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

[Guest]

Oh I know Susi, I read your report. I'm not making any comment of guesses about the status of our hairy friend (as I said, I hope we'll know soon enough, so guessing is pointless). All I was saying is that you should know that humans haven't been like we are now for very long, and that we didn't possess writing or laws until very recently indeed. Oh, and that hyaenas and chimps and dolphins and elephants and cows and all sorts of other creatures have extremely well ordered societies.

Mike

Mike, I like *and* respect you, and I admire your extensive knowledge regarding this species. I understand that family groups (pods?) have been observed. They do leave markers of stacked stones. They appear to me to live as what we call our "cave men" did, yet the cave men did live in family and/or cell groups,didn't they? I truly don't remember but I'm wondering if cave men were the ancestors or were they the real pro-type of our Bigfoot species?

Thank you for reading my report.

I was not sure that anyone would would pay any attention to such an insignificant sighting but for me it was amazing.

Edited January 24, 2012 by SweetSusiq

[Guest]

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.

Diseases are caused by viruses, bacteria, fungii, and parasites. Emotional problems can contribute to their advent and severity but are not the cause of disease.

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.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that humans are afraid of nature. Most people certainly seem to enjoy it. We do not like insects eating our crops or wolves eating our sheep but that's not fear. Once upon a time, people were in fear of natural phenomena but this isn't really the case now.

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).

Most criminals think they are good and decent people. This may be hard to understand but they really don't think they're the bad guys. The nazis believed they were doing the right thing in WWII. Most people think they are a product of nature. Admittedly some believe they are not a part of nature but these are the exceptions today.

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?

The ancestors of the native americans are at least partly responsible for the extinctions of most of the megafauna of north and south america. The ancestors of the australian aborigines also wiped out numerous species. The polynesians that discovered easter island, the hawaiian islands and new zealand wiped out many more species. All without the benefit of modern civilization. These people didn't know how to live in harmony with nature.

Bigfoot/Yowie are not likely to have any deeper connection to the earth than we do. Personally, I think we have a greater connection to the world due to our extensive knowledge which BF/yow don't have.

Bonehead, no clue what they'd do with it, but it could have lots of uses. It was hecka sharp, too.

As far as superiority, Us'ns or Them'ns, I believe we are different but neither perhaps superior. I see lots of people feel that big strong furry folks might be superior to us little nekkid skinny people. And in their setting, you gotta give them respect, they are masters of the wilds.

True, most of us live comfy lives and don't need to call upon our survival talents less'n we get audited or divorced. But this is a classic cause and effect/chicken or the egg question, the kind I see misconstrued daily by the masses. Are we little and skinny, so had to develop technology to compensate for our lack of muscle and mass, or did we have technology so muscle and mass became less selected-for? Are we techologists because we lack physical attributes or did our technology obviate the need for the physical attributes?

I tend to think that we lost some of our physical development when we developed our intellect. Australopithecus may have thrown stones like chimps do but figuring out that a broken rock works better then a whole one may have stimulated our ancestors to replicate the broken rock. Smarter australopithecines may have figured it out faster than not so smart ones and so may have left more descendents. Using a sharp rock means you don't have to be as fast or as strong as other australopithecines.

[Guest]

Antfoot could I ask that you dont write within my quote please? I understand your response but could you please put your responses to quoted areas outside of the quote clearly. If having problem with multiquote (as I do ) perhaps just put the quote/unquote parenthisis on the areas you are quoting.

[Guest]

Do you recognise that the documentaries made on animals in nature are made from a certain angle? There are masses of movies with violence and news taken up almost completely with violence (in sport too) because that grabs human attention - this doesnt mean it is a representation of every day life for humans. Nature documentaries work in themes. Just as many who are not into living one with nature are people who believe life to be survival of the fittest, documentary makers believe such things too. In fact a documentary is a great example of a picture of the world taken in reflection of the picture takers beliefs.

Documentaries of animals usually focus on interesting scenes not the day to day existence of an animal. Most of the time, lions are laying around in the shade. They only hunt every other day or so. Most herbivores are merely grazing and resting. They aren't doing much of interest unless they are being chased by a predator. There is reproduction of course but most documentaries skirt this portrayal on television. There just isn't much else to look at. The best documentaries I've seen usually involve elephants, apes, and cetaceans as their behavior is more complex.

Perhaps you could tell me as you are younger and your history lessons should be fresher, how many people died in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima - were they all soldiers fighting a war or were their any women breast feeding their babies as the bombs hit? Were their any atrocities carried out in Iraq in the past ten years by anyone human, any atrocities in various African countries, Asian countries, Western countries? Could you explain how these were more moral than the attitude of apes in the jungle? Why, for all the morality and money in Western nations are there people left out in the cold at night, every night and people passing them by? For all the modern cons why is there an epidemic of young people commiting suicide in various countries throughout the world? When you speak of moral humanity, you do include every human in every country dont you? Without getting too close to political discussion Ill just ask - how many people in the world died of starvation yesterday ? Why? There is enough surplus food to feed the world of humans three times over - and Ill give you a hint, its not because there was a lack of transport to get the food to people or a lack of means. Why have humans torchered other humans throughout history and at times over long periods, years. Is this the moral high ground humans have over other animals?

\

Most of what you are talking about here is caused by a small portion of our population. Most violent behavior is produced by the minority. Most people do not kill other people and this has always been the case. We enact laws to stop this behavior and punish for it as well. torture is conducted by a few people. They are not representative of the rest of us.

Thankfully humanity in civilized educated countries have learned from past mistakes, and advanced. That is our gift and ability over time to be able to see our mistakes, learn from them, and change them for the betterment for all involved.

Plus one susie

Antfoot could I ask that you dont write within my quote please? I understand your response but could you please put your responses to quoted areas outside of the quote clearly. If having problem with multiquote (as I do ) perhaps just put the quote/unquote parenthisis on the areas you are quoting.

aw alright

[Guest]

Documentaries of animals usually focus on interesting scenes not the day to day existence of an animal. Most of the time, lions are laying around in the shade. They only hunt every other day or so. Most herbivores are merely grazing and resting. They aren't doing much of interest unless they are being chased by a predator. There is reproduction of course but most documentaries skirt this portrayal on television. There just isn't much else to look at. The best documentaries I've seen usually involve elephants, apes, and cetaceans as their behavior is more complex.

Most of what you are talking about here is caused by a small portion of our population. Most violent behavior is produced by the minority. Most people do not kill other people and this has always been the case. We enact laws to stop this behavior and punish for it as well. torture is conducted by a few people. They are not representative of the rest of us.

Im not spending much time on forum today as I have neglected a few things posting so much but I will quicklly note here that you are responding to my response to "Twilight Fan" who believes that documentaries on animals killing each other are a means for her to know the every day world out in the wild. I told her these were just angles on the wild and you are backing this up, as of course (just as you have said) they are not killing each other all the time and a doc on them just lying around isnt interesting in general to humans. So just a note that we do not disagree here and perhaps you should be explaining this to Twilight Fan who doesnt understand the need for documentary makers to just take an angle for their doc and do that well rather than trying to comprehensively film the intricacies of all beings in nature. If Twilight Fan watch Attenborough docs she would have a different view.

As to saying that violent behaviour is just a small portion of our population well I agree that the majority dont go off creating wars, creating weapons of mass destruction or torturing people. The majority does allow this to happen though and takes part in the wars created by a few people or condones torture as their governments right of protection. As for the concept that humans have a system of punishing people who commit violence - well that certainly doesnt show we are utilising superior reasoning. Crime and punishment are deep discussions - basically crime and punishments are circles of violence. I brought up that humans pass others who are homeless and do nothing. This is not all of what humanity is, I have already said I find humanity beautiful as I find all life beautiful. We have great love, great artistry and great capacity for more love and more artistry. Other creatures also have great love and a different form of artisty and each being is needed for all to be whole. The reason I was bringing up the violence of humans was in response to arguments here that humans have a superior morality or even that other creatures of the earth have no morality o law. Im not going to go in circles with responses to snippets of my posts - perhaps read them on this thread. Basically though I agree humans have the capacity to learn from mistakes, they make "mistakes" of mass carnage because of notions of superiority and inferiority. Humans who see themselves as neither above nor below all other life do not create mass carnage - though they do have short lived wars. Those who see we are all part of each other on earth (though also unique - and this takes a wider form of reasoning)know not to commit mass carnage on anything. Each being is neither greater or less than the other. The idea that having tools makes us superior is highly problematic to say the least.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Encounter

[Guest]

Antfoot said:

Plus one susie for this:

Thankfully humanity in civilized educated countries have learned from past mistakes, and advanced. That is our gift and ability over time to be able to see our mistakes, learn from them, and change them for the betterment for all involved.

Susie says:

Thank you!

Edited January 24, 2012 by SweetSusiq

[Guest Biggie]

Antfoot could I ask that you dont write within my quote please? I understand your response but could you please put your responses to quoted areas outside of the quote clearly. If having problem with multiquote (as I do ) perhaps just put the quote/unquote parenthisis on the areas you are quoting.

Click the MultiQuote button on the right of posts that you want to reply to then click the Add Reply button on the top of bottom right of the screen whichever is closer at the time and the quotes from those posts will appear in the reply box.

[Guest]

Well firstly you have to know that there are several different types, some being closer to human than the others.

The answer to the question is really, really obvious if we put aside our dogmas and think about the situation. I guess it's more difficult for someone who has doubt they exist, but someone such as myself who has seen one and know they exist, our quest begins from a different point.

The question is, if they are just animals: Why have they not been discovered and fully documented? Is there ANY other, large mammal on this planet that we haven't documented? Especially one as abundant as this one.

The only answer I can assume is that they are at least as intelligent as us...or maybe moreso.

Before you suck your teeth, put your prejudice aside and think for a moment. Just because they don't build fire often (because they can) or build large metropolitan cities, or talk to us (which some of them do) doesn't mean they CAN'T!

My latest thoughts swing between: WE actually deevolved from them and perhaps they are the species to replace us!

For the ones who use the cynicsism that "if they're so big, tough and smart why haven't they replaced us?" I counter with, maybe they have and we just don't know it. Does replacing us mean they have to come tear our cities down and kill all of us? Perhaps not, they seem to be flourishing with very few casualties as it is.

[Incorrigible1]

The only answer I can assume is that they are at least as intelligent as us...or maybe moreso.

Oh, I agree......In that you're making large assumptions throughout your posting.

[Guest]

With respect, the question was ".....closer to humans or animals", and we both explained pretty clearly that we think this equates to "closer to an animal or some other animals" and therefore doesn't make sense. There isn't the slightest doubt that humans are a subset of animals. Don't get too hung up on human intelligence, either, or speech, unless you want to do lots and lots of reading.

I also gave you a straight answer to your question........"we'll know soon enough"

Mike

I still don't understand why science wants us to be animals when we have conquered the atom, are civilized, have laws and a written language along with the different colors and languages we speak, but still are humans living in law abiding countries. We created rules and structure to our lives along with laws.That separates us from animals.

[Incorrigible1]

I still don't understand why science wants us to be animals when we have conquered the atom, are civilized, have laws and a written language along with the different colors and languages we speak, but still are humans living in law abiding countries. We created rules and structure to our lives along with laws.That separates us from animals.

Susi, I'm with ya. Give 'em hell, girl! I feel your righteous indignation.

In fact, Susi, my father flew 31 combat missions as waist gunner aboard a B-17G Flying Fortress, flying from Foggia, Italy. My brave father helped rid the world of an enormous evil. In keeping with the terms of this forum's conditions, I must downplay, a little, my admiration for the service of my father. In addition, I've two uncles that also served aboard US bombers during WWII.

Uncle Burle is still alive, aged 91. Two years ago, I witnessed first-hand his commendation for having shot down a Luftwaffe fighter. He was with the Eighth Air Force, flying unescorted bombing missions from England aboard a B-17F. My uncle "saw the elephant." He recently spoke to me of serving from his waist-gun position, firing his .50 Browning, and then noticing corresponding flak holes in the floor and ceiling of the plane where he could have been standing.

My uncle Kenneth was killed in 1944 when his B-24 Liberator was shot down over Germany.

I am the product of my heredity. My parent's generation of personal relatives made huge sacrifices to rid the world of an enormous, all-consuming evil. Please don't presume to belittle the heroism inherent within the human species. Thank you.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Incorrigible1

[Guest krakatoa]

That separates us from animals.

What separates me from the animals is loose change and the ability to use it to get my own zagnut bars.

[Guest Kronprinz Adam]

Okay so, for those of you who believe Bigfoot exists, or think he might exist...what kind of creature do you think he is?...

Hi everyone!!! For sure, no one knows certainly what these creatures really are, but we can guess a couple of things...(of corse, after comparing dozens of sightings and trying to extract the essential information there).

I personally think, that this is simply an extraordinaty apelike creature, that split from one unknown branch from our evolutive tree [or geneaology, if you prefer] long time ago...culturally, the creatures are somewhat similar to our early ancestors, living in the wilderness, sleeping in caves, ignoring the use of fire but probably using ocasionally some crude tools.

Neverthleless, there are several differences, if compared with humans. We are diurnal creatures, these creatures seem to be nocturmal and they occupy places where humans rarely go. They seem to survive in isolated woods, mountains and canyons, they endure all kinds of weather and they survive using their sheer strenght, instinct, developed senses and by behaving stealthy. For sure, the creature is quite intelligent, but it may be also instinctive...either hiding, sometimes defending their territory, but looking at us with great curiosity. We also do not have accurate information about y how they communicate and their social life. I personally think that humans evolved in a different way, as diurnal creatures, starting making clans and tribes and eventually developing a culture...

We haven't found yet some fossil evidence of Bigfoot-like creatures (according to Isaac Asimov, Gigantophitecus seems to be a giant pongid, and not a hominoid) (maybe they simply decomposed on the woods, that's why we haven't found one yet), but probably they were some left-overs of some lost apemen lineage, or a relict of "megafauna". Probably, these apes were relative succesful and the Nature experimented several designs until Homo sapiens finally came. And probably, some of them survived in isolated places for centuries and originated further legends...

What are they exactly? Giant Australopithecus? Or some other creature that evolved from Ardipithecus? Or something else? Who knows...

Edited January 25, 2012 by Kronprinz Adam

[Guest]

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

How in the world does something standing 9-10 feet tall, totally covered in hair, wearing no clothing,with no societal structure, be considered human just because it stands on 2 feet and has slightly better posture habits and body types than monkeys and apes?

BF is *not* human.

Bf is an animal, a slightly advanced animal due to minimal tool usage, but still an animal.

Susi, I'm with ya. Give 'em hell, girl! I feel your righteous indignation.

In fact, Susi, my father flew 31 combat missions as waist gunner aboard a B-17G Flying Fortress, flying from Foggia, Italy. My brave father helped rid the world of an enormous evil. In keeping with the terms of this forum's conditions, I must downplay, a little, my admiration for the service of my father. In addition, I've two uncles that also served aboard US bombers during WWII.

Uncle Burle is still alive, aged 91. Two years ago, I witnessed first-hand his commendation for having shot down a Luftwaffe fighter. He was with the Eighth Air Force, flying unescorted bombing missions from England aboard a B-17F. My uncle "saw the elephant." He recently spoke to me of serving from his waist-gun position, firing his .50 Browning, and then noticing corresponding flak holes in the floor and ceiling of the plane where he could have been standing.

My uncle Kenneth was killed in 1944 when his B-24 Liberator was shot down over Germany.

I am the product of my heredity. My parent's generation of personal relatives made huge sacrifices to rid the world of an enormous, all-consuming evil. Please don't presume to belittle the heroism inherent within the human species. Thank you.

Amen, my friend.

Heroism, sacrifice,the written word, higher math, science,laws, religion, and societal structure just start to separate us from the animals.

[Guest]

What separates me from the animals is loose change and the ability to use it to get my own zagnut bars.

That too!