2 Types Of Bigfoot-Like Creatures?

[indiefoot]

It seems that there are different skin colors (from black to caucasion) reported, different hair color and lengths, different average sizes, and different foot prints.

My thoughts are that a lot of injuries can happen to bare feet that go untended and heal however they heal. The three toed tracks down south are out there by themselves and aren't as likely a deformity. As far as the appearance, a pure blood Sasquatch and a series of hybrids with different percentages and different races seems the most simple answer.

[southernyahoo]

I would ask that those interested in this question look at the very good track photos at the end of the report linked below and offer an opinion as to whether or not all these tracks were made by the same type of primates. And if not, what animal made the tracks other than those with the somewhat human-like features. (Disregard the coyote tracks. LOL.)

As a footnote; (no pun intended) within the last week or so two clear trackways were seen - for the first time as far as I know - in south AR with individual tracks being described exactly like those long, narrow tracks with a small nub-like toe off the inside edge of the foot in the second photograph. (No, the man who found the trackways did not photograph them because he was trespassing and caught by the person who owned (or managed) the propery within a few minutes of the find.)

http://www.alabamabi...RFPreport20.htm

Kind of looks like a deformity , but from a member of the five toed variety. Could be from some inbreeding. Have you looked into whether this is also found in some humans? Thanks for sharing those, I still need to read the article.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I have always accounted for the difference in reports by assuming that since bigfoot is so human-like, there are bound to be people who stress this when telling or writing about their encounter. Most Native American stories that I have read fit your typical bigfoot description of a tall, hairy biped, but there they present stories that stress the humanness of the creature, while neglecting to point out the abundance of hair covering its body.

I imagine that there are sasquatch that look very different from one another, more or less hair, etc, but I think they are all the same as a species...Once the animal is documented scientifically, maybe we can have a decent answer.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Native Americans also talk of two different types of large BF, one which is highly aggressive and cannablistic, and one which is not.

[Guest]

Maybe one is stinky and one not....

I think sightings of the dog man types are more common than we imagine....because, remember, folks are reluctant to share a bigfoot sighting because others will think they have a screw loose, and the other people have at least heard of Bigfoot. Imagine how less likely you'd be to say you saw something you never heard of. 99% of folks, maybe more, never heard of the dog man.\

I wonder how many on our forum saw such creatures....?

[Guest]

Good question KC. And since i hadn't seen it thrown out there yet, the first descriptions of the Sierra Kills juvenile described it as "bulldog faced..."

[Guest ajciani]

There are only about 150,000 years between polar and brown bears, and polar bears have distinctly modified fur, foot pads and fatty deposits, and are a much larger size; all adaptations for a cold, aquatic lifestyle. Polar and brown bears can still interbreed.

Anatomically modern humans are about 200,000 years old, and between what we call H. s. sapiens are multiple adaptations to their localities, including minor modifications to deal with temperature, terrain, sun exposure, available foods and disease. The H. sapiens species is about 500,000 years old, and contains even more variation, but these other humans are thought to have died out. Maybe they have been replaced with a human even more adapted to its local environment, or maybe they are still around. After just 100,000 years, I would vote for replaced.

Between modern humans and neanderthal, there are some striking similarities, but also some very bigfoot-like differences. Most of these can be seen in an photograph of a museum exhibit in the linked Wikipedia articles.

Neanderthals had:

• An upturned nose, with nostrils projecting forward
  
• A sloped forehead with a vague point at the apex (i.e. slightly cone headed)
  
• A 25% larger skull in all dimensions, probably corresponding to 25% greater height (6' 10" average)
  
• About 2.5 times the distance between the base of the nose and upper lip
  
• Higher and significantly more sloped cheek bones (which would give a flatter upper face)
  
• Lower facial prognathism (protruding lower face and mouth)
  
• Toes that were more even in length and size
  

Neanderthals had a mix of modern and primitive traits. Even more interesting, is that H. s. sapiens, or what are considered to be early examples, had mixes of modern and primitive traits, even up to 100,000 years ago.

[Guest BFSleuth]

It is interesting to me that of all the other varieties of animals extant on the planet, they seem to have thrived and diversified into various species. Bears have many different species around the planet, as do cats, as do canines, etc. etc.

Why do we think that the supposed smartest branch of the animal kingdom would whither away and die off to only one species?

That to me is highly improbable.

[Guest ajciani]

It is strange, the way people think about themselves.

Some scientists and atheists use evolution to brow beat the more ardently religious, that humans evolved from "lesser" apes, but are then so smug in there own belief of Man's superiority, to think Man immune to evolution. It becomes even stranger, when you consider that the belief in Man's superiority stems from the religion that is attacked.

What is more humbling, is that the belief in ones own superiority is not limited to humans, but is apparently shared by chimpanzees, and may be shared by big cats, dogs, bears and some marine mammals. I have seen some videos of lions who clearly thought that their humans were there to serve them. Now this could be a cat thing in general, but I think a lion has a much better position to think like that than a house cat. I don't know too many people who would argue the point with the lion either, especially without a gun or the intention to kill it.

[Guest]

There are several points I would like to make on this topic.

Based on "blobsquatch" photos that aren’t obvious fakes I think there is the distinct possibility that the "sasquatch", often reported as a large hirsute manlike creature is probably a close relative of homo sapiens, whereas the (generally reported as smaller) reddish colored "swamp ape" reported in the Southeastern-most regions of North America are probably a close relative of great apes, particularly Orangutans. The description of the creature in most often sighted in Florida is generally more uniform from sighting to sighting. The descriptions sound like a tall, long haired Orang.

There are several documented Native American legends of the "sasquatch" creatures absconding Native American women. Think about this for a second; some animals reproductive drive is so great they will deviate outside of what are considered typical behavioral patterns due to overwhelming hormonal urges to mate. If you were a male Sasquatch entering sexual maturity and there were absolutely no other female sasquatches available to mate with, you might be driven to mate with a human woman out of desperation. This probably wouldn't be much different from feral descendants of domesticated dogs mating with coyotes. It is rare, but has been documented as occurring. What would this due to a long line of genetics of the descendants of this coyote? In the case of the sasquatch, it's offspring (if viable) would probably be smaller and different in physical stature, display behavior patterns different from atypical sasquatch behavior (whatever that is), and possibly even have an increased drive or curiosity to observe humans for reasons other than full blooded sasquatches might stealthily observe humans.

This may explain some of the variegated descriptions by eye witnesses.

The last point I would like to make is about mammal inbreeding. If Sasquatches primary historical habitat was the Pacific Northwest, family units may have gradually migrated Southward to escape especially harsh winter conditions to areas where food was still more abundant during winters. I use the word migration not in the sense of seasonal migrations such as observed in birds, but in the sense of gradual migration in one direction over generations. This gradual migration would mean that over time the breeding pool got smaller and smaller the further South the creatures existed. This would eventually lead to unintentional inbreeding by closely related creatures within the southernmost adjacent territories. The most common and obvious physical side effect of inbreeding in mammal species appears to be deformities related to the number of digits (fingers and toes). This may be the reason large tracks are often found in the South with less than five toes. This would be the most obvious explanation of the varied digits in Southern tracks found.

As a side note I have read researchers state that there appears to be more hostile behavior exhibited by Sasquatch in the southernmost regions of the US. Could this also be related to forced breeding with captive Native American women. Sasquatches in the Pacific Northwest are generally described as elusive and non-confrontational. Homo Sapiens are a very aggressive species as evidenced by tribal warfare practiced by virtually every human civilization in documented history. Are human genetics making these animals more aggressive or inquisitive about populated areas?

Thanks for reading.

[Guest WesT]

Based on "blobsquatch" photos that aren’t obvious fakes I think there is the distinct possibility that the "sasquatch", often reported as a large hirsute manlike creature is probably a close relative of homo sapiens, whereas the (generally reported as smaller) reddish colored "swamp ape" reported in the Southeastern-most regions of North America are probably a close relative of great apes, particularly Orangutans. The description of the creature in most often sighted in Florida is generally more uniform from sighting to sighting. The descriptions sound like a tall, long haired Orang.

I live in the South and I can say with 99% certainty there are 2 types here. My best GUESS is, the big ones that have black or dark brown hair, seem to be Asia's version of a gorrilla that attained the bi-pedalism feature via convergent evolution. The smaller ones seem to be more Orangutan like with light blonde to reddish colored hair and of more normal human dimensions and proportions than the larger black/brown ones. This scenerio opens up the door for the possibilty of hybrids as well.

[Guest ajciani]

To put it succinctly, the great apes and hominids have different numbers of chromosomes (48 and 46 respectively), which makes interbreeding rather unlikely. Not only that, but there are important genes which have moved around. In theory, as long as a cell receives two copies of each gene, it can probably function, but there could be issues with the locator portion of the genes being different. Supposedly there is some scant evidence of hominid-chimp interbreeding up to about 1.2 million years ago, but nothing since.

Let's face it. Chimps and gorillas are pretty close, but there is no evidence of them interbreeding successfully, even though their territories overlap, so there is very little likelihood of a human interbreeding with anything but another close hominid.

[Bonehead74]

"The Iroquois (Six Nations Confederacy) of the Northeast -- although they live in close proximity to the eastern Algonkian tribes with their Windigo legends -- view Bigfoot much in the same way the Hopi do, as a messenger from the Creator trying to warn humans to change their ways or face disaster. However, mentioned among Iroquois much more often than Bigfoot are the "little people" who are said to inhabit the Adirondacks mountains. I never heard any first-hand stories among the Iroqouis about encounters with these "little people" -- for that matter, I never heard and first-hand stories in that region about Bigfoot, either -- but the Iroquois pass down stories about hunters who occasionally saw small human-like beings in the Adirondacks (which are not all that far from the Catskills, where Rip Van Winkle was alleged to have met some little bowlers) (and slept for 100 years -HF). Some present-day Iroquois assert that the "little people" are still there, just not seen as often because the Iroquois don't spend as much time hunting up in the mountains as they used to."

link:

http://www.bfro.net/legends/

Albatwitches/Apple-snitches:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/albatwitches.htm

http://www.bfro.net/legends/iroquoian.htm

[Guest WesT]

Let's face it. Chimps and gorillas are pretty close, but there is no evidence of them interbreeding successfully, even though their territories overlap, so there is very little likelihood of a human interbreeding with anything but another close hominid.

It's my understanding that humans and chimps are genetically closer to each other than chimps and gorrilla's are. Its also dependant on how much time has passed since a common ancestor was shared (genetic drift) for viable offspring to be produced (or not). I agree, if BF has indeed successfully bred with a human then that would put it in the homidid class sharing a relatively recent common ancestor.

[Guest]

To put it succinctly, the great apes and hominids have different numbers of chromosomes (48 and 46 respectively), which makes interbreeding rather unlikely. Not only that, but there are important genes which have moved around. In theory, as long as a cell receives two copies of each gene, it can probably function, but there could be issues with the locator portion of the genes being different. Supposedly there is some scant evidence of hominid-chimp interbreeding up to about 1.2 million years ago, but nothing since. Let's face it. Chimps and gorillas are pretty close, but there is no evidence of them interbreeding successfully, even though their territories overlap, so there is very little likelihood of a human interbreeding with anything but another close hominid.

Nature, if we learn nothing else, will ALWAYS find a way!

Yeah, the chromosomes don't match up, at least to our understanding, but it's apparent to me that nature can find a way around that when it needs.