What Is A Bigfoot?

[Guest The big grey man of ben ma]

Re-read my post, and you'll see that I meant if Bigfoot is a Erectus/Neanderthal they SHOULD be making fire.

I did but you missed the sarcasm sorry.

[southernyahoo]

I had voted BF was an early homo type like Neanderthal, or erectus but my perception is subject to change with further evidence. I can only presume that if it did use fire or make many implements we would track them all down in short order. Perhaps it was this pressure that forced adaptations to preclude the need for weapons and fire, or they represent a population of geneticly reverted members of our lineage and are forced to live in hiding. If BF were just bipedal gorillas this mystery would not have been a mystery.

[Guest fenris]

Re-read my post, and you'll see that I meant if Bigfoot is a Erectus/Neanderthal they SHOULD be making fire.

unless it's a bad way to avoid humans, very two dimensional thinking on your part imo.

[Guest gadgetgurl]

I sense a touch of sarcasm there, gadgetgurl....

Yes a little, but after reading so many different, wildly varied encounter stories I think we couldn't possibly be talking about one single species. I've read everything from mildly-hairy man-thing to King Kong's little brother to full-on monkey, complete with tail and swinging from trees. So, taking away everyone (and I really don't think its all that many) that is either lying, hallucinating or misidentifying ordinary things (bears, tree stumps, guys in monkey suits, etc. ), I am forced to believe that we have more than one creature. Going from Eberhart's ten cryptid classifications, I will go with Animals not known from the fossil record that may or may not be possibly related to any known species, lingerlings, or survivals of species known from the fossil record much later into historical times than currently thought, distribution anomalies, and I am open to some of the others but remain unconvinced so far.

All of the above!

[Guest The big grey man of ben ma]

maybe fire attracts attention?

not if you are smart-a-nuff to make fire

[Guest BuzzardEater]

What if they are both? Sasquatches are taller and human looking and have been credited with crossbreeding. They are smart and systematic. I'd call them human. Contrast this with the smaller, more aggressive Bigfoot who is often described as having gorilla features and I think there is a second species. Add to that the differecnt ranges and behaviors and they do not seem alike at all.

[Guest]

I think they are Apes but do vary around the world.

In China and the Americas they do appear to be closely related to the Giganto- but in Europe they may be more Neanderthal- ish but in the Asia area they could be closely related to the Java man.

[JDL]

This is a cool thread. I'm in the "they're darn near human" camp. I hypothesize that they are the megafauna variant of genus homo (adaptation to ice age conditions) and that the adaptation was so successful that they have retained their primary characteristics since.

I had the opportunity to stare one in the eyes for about 45 seconds at a distance of 35 feet. It had emerged from a dry wash as I, my brother, and a friend were approaching. It just stood there and stared back at me, then left. I think we'd gotten too close to where it, and possibly a female and young, were resting for the day. The only reason I can think that it would have stepped out, stared at us, and then left would be to fix us in place while the others took off in the opposite direction from the one he took when he left.

During this encounter, though, I thought we were in a life or death situation. I was focused on maintaining eye contact to guage his intentions. At the time I was convinced that he was something much more dangerous than a bigfoot. I thought he was a man. He could have reached out and grabbed our friend at any second. The only thing we could do to prevent that was to stay in place and not abandon him - make it harder for the guy to do anything and disappear without us keeping track of him. Things turned out all right. The point, though, is that as I was staring this "man" in the eye to get a read on what he intended to do I never got the impression that he was less intelligent than a man. I've since had the opportunity to make eye contact in zoos with both gorillas and chimps. They don't convey the same level of intelligence.

Here's the link to my full report on the BFRO.

My link

Edited April 29, 2011 by JDL

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Bigfoot absolutely could not be anything in the genus Homo, or Australopithecus, or Paranthropus. I find it kind of shocking that so many think it does, but not really surprising, because the reasons why wouldn't occur to anyone that doesn't have at least somewhat of an understanding of biological anthropology. Here are the main reasons I think Bigfoot (if it existed, which I don't think it does) couldn't belong to those classifications:

1. No tool usage. Every species of Homo, Paranthropus, and most Australopithicines used stone tools. There is no evidence for stone tool usage by bigfoot. Before someone says "they could have lost that ability," I'll go ahead and point out how outlandish that claim would be: No species has ever lost the ability to use tools - they're just too big of an asset. Nothing would have a reason to stop using a tool and make life harder for them when they know how to use a tool. Tool making never gets lost, it always gets better.

2. The geographic distribution just doesn't match. Hominid migrations from Africa didn't start until H. Ergaster/Erectus, and populations were still largely confined to Africa, Europe, and the Middle east. Homo Erectus is the only hominid (besides us, obviously) that has ever been found remotely close to the Bering land bridge (they lived in Southeast and East Asia). That makes any notion of migration of a Paranthropoid (or anything else, really) impossible; something couldn't just magically get from Africa to North America. Migrations over distances like that take a huge amount of time, and some trace would have been left. Since there is none, it's safe to say that it didn't happen.

