Does A Bigfoot/ufo Connection Exist?

[Guest Dudlow]

What if Homo Erectus was the experiment and BF the original? Supposing we were the lab-rats who got out, bred like bunnies and Bigfoot can't get us back in the box, so to speak. No I'm not making fun of your post, that's a real question.

Now you're close to the Zecharia Sitchin notion concerning man's celestial ancestors in his book, 'The 12th Planet'. In his interpretation, man is a direct result, roughly some 437,000 years ago, of female Anunnaki (ETs) mixing with earthly male Homo erectus. The laboratory created beast of burden offspring was taught to mine precious metals and perform all necessary physical toil for the aliens.

- Dudlow

[Guest Dr. Boogie]

Regardless of whether or not there actually is a connection personally I hope that there isn't. I'm somebody who'd like to see Bigfoot 'proved' to exist and I can't help thinking how much more unlikely that might be if it depended upon proving both Bigfoot and some type of UFO exist and that they are both linked.

[Guest exnihilo]

JDL that was an excellent post. You raise some great points. Apparently there are many respects in which an excess of culture can inhibit some of the metrics of intelligence, such as memory. Pre-literate cultures for instance developed memory to degrees we have a hard time comprehending. BF may have this going for them as well, and perhaps more importantly they may have human-level insight into our motives and methods. Perhaps they understand the importance of remaining hidden from modern society with an intensity that was absent or only partly developed when they were confronted with only native cultures.

[JDL]

I took an IQ test once that had a question similar to the following:

Which of these is not a meat?

Steak,

Chicken,

Spam,

Salmon.

I chose spam because it was a meat product, rather than meat from the flesh of an animal. I got the question wrong.

If one measures comparative intelligence it should be on an objective scale. But to establish a scale that could be considered objective for both humans and bigfoot may require an understanding of bigfoot intelligence that is greater than we currently have.

[Guest exnihilo]

Regardless of whether or not there actually is a connection personally I hope that there isn't. I'm somebody who'd like to see Bigfoot 'proved' to exist and I can't help thinking how much more unlikely that might be if it depended upon proving both Bigfoot and some type of UFO exist and that they are both linked.

I sympathize absolutely, but we don't get to pick the evidence we like and remain objective. If you look at the BF casebook there is a chapter devoted to this subject alone, if memory serves (don't have the book handy).

[Guest Dr. Boogie]

I sympathize absolutely, but we don't get to pick the evidence we like and remain objective. If you look at the BF casebook there is a chapter devoted to this subject alone, if memory serves (don't have the book handy).

Not claiming any superior knowledge or insight, see it as a willing admission that on this occasion I'm happier to be ignorant

[Guest]

Darwin's atheism was certainly an influence on his theory, as it was on most of the people who forget its a theory and accept it as fact.Your example of intelligence is the very biased opinion I am talking about. "we build things,so we must be smarter than them", a mistake that is repeated time and time again, despite science trying to maintain an objective point of view. Urban industrialist always think that that their beliefs are the "intelligent" beliefs,a and application of that kind of thinking has had disastrous results on many "primitive" cultures.

The urge to build, and leave behind the roots of existence is not intelligence,and that's a hard separation to make. I drive a car,use the internet and have the most environmental impact on my planet,so there fore I am smarter. That is biased thinking,human thinking,but not necessarily correct or factual thinking.

The way BF tends to appear to live is not a matter of intelligence although it does require intelligence to survive this way. Knowledge of food plants and animals is probably passed down from mother to child. How to escape predators is also probably taught and perhaps a little trial and error. This is no smarter than chimpanzees or gorillas. These animals are smart to a degree but we ARE smarter than they are in most matters. We are able to theorize and abstract far more than these animals do. This means that we can find food in unfamiliar surroundings. This means we can survive harsh conditions without physical adaptations. We can build shelter and produce fire for warmth and to make use of other food sources. We are ADAPTABLE on an individual level which is not apparent with apes or BF. To be sure they can adjust to some changes on their own (they do have bigger brains than most animals their size) and they have larger cerebrums which is the part you actually think with. Humans have a much larger and more complex cerebrum than apes and likely more complex and larger than BF. I am not suggesting that humans are superior to BF because we build rockets. We build rockets because we are superior intellectually to BF.

