Guest Tsalagi Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I chose homo sapien because what I saw was man-like. Perhaps Neanderthal but then again it didn't look like what our scientists say they looked like. It looks like a different sort of man more than one of our ancestors. The face and body is human and not ape-like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) 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? Right on! Unless we have credible first hand reports, we can neither confirm nor deny anything. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/jwburns.htm Seraphine Long reports the use of fire. If tree resin was placed on here eyes to keep her from knowing the way she was taken, wouldn't this qualify as industrious? The Chehalis legend is that they used clubs to war against each other. We have many reports of rocks being banged together, possibly to make sharp cutting tools. Since they don't shop at Home Deport and don't wear over-alls, wouldn't we expect them to just make and use things as they go along? . Edited May 1, 2011 by CaptainMorgan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Right on! Unless we have credible first hand reports, we can neither confirm nor deny anything. http://www.bigfooten...nds/jwburns.htm Seraphine Long reports the use of fire. If tree resin was placed on here eyes to keep her from knowing the way she was taken, wouldn't this qualify as industrious? The Chehalis legend is that they used clubs to war against each other. We have many reports of rocks being banged together, possibly to make sharp cutting tools. Since they don't shop at Home Deport and don't wear over-alls, wouldn't we expect them to just make and use things as they go along? . It is very hard to prove a negative, fire for instance... I for one don't believe they use fire and quoting a friend which said "they don't make fire, because they don't need fire"... As for tools I have read that some have been seen with clubs of sorts and used digging sticks for like clams on the coast... We at the moment are working an area and idea that they may suggest they use a crude drop trap of sorts, we just cant figure the trip mechanism, but an other use of tools perhaps and maybe a new insight on their intelligence... we will have to wait and see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 It is very hard to prove a negative, fire for instance... I for one don't believe they use fire and quoting a friend which said "they don't make fire, because they don't need fire"... As for tools I have read that some have been seen with clubs of sorts and used digging sticks for like clams on the coast... We at the moment are working an area and idea that they may suggest they use a crude drop trap of sorts, we just cant figure the trip mechanism, but an other use of tools perhaps and maybe a new insight on their intelligence... we will have to wait and see... That is very interesting Risky! I can't wait to hear what you find. I know it will take awhile to piece all the information together. Are you the one that was planning to stay in a cabin overlooking a buff over a river as your point of observation or was that someone else? I wish I had the time to do something similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I apologize. My frustration sometimes gets to me.If my opinion means anything to anyone, what I watched looked and acted like a ape. Wow! Did your creature not stand erect? It was sorta' hunched over as it walked, and did it use it's hands for walking some, or for anything? I would love to hear about your sighting. Would you share it with us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toejam Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I've personally heard whoops very close on one occasion. A yelled Woo by two calling out to each other on another occasion again very close, with me in between them. Very human sounding yet all animal. I've also heard what sounded exactly like chest thumps on two occasions one week apart. Both times very close and one time immediately prior to the whoops. Sounds crossed between ape/human so I'm at a loss as what to think. I'm not much help eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I said other. My theory is they migrated to NA from Asia (during the last ice age) and are closely related to the Gibbon family but are more closely related to humans due to evolutionary convergence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Right on! Unless we have credible first hand reports, we can neither confirm nor deny anything. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/jwburns.htm Seraphine Long reports the use of fire. If tree resin was placed on here eyes to keep her from knowing the way she was taken, wouldn't this qualify as industrious? The Chehalis legend is that they used clubs to war against each other. We have many reports of rocks being banged together, possibly to make sharp cutting tools. Since they don't shop at Home Deport and don't wear over-alls, wouldn't we expect them to just make and use things as they go along? . OMG, That story is horrible! How could a BF breed with a human? His size alone would crush and kill her, much less mating with her. That's just too weird. Surly some of this stuff is made up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I've personally heard whoops very close on one occasion. A yelled Woo by two calling out to each other on another occasion again very close, with me in between them. Very human sounding yet all animal. I've also heard what sounded exactly like chest thumps on two occasions one week apart. Both times very close and one time immediately prior to the whoops. Sounds crossed between ape/human so I'm at a loss as what to think. I'm not much help eh? 