3. The intelligence doesn't add up, either. Bigfoot is supposed to be a very smart creature (some say smarter than people). There are stories of complex social groups, the possible ability to communicate, and it's supposedly been smart enough enough to evade detection from humans. But it's supposed to do this without even the ability to use tools or fire (which even H. Erectus had control over)? If bigfoot exists, it just couldn't be nearly as smart as most people think. Even chimps use rudimentary wooden tools, and they've been known of for centuries. Bigfoot just couldn't be that smart; it would have to have less brain capacity than chimps, and means it couldn't be even an Australopithecine.

Keep in mind that those aren't arguments against BF's existance (that would be another post entirely), just against the notion many seem to have that it would be a close relative.

[Guest]

Well, we all seem to be mammals.

So we've got that going for us.

[Guest BuzzardEater]

Bigfoot absolutely could not be anything in the genus Homo, or Australopithecus, or Paranthropus. I find it kind of shocking that so many think it does, but not really surprising, because the reasons why wouldn't occur to anyone that doesn't have at least somewhat of an understanding of biological anthropology. Here are the main reasons I think Bigfoot (if it existed, which I don't think it does) couldn't belong to those classifications:

1. No tool usage. Every species of Homo, Paranthropus, and most Australopithicines used stone tools. There is no evidence for stone tool usage by bigfoot. Before someone says "they could have lost that ability," I'll go ahead and point out how outlandish that claim would be: No species has ever lost the ability to use tools - they're just too big of an asset. Nothing would have a reason to stop using a tool and make life harder for them when they know how to use a tool. Tool making never gets lost, it always gets better.

2. The geographic distribution just doesn't match. Hominid migrations from Africa didn't start until H. Ergaster/Erectus, and populations were still largely confined to Africa, Europe, and the Middle east. Homo Erectus is the only hominid (besides us, obviously) that has ever been found remotely close to the Bering land bridge (they lived in Southeast and East Asia). That makes any notion of migration of a Paranthropoid (or anything else, really) impossible; something couldn't just magically get from Africa to North America. Migrations over distances like that take a huge amount of time, and some trace would have been left. Since there is none, it's safe to say that it didn't happen.

3. The intelligence doesn't add up, either. Bigfoot is supposed to be a very smart creature (some say smarter than people). There are stories of complex social groups, the possible ability to communicate, and it's supposedly been smart enough enough to evade detection from humans. But it's supposed to do this without even the ability to use tools or fire (which even H. Erectus had control over)? If bigfoot exists, it just couldn't be nearly as smart as most people think. Even chimps use rudimentary wooden tools, and they've been known of for centuries. Bigfoot just couldn't be that smart; it would have to have less brain capacity than chimps, and means it couldn't be even an Australopithecine.

Keep in mind that those aren't arguments against BF's existance (that would be another post entirely), just against the notion many seem to have that it would be a close relative.

Is tool useage some sort of gauge? Crows use tools and I've seen a dog use a skateboard. There are old reports from the Bill Green era of BF digging for clams with a stick. Where would a BF carry tools? What would he need them for? The really interesting thing about BF is how much they have adapted to thier environment. This is the opposite of needing tools.

Land bridge? Is that how bears came to NA?

Yuor third point is testing my restraint and deserving of parody. FIRE?! Why would a creature perfectly adapted to thier environment use fire? You further your arguement by saying they couldn't be smart enough to evade humans because they can't use tools or fire. A circular arguement featuring only two weak points. If you prefer to imagine this species is stupidly blundering around the woods, just out of camera range, you go ahead. You haven't advanced a credible arguement for any of your points.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Is tool useage some sort of gauge? Crows use tools and I've seen a dog use a skateboard. There are old reports from the Bill Green era of BF digging for clams with a stick. Where would a BF carry tools? What would he need them for? The really interesting thing about BF is how much they have adapted to thier environment. This is the opposite of needing tools.

Land bridge? Is that how bears came to NA?

Yuor third point is testing my restraint and deserving of parody. FIRE?! Why would a creature perfectly adapted to thier environment use fire? You further your arguement by saying they couldn't be smart enough to evade humans because they can't use tools or fire. A circular arguement featuring only two weak points. If you prefer to imagine this species is stupidly blundering around the woods, just out of camera range, you go ahead. You haven't advanced a credible arguement for any of your points.

Tool usage is adapting to the environment, that's why humans can thrive in so many environments. It isn't necessarily a gauge of intelligence, but it shows cognitive reasoning, namely that something can figure out an easier way to survive (which helps the species as a whole). When something learns how to use a tool, it makes something easier, which means less effort is required for survival. Tools are a huge asset, and no species has ever given that up. Arguing that something would because it's so well adapted to its environment is just asinine. Don't forget that bigfoot is supposed to have a huge and diverse inhabitance range; are they just supposed to be naturally adapting the perfect changes in a short enough amount of time to establish a breeding population? That doesn't make any sense. For an animal like us to be distributed like us, it makes sense that it would need to adapt like us, and bigfoot has shown no signs of that.