We can send help to distant parts of the world and this is a moral superiority but it is enabled by our intellect. When our children become ill we do everything we can to help them and we do have many methods to do so. Our ancestors made do with roots and music to ease illness but we have gotten better at this now. BF probably suffers with illness much like the apes do. They may have some herbs they chew on for some things but there are no roots and berries for a broken leg. Some say they care for their elderly and infirm but there are few such reports and no evidence of course.

I sometimes read people saying that BF are our superiors because they hide from us so well but that doean't mean they are smarter, just that they know their territory better than we do. Even the dumbest deer knows to stand stock still when it hears a noise. If something smells or sounds out of place don't move until you can figure out what's wrong. That's simple thinking.

Some people think that BF are smarter because they don't need the things we have, but we only have those things because we WANT them not because we NEED them. Humans have lived in the wilderness for approximately two-hundred-thousand years before we developed agriculture and civilization. If civilization ended today a lot of people would die that's true but more would survive and move into the surrounding wilderness. If the forests disappeared today a lot of BF would not survive very likely and the few that do would probably live off of OUR efforts to preserve them. I find it hard to imagine a BF trying to preserve humanity. Or the world for that matter.

This is another area where we are superior. We have ruined a lot of the wilderness yes but we are aware of the damage now and most of us agree that we need to protect what we have and even return some of our land back to wilderness. We now understand that animals can go extinct and that soils can erode and we work to undo this where we can. I don't see BF doing anything about it. And they live in the woods. If anyone should be concerned and making an effort to preserve the wilderness it's them. They are not therefore, I can only assume they either don't care about it or they are unaware of what's happening to their home. That's about where we were once upon a time but we've moved on.

[Guest]

I do not necessarily believe Bigfoot is any smarter than us,I am not not sure it is any less intelligent than us. Your examples are all prime examples of a biased belief, based on a notion of superiority because we like to build things, and always crave "easier". We like to feel "superior", we all see it everyday,on every level. There attitudes and misconceptions carry over into our science, and make us come to what we consider"obvious" reasoning,is more "comfortable" reasoning.

Antfoot, I am just tossing stuff around here,,please don't take any offense,to me its all part of learning.

[Guest exnihilo]

What I'm going to say here will no doubt be controversial, especially since I am not a field researcher. But I have studied aspects of primatology especially regarding the great apes enough to speak with some confidence about the subject. And I can state unequivocally that the BF phenomenon is not explainable by an animal that is equivalent in intelligence, culture, and behavior to the chimpanzee (or bonobo). The physical creature hypothesis must include, IMO, genus homo level intelligence and behavior combined with physical attributes that are an order of magnitude past human capability. One must also surmise that, ordinarily, encounters are deliberate actions on the part of the creature calculated to achieve some effect -- either distraction or intimidation. Otherwise we are left wondering why virtually all sightings are of adult males. So while I don't know where to place BF intelligence in relation to homo sapiens sapiens, I am pretty sure it is in close proximity. Technology is something that is associated with hominins, but it is far too simplistic to correlate increasing levels of technology with increasing levels of intelligence. In fact it is plainly teleological to make that correlation. Technology represents the interplay of intelligence, opposable thumbs, available resources, and the role of necessity and/or cultural choice. It is definitely not the only or primary metric.

[Incorrigible1]

Darwin's atheism was certainly an influence on his theory, as it was on most of the people who forget its a theory and accept it as fact.

Gravity is a theory, too.

[Guest Dudlow]

The physical creature hypothesis must include, IMO, genus homo level intelligence and behavior combined with physical attributes that are an order of magnitude past human capability... So while I don't know where to place BF intelligence in relation to homo sapiens sapiens, I am pretty sure it is in close proximity... Technology... is definitely not the only or primary metric.

Well put, 'exnihilo'. I have always been impressed by the Russian researchers' insightful (although arguably, by necessity somewhat vague) description of the Almasty as a 'subhuman protohominid'. They never seriously went the pongid route.

I am reminded of the human population which migrated (was it to Madagascar? - hopefully an anthropologist here can correct my memory if need be) to a new land and, in so doing, forgot how to make and manage fire because it was no longer called for. In this case one could describe their technological know how as comparatively retrograde. But was it; and by whose definition?

Additionally, the physical attributes of Squatchy are often described as comparatively primitive, at least from the homocentric point of view which likes to believe the more recent gracility of the human form is superior, at least according to where theories of physical evolution want to take us. So does form follow function, for both humans and Squatchy?

We are locked into our own species specific (egads, I hate tautology!) ontology and getting out of the box ain't easy, especially in terms of the controversial world of hominology. (How many careers dead or seriously ailing in the Homo Floresiensis wars?)

- Dudlow

[Guest exnihilo]

I think the example you were searching for was Tasmania.

You hit the nail right on the head. Getting out of the mental box isn't easy, but it is absolutely essential if this mystery is ever going to be solved.

[Guest Dudlow]

Thanks for the correction from Madagascar to Tasmania, 'exnihilo'.

- Dudlow

[Guest Jodie]

Gosh where to start with this? I actually took the time to read everyone's well thought out responses, including the terse ones.

I think for one, there is some confusion regarding what is meant by the UFO/Bigfoot connection. It is not that the there are that many reports of bigfoot in association with a craft, but that bigfoot are seen in the same areas as UFO hotspots. I can attest to that in my own area. I never heard or saw anything of the aerial kind that was unidentified until I moved here 4 years ago, and just by coincidence, I suspect, but have no proof that I also have bigfoot activity going on sporadically.

Now make of that what you will. I'm not ignoring that fact, I just can't do anything about the UFO stuff other than take a picture when it randomly happens. So far, I happened to just be outside smoking or in bed when both the significant incidences happened with no camera in hand expecting to see anything. The bigfoot issue is an ongoing work in progress. I think I'll need to wait until spring before I see any more sign of them, nothing has happened since October.

UFO's- I'm a big fan of folding space time since I think there is a crucial element missing that ties gravity, time, matter, yada yada all together, probably a bit more complicated than string theory. I look at the old Vedic texts for clues regarding physics since I'm of the belief that we have had previous advanced civilizations in the last 200,000 years that we have supposedly been here, no thanks to aliens. We did it on our own IMO. There is only one source of 99% pure copper in the world and that is located in Michigan. Raw copper of the same purity and traced back to this area has been found in India and Egypt going backing many thousands of years. It had to get there some how, that is just one example for why I think something tragic happened about 9-10,000 years ago that nearly destroyed us.

That said, I have also seen a floating life form similar to a jelly fish that I think is commonly mistaken for extraterrestrials. The only UFO reports I give much credence to are those that are close up enough to see details that enable the witness to distinguish whether it is an artificial craft versus something biological. There aren't that many of the up close and personal UFO reports. Same with bigfoot, I tend to pay more attention to the up close encounters more than I do the brief road side glimpses where it would be easy to misidentify the creature.

So unless you have reports of close encounters of the third kind for both bigfoot and UFO's ( as in extraterrestrials) in the same general vicinity, I believe it would be very hard to make any kind of concrete connection between the two.

On a side bar, regarding the intelligence thing, I do think we are biased in how we define intelligence. I look at the cetaceans as an example of intelligence equal to ours, but because their environment is so different, it went in a different direction. They actually have an extra lobe in their brain. I believe an advanced alien race would be able to recognize multiple versions of advanced intelligence and would study all of them if they were here for us, but I have not heard of whales, dolphins, or other primates being seen by abductees. If aliens are here, we are just the local Shell station IMO.

For those interested in cetacean communication there is a theory that the dolphins are possibly communicating in signals that portray multiple concepts at once in the form of pictures rather than the unilateral way we do with words. If you want an idea of how bigfoot will be received if found to be a sentient creature, the first article below will give you an idea, the other two articles relate to dolphin language.

http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2010/webprogram/Session1526.html

http://www.labspaces.net/109949/Real_life_Aquamen_use_fMRI_to_understand_dolphin_speech

http://speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20

Edited December 27, 2011 by Jodie

[Guest]

I took an IQ test once that had a question similar to the following:

Which of these is not a meat?

Steak,

Chicken,

Spam,

Salmon.

I chose spam because it was a meat product, rather than meat from the flesh of an animal. I got the question wrong.

What was the correct answer?