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.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I said other. My theory is they migrated to NA from Asia (during the last ice age) and are closely related to the Gibbon family but are more closely related to humans due to . Do you mean by evolutionary convergence a merging of the species of man and a BF type creature by mating? Surely not. Most higher mammals can not merge and have living off spring. I know that there have been a few exceptions, but not among the *higher* primates, ie humans and apes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 HTG, Poor hubby. When he gets home I have a hundred questions for him to answer. He's my "go to" guy, rightly so since I swear he does know everything. That was what attracted me to him. He claims that he liked my looks before he discovered that I had a brain also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 Interesting thread for sure. It is my opinion the BF has not advanced to use of fire and complex tools because they apparently lack an opposable thumb. We don't maybe appreciate how important that is to human development as we have the fine motor skills that BF cannot do. Imagine trying to do complex work with very big hands and limited ability to grasp things as is possible with the thumb structure we have. I think this one feature alone -even if they have a high intelligence -limits them in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 No one knows....at best any responses are guesses, just speculation. Nothing more...nothing less. Lesmore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) 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? There isn't any evidence that they use tools. How many bigfoot-sized handaxes have been found in North America (or anywhere)? How many recently-made stone tools have been found at all? How many animals or plants have been found with fresh tool marks? If bigfoot was making stone tools, it isn't unreasonable to assume that we would be finding them, or evidence of their use. If we can find something made by our ancestors a few hundred thousand years ago, and things they used the tools on, we should be finding new evidence. And yes, you can date stone tools by means other than stratigraphy. One way is by by measuring the level of patina on the chipped areas, since that builds up over time. If a tool was found without any, it would be new. You might not even need to date something if it was made by bigfoot. Every culture had a different way of making tools, and if bigfoot was making them, they would look different than anything a human in the area ever made. So far, no anomalous or unidentifiable tools have been found anywhere as far as I know. 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. Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago, and the continents have been in (relatively) the same place for the past few million years. That means it would have been impossible for any hominid to cross continents the way you're asserting, especially since the first ones that were known to have migrated were Homo Erectus. No records for any ape have ever been found in the Americas. 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) , The biggest thing that has been "pushed back" is bipedalism. Mainly, in the case of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which showed the common ancestor between humans and chimps was bipedal. In regards to height (most of our ancestors were pretty short) and brain capacity, a timeline fits pretty well with the record we have now, since so many species have been found. That doesn't mean nothing new can be discovered, but it doesn't make a lot of sense that something 8 feet tall with a brain capacity similar to ours would be discovered as older than something 3 feet tall with a small one. Also, it's kind of disturbing how many people in this world distrust academia/science. I know it doesn't agree with you, but going along with what the evidence says isn't "toeing the line," it's good science. Edited May 1, 2011 by BlurryMonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 (edited) Blurry- I doubt the average person would notice a rock used as a tool by bigfoot, other than someone who collects artifacts as a hobby. The only way a professional would notice is if the bigfoot tool happens to be in the same locale as a dig or happens to be in their path as they casually stroll through the woods. If evidence was found of any kind tool use, the average person ( like me) or the archaeologist/anthropologist out there on a casual stroll in the woods would probably just attribute it to another human. I doubt bigfoot would be mine, or anyone's, first assumption for any kind of artificial looking rock implement so we probably aren't paying attention to that possibility. Maybe that is something we ought to be looking for in areas of high sightings. Thanks for the info on dating rocks, that's just another thing to collect if one happens across a suspicious looking one. You still couldn't convince anyone else it was used or made by anything other than a human regardless of the age of the rock/tool IMO. Edited May 1, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts