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

[Shelly]

I make some comments first: The distinction between human and animal is interesting. What we as humans have used to set us apart from animals has been changed a lot. We know that animals can reason, communicate, have social structures, can make and use tools, can interact with each other and in between species. They can display very human-like emotions. In some cases animals have been taught to communicate using human language. As humans I think we tend to like to see human-like things in animals, especially cute ones.

I enjoy watching apes; especially gorillas and orangutans and fortunately both are on display in my town. Just watching them casually you see very many obvious human traits, expressions, actions. This does not mean a gorilla is human, but we share very many traits and behaviors, right down to facial expressions, body language, postures, gestures.

Having said that, I still think BF is some sort of ape or ape-like sub human. I don't say this to diminish him in any way from what he is or could be. I just do not see him in any way as being human as we know ourselves to be. We know that even Neanderthal man, who is physically and genetically different than modern man, created representational and spiritual artwork. Neanderthal man made and used tools, made clothing, made and used fire. We know where they lived, have found the remains of their trash dumps, etc. We know they burried their dead and probably had some sort of spiritual structure regarding life and death. BF does not seem to have any of those "human" traits. BF probably makes branch structures and nests, but that is not uncommon in animals and even a human would have a very hard time recreating something like a bird nest. There is no direct evidence that BF makes and uses tools in any way as we dont find modern rock chippings, etc. attributed to him. He doesn't make artwork. I doubt that BF burries his dead per se. Often in the areas where BF lives, digging a big hole would be quite difficult with just human hands and no tools.

As an animal I do not think BF has any special powers that normal animals like a Gorilla or bear or mountain lion would have.

[Guest Biggie]

Art funny gif there. Go sasquatch! Get busy! Go! Go! Go sasquatch! Makes me wonder if that's why the bf got hit by the convertible car mentioned in another thread here because it got distracted by showing off while in the spotlight. heheee

As for the poll at this point I'm going with "mixture of both" but I have no clue so maybe I should choose that vote option as well.

[Guest Twilight Fan]

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

No offense taken at all. I asked this question because I realize different people have different opinions on what (or WHO) Bigfoot is, and I wanted to hear what the majority thought on the BFF, regarding this topic. It's always interesting to hear different perspectives.

We know they burried their dead and probably had some sort of spiritual structure regarding life and death. BF does not seem to have any of those "human" traits.

There actually is an idea that BF may bury his dead. But as with anything else until proven, it's all conjecture or up for debate.

[Shelly]

I suppose too we have define "talk", "make tools" etc. A crow can use a pebble as a tool, and a chimp can make and use a stick as a tool. But I have seen no evidence that BF makes human tools ie a stone axe, spear, etc. Different people will interpret things differently, which is fine.

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

As an animal I do not think BF has any special powers that normal animals like a Gorilla or bear or mountain lion would have.

I will disagree with you on those points. Judging from the past 200 years of BF sightings/encounters, this is a bipedel ape. However.....

Not that simple. Are there animals that can see in the dark? Ok. Could this species of ape evolve those abilities? Perhaps.

And maybe even certain mental physic abilites? Why not? Birds can fly on their own, but man cannot. Why didn't we learn to flap our arms and fly?

There are so many small niches of natures animals who have developed unique abilities, that we mighty humans have failed to conquer.

[Guest]

Question to all - what is it we will learn if we define BigFoot( Sasquatch, Yowies, Hairy Hominids ) within limited parametres? What are we wishing to learn? If one day scientists feel there is full proof of BF and human society relegates them to the group seen as animals (where that society somehow see's humans as separate to animals) - what will society gain from that?

Not a statement folks - just some questions! I would be interested in seeing the answers to this most especially from those who will go a little further than getting a scientific name to give BF.

[Guest Biggie]

I suppose too we have define "talk", "make tools" etc. A crow can use a pebble as a tool, and a chimp can make and use a stick as a tool. But I have seen no evidence that BF makes human tools ie a stone axe, spear, etc. Different people will interpret things differently, which is fine.

I have seen people mention reports of bf with baskets made of limbs used to collect fish, and if memory serves me right I remember someone mentioning that bf was reported to have been seen cutting a carcass with a sharp rock.

[Guest]

They have been seen to bonk critters on the head with a shillelagh model club. I think they flake rocks, but we are not looking for that. At my canalside site, a piece of shale was smashed into long sharp flakes by lifting and dropping it onto other rocks. And this was a hunk about 1 foot by 2 feet. I don't even know where it came from,

[Bonehead74]

KC, any evidence or idea for what they were using the rock for?

[Guest]

Ask the earth.

BTW, I'm not an environmentalist, I just think questions of better or worse need context that we can't provide. Since they live in cooperation with nature, they must conclude that we hate nature and spend our energy and time trying to overcome it. It might seem like folly to them.

But we do overcome nature and pretty well lately. Disease was the biggest killer of children 100 years ago in the US. Modern medicine has made dramatic improvements for children. We're not perfect but we're not useless either. As time goes on we make more advancements. Our "folly" is simply incomprehensible to them. They could have the exact same sort of brains we have but lacking our "context" they can not understand what we do. You are right, context is important, but I suspect a qualitative difference that actually prevents their understanding of what we do. I voted "animal" as I do not think BF has an intellectual capacity any greater than a chimpanzee has. Genetically speaking however, I believe BF is closer to human.

[Shelly]

I will disagree with you on those points. Judging from the past 200 years of BF sightings/encounters, this is a bipedel ape. However.....

Not that simple. Are there animals that can see in the dark? Ok. Could this species of ape evolve those abilities? Perhaps.

And maybe even certain mental physic abilites? Why not? Birds can fly on their own, but man cannot. Why didn't we learn to flap our arms and fly?

There are so many small niches of natures animals who have developed unique abilities, that we mighty humans have failed to conquer.

Well normal animal abilities I have no problem with. Its the "far out" IMHO stuff like mental telepathy, invisibility, etc. I have serious problems with that.

And even if people flap their arms they arent going to fly. I would say that Bigfoot would be similar to other large omniverous mammals living in the same environments.

[Incorrigible1]

I don't "believe" in anything, too much. I think there's an intriguing, tantalizing slim possibility the bigfoot creature might exist, in shockingly small numbers. I think the vast majority of supposed sightings are erroneous due to various reasons, such as mistaken identity and wishful thinking. I think attributes to the creature of supernatural or beyond physical abilities are fairly laughable. I think if the bigfoot creature exists, it's likely closer to the apelike, pongid side than homo/mankind.

Now, one thing I do believe is that I shall indulge in an after-work tall, sparkling adult beverage. Here's mud in your eye!

[Guest]

But we do overcome nature and pretty well lately. Disease was the biggest killer of children 100 years ago in the US. Modern medicine has made dramatic improvements for children. We're not perfect but we're not useless either. As time goes on we make more advancements. Our "folly" is simply incomprehensible to them. They could have the exact same sort of brains we have but lacking our "context" they can not understand what we do. You are right, context is important, but I suspect a qualitative difference that actually prevents their understanding of what we do. I voted "animal" as I do not think BF has an intellectual capacity any greater than a chimpanzee has. Genetically speaking however, I believe BF is closer to human.

What is there in nature we have to overcome? We created the diseases by trying to separate ourselves from nature rather than recognise our connection to all life didnt we? Yes we are great at solving problems symptomatically but perhaps we arent so good at recognising the source of our problems. The discussion here seems to be that humans are different to other animals as humans are more intelligent, or humans are problem solvers, or humans are more concerned with morality - yet other animals dont seem to be destroying their source of existance, dont create problems that need bandaid resolutions and live in natural morality. Aborations in behaviour from other animals is only known from human contact and quite possibly the aborations are a result of human contact ( humans being another animal which somehow thinks itself superior, cant understand other languages in nature and slaughters masses of other humans in wars - believing themselves civilised).

Humans developed the atom bomb and actually went about dropping two of them on cities in Japan (not getting into the strategic pros and cons of this). Our world wide communication means that most should know that for some time the worlds population could be fed three times over and that there should be no human starving but due to greed, and lack of moral or ethical concern people starve en masse every day. The moral superiority argument has no validity here except the argument that humans do spend much time with judging good and bad.

Im interested in why we are trying to make a choice between BF being closer to human or animal when we arent bothering to understand our true nature.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest]

Yowies, BF Sasquatch etc are not less, not more but possibly have a similar form of consciousness to humans reflected in their physical form. Form is a way of expressing conciousness. It seems to me they chose quite clearly to experience nature very vitally while humans chose the path of wondering what it would be like to step away from nature. Humans have gotten lost and a path back would be to respect all life, learn from all about us, recognise the brilliance of each being and trust nature again. Yowies or BF may present for us a path of being with nature once more.

I sincerely doubt that BF(yowie) chose to experience anything at all. They simply adapted to situations like any other animal species did. Those individuals that had the most offspring passed on the greatest amount of their genes. Humans didn't choose to evolve into a sentient species either for that matter. Our two species evolved out of a simpler common ancestor in response to the environments in which they found themselves. Humans developed large groups with many members and our socialization is enormous. Special brains were required for this. BF(yowie) had no need for such large brains as they kept to smaller groups (very few reports suggest they occur in large groups of more than family units). While smaller groups may be better for the environment, I do not think this was a better choice overall. Larger bands of humans were better able to protect their members and produce more offspring. This is basically what nature encourages (if you can say nature encourages anything). Populations that are not prolific are in greater danger of extinction than those with burgeoning numbers. In all honesty, I believe that humans (in general) have a greater appreciation for nature than animals do. For animals the environment is simply what is there. They have no say over the weather or the food supply. While animals may have some interest in rich fields or balmy weather I find it difficult to imagine any animal enjoying a storm or the view off an alpine peak. Human knowledge actually makes it possible for us to really appreciate something natural in a deeper way.

Take eclipses for instance, I saw a lunar eclipse once and was amazed at how the moon appeared to turn blood red. This made we wonder what people thought about such a sight before humans knew this was just positioning of the earth between the moon and the sun. Many early societies thought the eclipse was an evil omen and were terrified when they occured. Knowledge is superior to simple coexisting with nature. If BF(yowie) "chose" to experience nature then they made a dumb mistake. I don't think they ever had the choice.

What is there in nature we have to overcome? We created the diseases by trying to separate ourselves from nature rather than recognise our connection to all life didnt we? Yes we are great at solving problems symptomatically but perhaps we arent so good at recognising the source of our problems. The discussion here seems to be that humans are different to other animals as humans are more intelligent, or humans are problem solvers, or humans are more concerned with morality - yet other animals dont seem to be destroying their source of existance, dont create problems that need bandaid resolutions and live in natural morality. Aborations in behaviour from other animals is only known from human contact and quite possibly the aborations are a result of human contact ( humans being another animal which somehow thinks itself superior, cant understand other languages in nature and slaughters masses of other humans in wars - believing themselves civilised).

Im interested in why we are trying to make a choice between BF being closer to human or animal when we arent bothering to understand our true nature.

All life on this planet is prone to disease. Humans didn't cause it. All life on this planet is prone to accident. Humans didn't cause it. Animals also rape and murder other animals. Humans didn't cause this. Humans do manage to find ways to deal with these things though. Animals simply hunker down and endure it. Male lions routinely kill other lions. Jane Goodall has reported that chimpanzees go to war and murder each other. We didn't teach them this. The idea that hunmanity is a scourge on nature is founded on the results of our ignorance. Noone taught humanity how to grow food or take care of each other. We learned this all on our own. It's taken some time but we're finally understanding our impact on the natural world and taking measures to correct what we can.

[Guest]

... Knowledge is superior to simple coexisting with nature. If BF(yowie) "chose" to experience nature then they made a dumb mistake. I don't think they ever had the choice.

Antfoot, I and perhaps many others who understand to even a slight extent the wisdom of the earth, and remember they are born of it, recognise that 'knowledge' is coexisting with nature.

All life on this planet is prone to disease. Humans didn't cause it. All life on this planet is prone to accident. Humans didn't cause it. Animals also rape and murder other animals. Humans didn't cause this. Humans do manage to find ways to deal with these things though. Animals simply hunker down and endure it. Male lions routinely kill other lions. Jane Goodall has reported that chimpanzees go to war and murder each other. We didn't teach them this. The idea that hunmanity is a scourge on nature is founded on the results of our ignorance. Noone taught humanity how to grow food or take care of each other. We learned this all on our own. It's taken some time but we're finally understanding our impact on the natural world and taking measures to correct what we can.

I didnt say humans created all diseases, I was responding to your post concerning certain diseases being apparently cured. Disease is a way of knowing something is wrong. Disease comes from imbalance, and also comes from a lack of value fullfillment in life. Now here I am discussing another way of seeing our life and I dont expect you to be on board with this at present, also I wont try to go into this way of seeing too far. I certainly dont think humans are terrible, I think we are incredibly beautiful and in general trying our hardest to do what we think is good or right in a situation we percieve as difficult or problematic. The problem is our perception of reality. We percieve ourselves separate to nature and in that perpective we can no longer understand the communications in nature consciously (though Im sure subconsciously we do). We have gotten to the point that we actually think nature dangerous, we build walls, put on way too many clothes in warmer seasons, fear sexuality, fear insects in our houses, fear fear fear.

Those who trust they are born in nature, that nature is good and that their own nature is good do not go about making wars, killing, starving others (through various means), or teaching children they are not valid unless they are more important than something else. Yes there seems to be fighting to some extent in many species, but outside of humans, such fighting is short lived and only for the essential need at the time (not out of long held avarace, greed, belief in moral superiority or hatred).

Humans do utilise reflection and long term memory (though time isnt actually linear) and this then creates a way of seeing which is not shared by many other animals on earth (if not any other animals). There was no reason to divorce ourselves from nature and our own nature to utilise the beauty of reflection but some humans did this and such people are the civilisation you are speaking about today. Indigenous peoples always knew the earth as mother or father (usually mother). They knew that they are a part of nature and that anything they do in nature they do to themselves. You say we are all just beginning to know about how our actions have been effecting or destroying the earth - well had we listened to indigenous peoples we would have known ages ago. Instead arrogance and fear of nature led us to think modern scientific society superior. You say that knowledge about the stars now adds to our enjoyment of existance (and I agree knowledge should add to our enjoyment of existance but only if it is profound knowledge) but are you not aware the ancients understood the stars and planets thousands of years ago?

It is actually I think when we realise we are not superior nor inferior to any other life, that our life has meaning with no comparisons required and that all life is vital to our being - that we will have the key to truly vast knowlege.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Encounter