wasn't to say anything about the possibility of bigfoot's existence. What I was originally commenting on is something that actually relates to your questions a lot; namely, about what bigfoot could (or couldn't) be.

[BobZenor]

1. Everything has pros and cons, just look at agriculture. Humans that started using it became less healthy, but none of them abandoned farming because it was such a huge asset, and it's the easiest way to support large populations. Tools are the same way, they provide a benefit, and any negative side tends to be negligible compared to the positive. Yes, people become reliant on tools, but survival in general is easier; that's why nothing has ever given up using tools.

2. Most couldn't, and that's another animals don't abandon tool use. If you need to hunt with a spear that has a sharp stone point (because you have no natural weapons), without that tool, you couldn't kill anything. That means less protein, and that makes surviving as a species harder. If you need to cook meat to kill bacteria, you'd get sick and possibly die without fire. Tool usage is adaptation, and when adaptations are useful, they're not abandoned.

You can't even say that about modern humans. There are many examples of tribes that live far more primitive lives. In general, the more technological populations would replace them but they do manage to exist in isolated areas. Many tribes in the Northwest have a tradition where shamans apparently go live in the wild like animals for several years. The people of Tasmania even lost the use of fire.

"Tasmania, an island separated from Australia 10,000 years ago, had the simplest material culture in the world, lacking many of the technologies and artifacts widespread on the mainland. Both Tasmania and Australia suggest the effect that isolation and limited population size have on development, including loss of technology..."

Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond

http://ishkbooks.com/guns_germs_steel.pdf

3. If you're referring to robust hominids, yes, they probably all died. Robust Australopithecines have only been found in Africa, so there's no reason to think they're still alive in North America (I addressed this in another post). Or that they kept evolving, since there's no evidence for that.

Robust in the context of robust Australopithecines is just talking about their teeth. They were stout little fellows but the robust reference is to their enormous molars. There are many examples of hominids that became robust in their skeletons. Our probable immediate ancestor, the heidelbergensis is one example. Neanderthals are also noted for their exceptionally robust bones. Some erectus, particularly the older Java erectus often times have exceptionally thick skulls and prominent brow ridges. Some of those "erectus" also had exceptionally large teeth and massive attachments for jaw muscles. Evolution doesn't always go in predictable directions that people assume to be advancements. It is more driven by the concept of adaptive radiation. That means that all niches that are available are filled. The niche that I think Bigfoot ancestors filled is the non technological niche where they were forced to avoid the dominant technological hominids. That required a change in behavior, mainly living in very steep or swampy areas that locked kneed and arched footed moderns weren't particularly well adapted to. The extreme danger that the technological hominids represented required them to come out primarily at night which is probably why they see well in the dark. That is just my assumption based on personal experience and reported behavior.

4. There would be no reason to stop using tools in the first place. Or to avoid humans for that matter. If Neanderthals could live alongside humans for thousands of years, why would anything else be unable to do the same? Especially something bigger and stronger than us. If bigfoot tools were found, they very well could be attributed to bigfoot, Say for example, something was manufactured for use by bigger hands than humans have, or if it was manufactured using a different style than any culture was known to use. Every culture makes tools a specific way, if something was found that was different, an archeologist would know that something was up.

I think they were probably branched off our lineage before stone hand axes and anything before that is just not significantly beyond a chimp so I don't see how it is relevant. Leaky came to California and thought he found evidence of stone tools in Calico that were 200,000 years old. That is one reason I also largely discount any "tools" before bifacial stone axes as necessarily having come from a hominid. Even if they did, they are just broken rocks. Why does a bigfoot need something like that. He could smash any bone he wants with the nearest handy bolder if he even needs that. He can smash any deer with the same bolder or a large stick he found.

5. Why would they even need to compete with us? They're supposed to be bigger and stronger, and lots of people seem to think they're smarter than us. That sounds like something we should be afraid of. Something that should have beat us out. Animals do develop traits to adapt for competition (just look at our big brains or anything that's poisonous); everything is an adaptation for survival and competition. But, those adaptations don't venture into bigfoot-like territory. Nothing has, or can, adapt to become invisible to gamecams or incapable of leaving evidence of themselves behind.

It is pretty obvious from history that modern humans attack in very large numbers and we hold a grudge. Our aggressiveness and our weapons means that even a larger hominid is going to die if they rile us up. We are jealous of our resources and anybody that competes with us is going to be our enemy. The best way to survive around modern humans is not to confront us and certainly not when you are in plain sight.

Can you prove that any species has abandoned the use of tools? It hasn't happened. By their very nature, tools are developed to make something easier to do. They're always an advantage, and nothing, especially with primitive technology, would have enough negative effects to make their use a liability (if they had any negative effects at all). What would such a negative effect even be? No species would just abandon its adaptations for the sake of messing with us.

There is a distinct lack of stone hand axes in Asia associated with at least ancient fossils. They likely abandoned stones because there were alternative tools. Floresiensis shows features that suggest they diverged before significant tool use, well before stone hand axes. They have a wrist bone that suggests that their thumb was more primitive like a chimp so they probably lacked the dexterity to make tools. You still have paleontologists that won't accept that and will assign tools to them even when it is obvious that modern humans had been there and likely our ancestors/close relatives from the wave that probably arrived in Asia about 800,000 years ago from Africa. In other words, if there is a technological hominid, anthropologists will assign the tools to all the hominids even if they lack important physical features like our well adapted thumb and even if they happen to have chimp sized brains. That isn't really saying that anybody lost tools. It is saying that they are likely falsely attributed to nontechnological hominids because of erroneous assumptions.

Edited May 7, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Could you really make tools? It's harder than you probably think it is, especially if you're never done it before. My only attempt at making a stone tool has been at an Oldowan-style chopper, and I was only marginally successful at that. Making something that could function as a hunting weapon would take a huge amount of a practice. Most people wouldn't even know where to begin with knapping; I know I had to be told and shown. Also, you couldn't just get by on eating bugs. Living without modern conveniences would require lots of calories, and it's hard to find those if you don't know exactly how, or have the resources to.

I think with persistence I could learn. Now would that be easy? Probably not, but I live in an area with a lot of variety for wildlife. It would not be necessary for me to relearn how to make arrow and spear heads when traps and fishing nets would do. Trust me, I could get by on bugs, we have more than enough in the south. I'm pretty familiar with the vegetation here so there would be plenty available in the warm months, but I would need to plan for the 3 months nothing is blooming or go further south for the winter. You are right about the availability of resources. Those in more arid regions would have a harder time adapting.

As far as I know, all known mammoth kills have been consistent with known manufacturing cultures. We can even identify what animals were killed by who, Neanderthals or a human, for example. Neanderthals were the most exclusive eaters known among hominids; they were almost exclusively meat eaters. Humans have always had a pretty varied diet, and we didn't get massive.

Wrong, ancient native american indians in the southeast were in the 7 foot tall range and they attribute that to the nutrition available in the area. Humans have not had a varied diet until just recent history, at least that is the explanation given for why we have gotten so much bigger and fatter in the last 200 years.