Guest Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Nice sketch it reminds me of pic on the cover Autumns Enoch book. IMO they gone with a more human appearance than from what I've seen N/E and PNW. Maybe trying to influence a different general opinion of the creatures? JMO The general opinion seems to swing back & forth over time. Super old NA accounts had BF as a monster, and some had it as a tribe of ancient people, then early white settlers saw it as an animal, and later newspaper accounts labeled them as "wildman" reports. It went back & forth from the 1920's to the 60's as well, with the NA legends again, and the "Apes Among Us" approach, which prevailed until very recently. Now it seems that the pendulum is swinging toward the human direction once again. That can even be seen in the recent documentary "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide". I'm still in the camp that considers it an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 i wonder, susi, if you resent the human theory for essentially spiritual reasons. Ping nail struck firmly on head! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 BF's are more assuredly not human, anymore than Homo erectus or Homo heidelbergens are human. But, those are considered human. You could say bigfoot is non-sapiens, and that might be correct, but if it is anything Homo, then it is human. If it can interbreed, then it is human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Oh yeah, and it seems some people have forgotten this... If bigfoots are shown to be a non-sapiens hominid, then there is no way, what-so-ever, that they will receive much of any kind of protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Oh yeah, and it seems some people have forgotten this... If bigfoots are shown to be a non-sapiens hominid, then there is no way, what-so-ever, that they will receive much of any kind of protection. Why do you say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 But, those are considered human. You could say bigfoot is non-sapiens, and that might be correct, but if it is anything Homo, then it is human. If it can interbreed, then it is human. I consider them subhumans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Oh yeah, and it seems some people have forgotten this... If bigfoots are shown to be a non-sapiens hominid, then there is no way, what-so-ever, that they will receive much of any kind of protection. I respectfully disagree entirely. We're aware hominids commonly shared the planet, usually more than one species simultaneously. If BF were proven, even if it's a NA ape, and more so if it's hominid, it will be adopted and granted much protection. It will be a phenomenon second only to the discovery of an alien intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 The general opinion seems to swing back & forth over time. Super old NA accounts had BF as a monster, and some had it as a tribe of ancient people, then early white settlers saw it as an animal, and later newspaper accounts labeled them as "wildman" reports. It went back & forth from the 1920's to the 60's as well, with the NA legends again, and the "Apes Among Us" approach, which prevailed until very recently. Now it seems that the pendulum is swinging toward the human direction once again. That can even be seen in the recent documentary "Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide". I'm still in the camp that considers it an animal. Yea i've been around a while watching that volley ball game. never seen that doc, heard it was yet another made for tv audiences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) Yea i've been around a while watching that volley ball game. never seen that doc, heard it was yet another made for tv audiences? The concept isn't from a single document, or "doc" as you so adroitly phrase it. You're sooo cool when you abbreviate words, like that. The concept is from the generally accepted explanation. Surveyor's posting is a pretty good description. Edited July 4, 2011 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 The concept isn't from a single document, or "doc" as you so adroitly phrase it. You're sooo cool when you abbreviate words, like that. The concept is from the generally accepted explanation. Surveyor's posting is a pretty good description. Have you seen it? anything new or rehash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 i wonder, susi, if you resent the human theory for essentially spiritual reasons. Nope, Kool, I don't dislike the theory because Patty is not a human. BF are not humans.Look at me, look at you, then look at Patty. Is she human? No, she's not. They do not know right from wrong.They have not organized a living society of any sorts. They have not created laws. My religious faith has noting whatsoever to do with this issue. If it did I would say so, I'd be upfront about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Have you seen it? anything new or rehash? No, nary a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Nope, Kool, I don't dislike the theory because Patty is not a human. BF are not humans.Look at me, look at you, then look at Patty. Is she human? No, she's not. They do not know right from wrong.They have not organized a living society of any sorts. They have not created laws. My religious faith has noting whatsoever to do with this issue. If it did I would say so, I'd be upfront about it. SweetSusiq: Please elaborate on what evidence you have seen to confirm these three things. 1. They do not know right from wrong. 2. They have not organized a living society of any sorts. 3. They have not created laws. These are three major points that you cite to show that they are not human. I could certainly make the point that taking any one of these three things away from a human does not make them inhuman. With examples if you like. I can also provide accounts of encounters which hint at these three things actually being the true with Sasquatch. Can you provide more insight on how you know these three things to be true? Because if you have hard facts, then they would certainly trump my anecdotal evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I've said all along that anything that has a human foot (as sasquatches do) are human. Unfortunately humans of whatever kind are not protected, but maybe they could be given first nations status which is at least something. I think the acid test will be when a sasquatch child is raised with us and taught to speak and to function as we do. Poor thing. But that will be what it takes to prove to people they are indeed humans, just a bit different than us. Only a hundred years ago it was seriously in question whether people of different colour than ours were fully human. We can be so dense sometimes. Also might I add that modern humans did not have language and culture at first, either, we have developed them only over the last 30,000 years or so. Since we've been around on the planet for maybe 190,000 years, in Africa, there was a lot of time when we were essentially the same as all the other hominins...just getting by, surviving by hunting, gathering and scavenging, hiding in caves at night to avoid predators. If we were lucky we had fire, but maybe not all of us did. Edited July 4, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I think, with all intellectual honesty, that before we suppose they have any laws, society, anything thing that would label them "human", we must first prove they exist. I really want to believe, as do many of us on here. However, before I even tackle the subject of what they are, I want to know if they are. Wicker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts