Description Of "bigfoot"

[Bill]

As I watch the anticipation of the release of the Ketchum Report and what may be revealed or claimed by the dna studies, I see that often people who expect the report to reveal nothing new or have nothing substantially supportive of something we like to call "Bigfoot" as existing, said people like to make somewhat fanciful descriptions of Bigfoot which (like a straw man argument) are exhaggerated to easily be defeated as illogical.

For example, member parnassus wrote in the Ketchum Report thread, post #774, a description of bigfoot as follows:

*9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc"

I have seen others as well speculate about how the DNA results may contridict the bigfoot descriptions or definitions of longstanding advocates the entity is real, such as the ape vs/human description.

But it seems that the people so intent on belittling the concept of Bigfoot like to embellish the description of bigfoot with a multitude of descriptive terms culled from the entire range of witness or researcher descriptions, all balled up into one super defintion that becomes utterly fanciful.

There also seems to be a tendency to attribute this super-fanciful definition to be subscribed by all who think there may be something real out there.

Over the four years I've been active on the BFF board (V1 and v2), I've actually seen a rich diversity in individual people's expectations or definitions of what they think this thing may be (if indeed proven to exist), and that doubters of the entity seem to ignore actual definitions provided by real proponents and instead invent the super-fanciful definitions precisely because they can then more easily ridicule the definition and in turn ridicule people who simply hold some support for the prospect such entities exist.

So maybe instead of people intent of ridiculing the prospect of Bigfoot existing, by inventing their super-fanciful definitions of what it is, we ho thing there's something real out there may go on record as defining what we actually think such an entity may be (if found and validated as biologically real).

I will be glad to go first.

My expectation is based entirely on the PGF film's subject, since that is the only case I've studied with some degree of thoroughness:

Bill Munns speculative description: "I would expect the revealed entity to be more humanistic than any affinity to the known great apes (Chimp, Gorilla, Orang) or to any fossil apes (Gigantopithecus). I base this on both it's body proportions and locomotion as seen in the film. I would expect it's skull to have some morphological similarity to the OH5 Boisei group of hominid. I would expect it's legs to have affinity to the Neanderthal crural index proportions. I would expect it to have normally 5 toes configured closer to the human foot that any opposable big toe like the great apes demonstrate. I have no opinion on a mid-tarsal break. I would expect it's size (as a species average) to be greater than human average, with similar range of varying potential (so if humans can grow to nearly 9' tall, this entiiy may also, in some exceptional examples), but the norm I would expect to be of lesser height. The heavy fur I would intrepret as an adaptation to a more cold northern climate and ecological niche, and more northern variations of a group of species would tend to show the more northern adapted ones as larger in average size, so I'd expect a species norn average as larger than human (but no estimation of how much larger, due to insufficient data).

I would not make any judgment on behavior, culture, speech capability (but certainly expect capacity for vocalization, because physical production of audible sounds from the throat is fairly common to animals)."

That's basically as much as I would venture to expect, if such an entity were to be proven to exist.

But this description: "*9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc" I would regard as a straw man invention, and certainly would never endorse.

I would be curious to know what others here actually expect such a suspected entity to be, as much as you can confidently explain your expectation of an anatomical description.

Bill

[Guest]

OK...I'll ''bite''. I'm thinking they're closer to us than we'll be comfortable with. Due to reported vocals I'm expecting obviously they still have a remaining form of the ape-air sac's with differential vocal chord developement and can vocalize in the low hertz frequencies. I also think their hands are slightly different, removing the fine-motor skills we developed and making tool use impractical for them. There is also a variance with the foot's structure and it's possible we don't see the mid-tarsal break in the younger one's tracks as easily as we do with a older adult Bigfoot, not to mention the mid-tarsal break is a misnomer for simply a more flexable foot.

I get these crazy idea's from talking to physical anthro's and other smart folks who have taken pity on the dumb chick grasping for science, but for the love of all things holy I couldn't parrot their arguments if my life depended on it.

[bipedalist]

Well low frequency productions are one of their hallmarks, but that doesn't keep them from doing some pretty convincing higher frequency whistle screeches.....

How they produce the metallic sounding sounds is the enigma for me. To catch one vocalizing for more than two or three minutes at a time seems to be the bar that is set---

like something along the Sierra Sounds set of whistles or extended gibberish/Samurai productions.

Yeah, I know sounds can come from anything (I like to show that the anythings are improbable in certain settings). Some of us don't let that stop us from collecting the data on novel sound productions in the montane forests of N. America though.

As to fine-motor productions I believe they have the basic visual-perceptual and fine-motor apparatus to produce simple geometric stick designs (maybe complex geometric stick designs....)

I guess the matter of abstraction, language use, nonverbal communication repertoire, short-term and long-term memory and all the ethology will have to await some longer term studies post discovery (or de facto discovery, post dna elucidation).

I'm not sold on morphological conventions attributed to sasquatch such as midtarsal break, different thumb placement and that type of thing, but I do tend to believe the body proportions will somehow be odd in a certain subpopulation once studied or examined closely. The fossil record may suggest the midtarsal break I suppose in archaic hominids.

I have a tendency to think that many of the smaller size animals seen that have been depicted as juveniles will be found to be a subpopulation of smaller individuals, not juveniles.

[Guest]

Very social.

If some are more genetically human than others, perhaps we might expect a great deal of diversity.

Language, culture, religion.

Big, bigger, and biggest, as well.

I think their hair reflects light some weird way because we can barely ever see them and because I get better results on pics just lowering the bright/light component. IMO

Swimmers, water lovers. Great memory. Excellent mimics. Music lovers.

Sedentary most of the day, but nocturnal? Not sure. Jeepers creepers, they'd have to have bigger peepers.

Thumbs opposable, I think.

Are we taking bets or anything?

Edited December 11, 2011 by Kings Canyon

[Guest RayG]

But this description: "*9 feet tall, 500 lbs, runs 30 mph on two legs or 4, glowing eyes, conical head, covered with hair, non opposable thumbs, no fire or tools, midtarsal break, 4-6 toes, strangely shaped feet, no neck, no clothes, no shelters, non modern human proportions, etc" I would regard as a straw man invention, and certainly would never endorse.

I would be curious to know what others here actually expect such a suspected entity to be, as much as you can confidently explain your expectation of an anatomical description.

Bill

Bill, while you may not agree with the generalized description given by Parn, those are some of the typical things said by witnesses when describing bigfoot. Not many people are going to say the head bore some morphological similarity to the OH5 Boisei group of hominid, and I suspect if you asked them if it did, you'd be greeted mostly by blank looks.

Just how does one discern the difference between a 'straw man' description and a 'real' description anyway?

Loren Coleman documented the wide variety of bigfoot types witnessed here in North America and elsewhere, in his 1999 Field Guide to Bigfoot, Yeti, and Other Mystery Primates Worldwide book.

An updated version came out in 2006.

Since Coleman gathered the descriptions in his book from actual witness reports, which of those are straw man descriptions or real descriptions?

RayG

[Guest StankApe]

IF Bigfoot exists, I would say 8 foot is prolly near the limit in height. I would also say that none of the paranormal things attributed to it are true (shape shifting, dimension jumping, glowing eyes, infrasound zapping).

I would reckon it's just a big critter in the woods with many of the same strengths and weaknesses of other large critters in the woods. Perhaps assisted with a higher level of intelligence (maybe between chimps and us?)

It's doubtful of equal intelligence or a possessor of super powers because evolution would've given them a greater boost as a species. You give a near human intelligent creature all of these abilities and they would've ended up running the show. But they aren't, so.... I just can't see how ,logically, they could be anything more than a remnant species hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

[Guest toejam]

IF Bigfoot exists, I would say 8 foot is prolly near the limit in height. I would also say that none of the paranormal things attributed to it are true (shape shifting, dimension jumping, glowing eyes, infrasound zapping).

I would reckon it's just a big critter in the woods with many of the same strengths and weaknesses of other large critters in the woods. Perhaps assisted with a higher level of intelligence (maybe between chimps and us?)

It's doubtful of equal intelligence or a possessor of super powers because evolution would've given them a greater boost as a species. You give a near human intelligent creature all of these abilities and they would've ended up running the show. But they aren't, so.... I just can't see how ,logically, they could be anything more than a remnant species hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

"infrasound zapping" is not paranormal.

I've had my own experience with a close approach and believe that they do have the capability of producing low frequency sound.

How that affects us is varied between individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound

[Bill]

Ray:

Is there any one witness description that lists all the characteristics parnassus listed in his description, or did he composite individual traits from varied witness reports into one composite description of his composition?

I would say if the description is a composite description of his composition, picking traits from varied sources and combining them into his own descriptive definition, and no single witness (much less several) listed all those characteristics, then his description constitutes a "straw man argument", because he has chosen traits that are potentially incongruess and thus more easy to knock down or mock, if he were so inclined.

That would be my appraisal of the situation. Your milage may vary.

Bill

[ShadowBorn]

OH5 Boisei group of hominid

What something similar to this, That not what i saw.Similar yes but with longer hair.

IF Bigfoot exists, I would say 8 foot is prolly near the limit in height. I would also say that none of the paranormal things attributed to it are true (shape shifting, dimension jumping, glowing eyes, infrasound zapping).

I would reckon it's just a big critter in the woods with many of the same strengths and weaknesses of other large critters in the woods. Perhaps assisted with a higher level of intelligence (maybe between chimps and us?)

It's doubtful of equal intelligence or a possessor of super powers because evolution would've given them a greater boost as a species. You give a near human intelligent creature all of these abilities and they would've ended up running the show. But they aren't, so.... I just can't see how ,logically, they could be anything more than a remnant species hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

I am not for the paranormal either because there are things that can be explained.But there are things i do not understand.That is what really has me stumped and wanting to find out what.To many things that make you think that a human could be envolve but when you try to figure it out it kinda of blows your mind.I am sure it has happens to many others but just do not say it because it is not the norm.Maybe it is time to try a different approach at seeking the truth .It cannot hurt no one and crap it will make them famous.I can say that these creatures are not "a remnant species hanging on by the skin of their teeth".personaly we are pushing them deeper and maybe even farther north into the wilderness.They do not want to be ruled and they own the Forest and that is thier domain.Like it has been said before " Respect them "

[Guest RayG]

Though I don't recall a specific report in which each of the descriptors Parn used is claimed by any one witness, which of the things that Parn describes have you not heard before?

Your response suggests you're not familiar with the variety of characteristics that witnesses report, and more specifically, that you're not familiar with Coleman's book. You should give it a read. He lists, if I recall correctly, 9 specific species of bigfoot in North America alone. Each with their own distinguishing features or traits.

While a composite is easier than listing the unique characteristics of the 9 individual species, I can dig the book out and do so if you wish.

RayG

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I have always looked at BF as being pretty much like Patty,(Gigantopithecus )cause that's the only species that would fit bigfoots description that has been identified recently, just a big upright walking ape that is strong and able to blend in with its surroundings very easily, it's an Omnivore and social, very humble and migrates somewhat, they live primarily in the forest and mountains.

[Guest]

Coleman and Huyghe offer "A New Classification System" in their field guide. According to them, on our continent live:

1. Neo-Giants -- think Patterson's subject.

2. True Giants -- "said to be 10 to 20 feet tall"

3. Marked Hominids -- piebald 7 footers.

4. Neandertaloids -- relict Neandertals.

5. Proto-Pygmies -- "never more than 5.5 feet in height", " humanlike", "yet nonhuman".

6. Unknown Pongids -- 5 to 8 feet tall apes.

7. Giant Monkeys -- giant monkeys.

8. Merbeings -- water creatures -- think Puerto Rico chupacabras or Thetis Lake, B.C. creature.

No woodwoses and no fauns.

Bill is safe remaining with Patterson's subject for the reason that eyewitnesses seem to be all over the place, considering the above list.

If Bigfoot does exist, I think it will not be what most folks have come to believe. Much smaller, less heavy and hairy. I assume this only because human eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate as to details and possibly exaggerates sasquatch because of lore expectations.

If Bigfoot does not exist, then it is a 7ft tall monster of an ape.

[Bill]

Ray:

My only concern is who made the list Parnassus posted? Did parnassus himself make that list, or did another person, and if another person, could he cite the source so I can see the context in which the list was made by someone else.

If parnassus made the list, I must wonder why he chose those specific traits?

So that's the bottom line for me. Is that list a quote from another person's description of what characteristics define a Bigfoot, (and if so, cite source for my being able to review the context), or did parnassus himself invent the specific list he posted?

Seems as he's a member here, he should be able to answer the question himself.

Bill

[bipedalist]

Coleman and Huyghe offer "A New Classification System" in their field guide. According to them, on our continent live:

7. Giant Monkeys -- giant monkeys.

..........

Bill is safe remaining with Patterson's subject for the reason that eyewitnesses seem to be all over the place, considering the above list.

If Bigfoot does exist, I think it will not be what most folks have come to believe. Much smaller, less heavy and hairy. I assume this only because human eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate as to details and possibly exaggerates sasquatch because of lore expectations.

If Bigfoot does not exist, then it is a 7ft tall monster of an ape.

Giant Monkeys

Putatively, the most feared and the least documented.

News Flash: the proto-Pygmies have landed in the Blue Ridge Mtns. of NC

[BobZenor]

My basic opinion of what they are hasn't changed much in the past decade. There have been all sorts of discoveries that validated my opinion of them being something that split off humans sometime early in the genus Homo. It was basically just looking at the fossil record with the assumption that there were multiple lineages. They found a habilis living at about the same time and place as Turkana Boy who was apparently going to grow into a large and powerful erectus that lived about 1.5 million years ago in Easter Africa. They also found a very tiny erectus skull nearby of the same time. They found a much more primitive fossil of Australopithecus sediba that wasn't much older that lived in Southern Africa. There were also a few types of robust Australopithecus living past the time of Turkana boy. The reason that time is important is because that is about when human ancestors seemed to stop relying on trees and they became more bipedal and that probably allowed them to expand into several new niches in Asia. At least one of those populations apparently became technological and dangerous hunters. Some of the others must have taken an avoidance strategy to have survived in the same area at the same time. Those would be a likely candidate for ancestor of bigfoot.

I would expect the ancestor of bigfoot to be one of the early groups that left Africa. There were probably multiple lineages that left. They were probably still genetically compatible and there may have been some gene flow between probably any of the different populations. Different lifestyles probably limited that. Modern humans aren't adapted to the same things so I could see many "wild" traits being preserved where they weren't in modern humans assuming interbreeding.

They probably also adapted their feet to be more flexible since the locked kneed arched foot that is so efficient on open ground is much less so in swamps and steep terrain. It might be in response to size. The arch probably breaks down after you reach a certain size. I think the foot flexibility argument is likely exaggerated because they are looking for ape characteristics. I would suspect that there is some confirmation bias. The footsteps that I heard sounded like a truck tire rolling and it was very unusual for a human walking. That makes me think the foot is relatively flexible. I expect they are rigid except under the weight of walking. I doubt it has anything whatsoever to do with ape feet being more flexible to make climbing easier. If that were true, you would expect the divergent big toe. It is probably an adaptation that better suits rough terrain. We have the joint so any amount of flexibility isn't out of the question. It would probably make walking less efficient if there were no stiffness.

Going down on all fours is probably easier for them than us. There is no reason to think they are knuckle walkers. No ancestor of ours ever was according to most conclusions after examining Ardipithecus ramidus. The implications of that are that chimps and likely gorillas evolved knuckle walking after being partially bipedal because they spend more time in trees. To efficiently climb a tree, very short legs and long arms are best. The long arms and short legs makes knuckle walking more efficient. Knuckle walking basically just strengthens the wrists which are the weak point. It isn't an ape feature. It is a derived or adapted feature that suits forested environments and is probably more related to having very short legs and long arms for climbing trees. They have that to some extent which is why I think they probably do it occasionally. Young ones obviously start out that way since I doubt they are born bipedal. It looks to me like they would be much better adapted to walking bipedally. There might be times like when staying down that they might run that way. It is probably wrong to see both the flexible foot and walking on all fours as ape features. They are just different ways of getting around that probably have their own sets of advantages.

I think Patty is usually a little over 6 feet tall maybe averaging about 6' 2" tall and straightened out she would be well over 6.5' feet tall. Her weight is probably about 600 pounds. There are possible errors with foot ruler method but I think it likely that my estimation is close but it is just an opinion. That would make males with a 17 inch footprint probably well over 7 feet tall and probably up to 800 pounds. I think she is probably heavier around the midsection than males just based on many reports. I would expect that 8' is probably a large male but there may be exceptionally large or tall ones. Those are probably the largest and outside the PNW they are probably smaller on average but still much larger than a normal person. I am much more skeptical about them living all over the place but they may have other populations. The only place I have much confidence in them living is from Northern California including the Sierras to southern British Columbia.

I think her "cone head" is exaggerated by hair. There are a few frames that suggest that. It doesn't appear to be much of a cone head from some angles. I didn't find the gif that looked like hair moving. There might be also be smearing or distortion from slow shutter.

They would logically have larger eyes and possibly other adaptations to nocturnal vision. Our possible encounter was in the middle of the night and sasquatch are very commonly observed out and about at night. I am still open to the possibility that the glow might be some combination of optical effect or something else like a tapetum. Some of them are very simple like a layer of guanine crystals.

Being covered with hair isn't surprising. We still have the same number of hair follicles as chimps do. They would also logically be cold adapted. I would expect that they would have plenty of time to develop warmer hair. That brings up one of the reasons that infrequent interbreeding with humans might not change them much. That would be one of the traits that would be maladaptive for their niche. They would likely lose many of the other human characteristics from a hybrid that aren't particularly helpful like greater language skills, finer dexterity of the hands, ached feet... That might explain how they would maintain the ability to interbreed longer without losing the aspects of their basic physiology that works better in the wild.

Some chimps make spears and they aren't humans. Some don't. Are the ones that don't hunt with spears not still chimps? Tools in humans are based on culture. We obviously have better dexterity to make fine tools out of rocks but that apparently wasn't true of all members of the genus Homo. Floresiensis is an example of one with a primitive wrist bone that suggests they lack the great dexterity of the thumb that is commonly called an opposable thumb. We also apparently have difference in the brain that give us greater dexterity. Fire is also cultural. We haven't necessarily been using it that long. It likely doesn't include all members of our genus. In their case, it would also make sasquatch much less stealthy. We pretty much need it to soften up food. Some "erectus" have enormous jaws and teeth, apparently to process more or coarser food. That argument that they don't use fire is really only an argument that might apply to modern humans. It doesn't really work for all members of the genus Homo.

I don't buy most of the 3 or 4 toed sightings as very credible but I wouldn't totally discount them. There are examples of human populations containing significant numbers of people with odd feet like the Doma people.

No neck is common in people with very muscular shoulders. Bigfoot seem to have an extreme case of that but it isn't that surprising even if it were genetically in the range of modern humans which I seriously doubt by the way. That pretty much answers the other points in Parn's quote.

Edited December 12, 2011 by BobZenor