If You Believe In Bigfoot, Do You Believe He Is Closer To Humans Or Animals

[Guest]

Oh my...what a big, hairy can of worms. So, Twilight Fan, it appears you are more of an "ape" believer? There is a gigantic rift amongst the BF community and as stated, it should be resolved very, very soon. Might want to re-post with a differnet type poll as it looks as though this discussion will not lead to anything but who is the "superior". Just a suggestion.

[Guest Twilight Fan]

Oh my...what a big, hairy can of worms. So, Twilight Fan, it appears you are more of an "ape" believer? There is a gigantic rift amongst the BF community and as stated, it should be resolved very, very soon. Might want to re-post with a differnet type poll as it looks as though this discussion will not lead to anything but who is the "superior". Just a suggestion.

Really? I was unaware of a rift. What else do some people think Bigfoot is, if not an ape? *curious*

[Guest]

I voted part of both....

As far as humans go, yes we are "techically" animals.. in the sense we possess similar physiological characteristics shared with many of our mammal (and other) relatives.

The main difference is in our advanced brain. I quoted some old Loren Eiseley stuff in another thread- that spoke of the expanded cranial capacity that we humans have, and for whatever reason that it started happening- it clearly marks a timeline when we started leaving our other anthropoid cousins "in the dust" so to speak.

I read BuzzardEater's post, and sadly was shaking my head a bit.

I apologize if it sounds "snarky", but i just simply cannot fathom why/or more importantly how, people attribute all this "great knowledge" to them..? What's its based on ? A theory? Actual observation/experiences ?

I mean, I think its possible that the large hairy ones may have somewhat of an advanced intelligence- when compared with other large anthropoids, but I dont believe their intelligence reaches even the level of early human. Why do I say/think that?

Pretty simple actually. Lack of any significant use of tools (other than clubs possibly), no understanding of fire, or more importantly the use of it, and the lack of a "complex" language system. Sure if the gibberish noises of the "sierra sounds" are in fact BF, it would indicate at least some level of either language or imitation of other sounds- but doesnt indicate an advanced level of speech/communication.

If they are some sort of early human- again back to Eisely. He noted that in Africa there's a whole segment of the early human period- where the skulls that have been found would indicate( due to their small cranial capacity) that some of our early/earliest ancestors- were nothing more than successful grassland apes.

I dont want to be anti-climatic, but i'm not holding my breath for anything "earth shattering" to come out of the Ketchum report. My solid $$ is on an "unknown" or "inconclusive" finding...

We're at the same point we always are- even if the DNA comes back part human, or more ape or whatever- without a (unfortunately) cold dead body on an exam table somewhere, I just dont see how it forces acceptance or acknowledgment of existence.

Until we reach that point, all the rest of it still remains conjecture.... its just that simple.

The other reason I voted for "some of both", is because of this below....

I mean, come on - its got to be at least part human to have moves like that right?

[Guest Twilight Fan]

Thanks for that well thought-out reply, Art I agree with most if not all of what you said.

[bipedalist]

The other reason I voted for "some of both", is because of this below....

I mean, come on - its got to be at least part human to have moves like that right?

With moves like that without disco shoes, I'd think there would be some potential for that Great Ape on Dancing with the Stars!

Edited January 22, 2012 by bipedalist

[Bonehead74]

To imagine they are anything other than sophisticated and systematic is absurd! To imagine a bunch of tall chimps evading us for centuries is absurd as well.

Did you ever wonder why the Gorilla Coco, once taught our language, never really had anything to say? She was polite and had decorum. She also had a breast fetish. Her son, unfettered by these considerations never talked at all, until heis Mother's death. Then he said a few things and never spoke again, except to order lunch.

Other intelligences do not regaurd us as godlike. They mostly think we are idiots. Why would a genius group bother with us? Do they think we will stop ruining the landscape if asked? No, they think we are out of control idiots with no thought process.

The only time a human will encounter a BF is when they are sought out for a demonstration. Most sightings are display behaviour.

An anecdote; my cat, who was a large male, when chastised would pretend to yawn and stretch his paw. So, he'd show his teeth and claws and dismiss human input.