Yes, land bridge. How else would something get here? Some early humans used boats, but since bigfoot can't even made an Oldowan-style chopper, I'd say they would have needed to walk. How bears got here is irrelevant, since they arrived tens of thousands of years before any hominid did (they probably crossed ice, by the way). How do you propose that something could get to North America from Africa (or possibly Europe for the Neanderthal believers) without any evidence to suggest they were ever anywhere near a means of getting there in the first place?

Again, about the tool usage: you can't just dismiss it out of hand because you don't like (or don't understand) the logical conclusion. Bigfoot is supposed to live in climates colder than any hominid evolved to live in; humans got by by using clothes and fire, but bigfoot is fine? Fire is a huge asset, nothing would give up the ability to use it (or any other tool). There's just no reason. About the intelligence, how does it not make sense that we know about chimps (who are very intelligent), but not bigfoot? Most big cat species are very good at hiding, but we know about them, too.

My points are all very credible and very logical (certainly moreso than your counterpoints). If you don't see that, or don't agree with them, that's your opinion. Like I said, I wasn't arguing about the existence of bigfoot, just that it wouldn't make sense for them to be very close to us, Genus-wise.

There's also the fact that Australopithecines, Paranthropoids, and members of the Homo genus all lived in fairly complex social groups (like even most living primates do). As brain capacity increased, so did the size and complexity of the groups (and the amount of culture). I know there are stories of bigfoot families and such, but if those are the biggest groups they live in, it really doesn't seem consistent with the known trends for hominid development.

Edited April 30, 2011 by BlurryMonster

[Guest BlurryMonster]

^

A point I don't think I made clear enough is that with hominids, tool usage always became better and more refined with increases in brain size and social development. It was never developed. Homo Habilis started making Oldowan choppers, H. Erectus and Ergaster refined those into Acheulean tools (both core tools), Neanderthals developed Mousterian tools (flake), and the direct forerunners of us (H. Rhodesiensis, for example) started using blade tools, and we refined them. There was always a trend of bettering the technology.

[Guest]

Tool usage is adapting to the environment, that's why humans can thrive in so many environments. It isn't necessarily a gauge of intelligence, but it shows cognitive reasoning, namely that something can figure out an easier way to survive (which helps the species as a whole). When something learns how to use a tool, it makes something easier, which means less effort is required for survival. Tools are a huge asset, and no species has ever given that up. Arguing that something would because it's so well adapted to its environment is just asinine. Don't forget that bigfoot is supposed to have a huge and diverse inhabitance range; are they just supposed to be naturally adapting the perfect changes in a short enough amount of time to establish a breeding population? That doesn't make any sense. For an animal like us to be distributed like us, it makes sense that it would need to adapt like us, and bigfoot has shown no signs of that.

Yes, land bridge. How else would something get here? Some early humans used boats, but since bigfoot can't even made an Oldowan-style chopper, I'd say they would have needed to walk. How bears got here is irrelevant, since they arrived tens of thousands of years before any hominid did (they probably crossed ice, by the way). How do you propose that something could get to North America from Africa (or possibly Europe for the Neanderthal believers) without any evidence to suggest they were ever anywhere near a means of getting there in the first place?

Again, about the tool usage: you can't just dismiss it out of hand because you don't like (or don't understand) the logical conclusion. Bigfoot is supposed to live in climates colder than any hominid evolved to live in; humans got by by using clothes and fire, but bigfoot is fine? Fire is a huge asset, nothing would give up the ability to use it (or any other tool). There's just no reason. About the intelligence, how does it not make sense that we know about chimps (who are very intelligent), but not bigfoot? Most big cat species are very good at hiding, but we know about them, too.

My points are all very credible and very logical (certainly moreso than your counterpoints). If you don't see that, or don't agree with them, that's your opinion. Like I said, I wasn't arguing about the existence of bigfoot, just that it wouldn't make sense for them to be very close to us, Genus-wise.

There's also the fact that Australopithecines, Paranthropoids, and members of the Homo genus all lived in fairly complex social groups (like even most living primates do). As brain capacity increased, so did the size and complexity of the groups (and the amount of culture). I know there are stories of bigfoot families and such, but if those are the biggest groups they live in, it really doesn't seem consistent with the known trends for hominid development.

Everything on this continent didn't cross on a land-bridge...LOL!! It is fully possible that a branch of Early hominid was here when the continents seperated. We are still revising the archeological record finding things that keep pushing the timeline backwards...nothing has been found pushing the timeline forward. To not consider this is reckless anthropology. Unless you work in academia and must toe the "party line". :D

To ignore it is self-serving.

(jmo)

Edited April 30, 2011 by grayjay

[Guest]

We barely get glimpses of bigfoot from sighting reports so how do we know they don't use tools , build fires, or any number of other things they might do besides be rather sparse in population to keep from being detected? If you walked up on an old fire bed in the woods would you think a man made it or bigfoot? Same with the stone tools. I'ld just think it was a rock, if I noticed it at all, or an old implement made by an ancient indian that got washed out of the ground. You can't tell a fresh rock tool from one that is 10,000 years old can you? Don't they date it depending on what level of sediment it is found in?