Alligators frequently surface when threatened, to show thier size. As with BFs, that is usually enough.

Why do these massive creatures, possessed of enormous strength show such restraint? Mama bears are reputed to simplify a situation by removing the human element. Why don't BFs simply tear the occasional human apart and strew them from the trees? Os steal a baby and consume it on the spot?

Listen to the "911" call. The caller relates how his dog had been killed earlier, before the BF displays himself. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. If you set your dog on me, I would look you up, too, but I wouldn't just glare through a window. The BF, his point made, left it at that.

This isn't the work of chimps or gorillas. If anything, they show more brains than us.

They think we are stupid. How else to explain thier actions? They aren't shy. They do not fear us physically. They don't want our stuff.

They simply have no use for us. We are an annoyance to them, treated gently like an idiot child.

What do humans look like to them? We pride ourselves claiming we ran off all intruders, using our superior reasoning abilities. This is how far science has come, we still shake our spears and cry fircely into the unknown! In fact, I put it to you, that we didn't do any such thing. What we actually evolved was babes. How else to explain why evolution would make us smaller and hairless in relation to the competition? Our innovation was blondes with superb bodies. All the rest of the things we have done is compensating. This also addresses our utterly bizarre behaviour regaurding our females, that survives into the modern era. Burkhas, for example, or female circumsision cannot be attributed to anything practical.

If you do not understand where this places us on the importance scale, visit a peeler bar and see how the bikers treat the dancers. We are the dancers. After you have had your fill of derision, visit a university. Find a scholastic and disagree with him. You will quickly uncover kindergarden behaviour before the learned person dismisses your contribution with disdain and rhetoric. Do you suppose the scholar, once offended will ever seek your council? BFs are the scholars in this analogy.

Instead of asking why not, in regaurd to the question of contact, I suggest the question ought to be Why?

You seem to harbor a staggering level of loathing for humanity. I don't find your rather florid and disjointed prose, dogmatic statements, and questionable analogies convincing. Instead, it comes across as condescendingly pedagogic. My view is, as moral agents, we not only have the capacity for evil, but the ability to do good. The 'other intelligences' you speak of operate in an amoral world of nature's laws, as Tennyson put it, "Red in tooth and claw". The humanist philosophy of De Sade was, "What is, is right." I believe him to be pitifully mistaken. I say, "What is right, is right." The human ability to transcend simple laws of survival and reproduction and agree (for the most part) on a set of moral rules and (attempt) to live by them is what sets us apart from the other animals. Ironically, you indict humanity by making moral judgments based on the same principle that I believe separates us from other animals. I believe that Uncle Ben said it best: "With great power comes great responsibility." I do agree that we humans have abrogated our responsibilities in many ways, but much good has been, and is being done in the balance. The fact that we can debate such abstract concepts as superiority, inferiority, and morality just confirms my beliefs. Another part of your argument seems to be that our immorality is directly proportional to our level of 'sophistication'. The myth of the noble savage is dead and mouldering. Humans are good, bad, or a mix of the two. The other animals just are. Should a troop of chimps that kill a fellow chimp be tried for murder? No, because they (and we) apply no moral standards to them. They are ruled by instinct and beneficial behavioral drives. They do what allows them to eat, sleep, play, poop, avoid predators, and make babies with the least risk and expenditure of energy. Humanity alone has made the leap to subjugate these natural impulses and create a new, moral hierarchy which incorporates concepts such as altruism, charity, loyalty, and duty, and I believe that this is the ultimate basis for the greatness of man.

Of course, none of this answers the question the OP posited, so I say mixture of both.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

They look like us, use some tools, erect structures, and talk. Why is this even a question?

[Bonehead74]

It's a question, KC, because none of what you say has been objectively proven. I happen to agree with at least two, and perhaps three of your statements, but that is based on my own acquired knowledge and experience. I have never seen indisputable proof of such assertions.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Bonehead74

[BobZenor]

lol, I find it funny how the two of you seem more caught up on how to define humanity (and animal intelligence) when the question was more about Bigfoot. And what anyone thinks HE is like. Not humans or animals. We know what they (and us) are like already. Having said that, I'll add my two cents anyway, to that topic.

I consider humans a separate category from animals, above animals because we can do, think, dream and create things they could never wrap their (more simplistic) minds around. There are SO many defining things that set humans apart, that make us superior besides our intellect. But, that can be discussed all night long, and this thread is about what SASQUATCH is like. Not us, and not other creatures...

lol, I find it amusing how someone can read my response and think that it doesn't come down to intelligence that separates us. It is pretty simple to just pretend that we are special and completely separate but you have to ignore basic biology and/or common sense to do that. The differences come down to language skills and greater intelligence. Anything else is just wishful thinking. There is obviously a range of how close they are to us or what you define as human unless you think an ape just gave birth to a human one day or do you just reject biology all together? You are the one that defined the question as if there was a sudden change which doesn't really make sense if you accept basic biology. I am sorry you didn't get that or just chose to mock it.

DNA can prove this assuming they are a different species. It is really basic biology and shouldn't need the countless repetition.

Edited January 23, 2012 by BobZenor

[Guest Twilight Fan]

The other reason I voted for "some of both", is because of this below....

I mean, come on - its got to be at least part human to have moves like that right?

With moves like that without disco shoes, I'd think there would be some potential for that Great Ape on Dancing with the Stars!

^^^^^WOW, Squatch has some moves!

[Guest]

Above, I said: They look like us, use some tools, erect structures, and talk. Why is this even a question?

Okay, if I may, I'd like to rephrase my remark to make it clearer and more po-lite. By Why is it a question, I meant NOT why did ya ask this even? but by that I meant, Can there be any doubt? It seems clear to me.

And Bonehead, sorry if I riled you up, didn't mean to. And any offense to Twilight, I apologize.

And as to They look like us, use some tools, erect structures, and talk. being unproven, their existence is also not proven. So if you assume they exist, for purposes of this question, .....I think enough reports say they looked humanish, threw rocks, left tree teepees or X's, etc., or were heard or seen to talk that you can also assume those things are true.

[Bonehead74]

We're good, KC, no worries! I just don't share your level of sureity, that's all. I do admit the possibility, though.

Edited to fix smart phone induced strangeness.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

Does Bf have the ability to be thought of as intelligent? Yes, for sure.

Is BF smarter/more advanced that humans? No, not by a long shot.

There is not one single animal on this planet, other than we humans, which could even come close to wiping us out as a species. Why? Because we humans killed every single threat to our species that we came across.

If Bf has such highly vaulted smarts as some have suggested then it still has one huge mistake staring it right in the face......That it allowed we humans to become the dominate species, if they are so intelligent, so above us in thought power and one-ness with their surroundings, then they sure were stupid and unthinking when it came to the thoughts of their own future preservation. They live in OUR world, we control it, right the way around this globe we humans have been, have traveled and do have camps in every single corner of this globe.

If they were so smart, then they should have seen that we humans could not be reasoned with, could not be ignored and could not be distanced, because we can and will kill anything that gets in our way.

Humans go to war with each other for many, many reasons, the least of which is not fear of potential aggresion, pre-emptive strikes and what have you, even if they dont think in those terms and prefer peace and non-agression, they still failed in the evolution game because all non-agressive prey animals survive by two facts alone, number and/or size. Even then those factors do not ensure survival.

This talk of higher intelligence, one-ness with nature and an almost all knowing/seeing awareness of their suroundings is born of naught but wishfull thinking and a fruitless desire to be more "in the know" than others.

Inconclusion, they are just another animal, not smart enough to try take us out but smart enough to stay away.

[Guest]

I agree with the human traits you mention, but not the sasquatch. One can build a pretty accurate profile without ever studying them or seeing one. Just simply describe an 8-10 ft. tall hominid that has remained undetected by science and leaves little trace. You start there and before you know it, you have a profile that is somewhat like a Navy Seal behind enemy lines. Someone mentioned once if they are so smart, why don't they use fire? If you wanted to stay hidden, would you build a fire?

[Guest]

Going only on what I witnessed, closer to an ape. But,it does not matter to me either way as long as we get an answer.