Guest Twilight Fan Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Harry and the Hendersons asked this question in the movie, and it made me wonder. What do you think? (Side note) --- imagine if BF were human. Then every "researcher" with a camera who tries to follow it and film it would become more like a stalker! The BF paparazzi! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I don't think so, personally. There are two big unknowns however that could affect my opinion. These unknowns are whether sasquatch have a language, and whether they build and use tools. Meeting these criteria wouldn't automatically make them human, but I think these two things are a prerequisite. I think that in many cases throughout the past these two items have gone hand in hand, and if one were present, the other wouldn't be far behind. Also, I have never thought that sasquatch were too close to humans as far as intelligence. They are intelligent in their own environment, but probably lack much of the ingenuity and critical thinking skills that even the first modern humans possessed. Many of the characteristics of sasquatch are ape-like. From the way they go from all fours to two legs and vice versa, to the way they strip leaves from branches using their mouths, even down to some of the vocalizations they make, among other things. I am inclined to believe that sasquatch lived alongside modern humans, neanderthals, and denisovans, and probably other species that lived in the not so distant past. So their lineage is most likely related to our own, and we probably share a common ancestor, but it is too difficult to guess because we don't know if sasquatch are in fact a known species that is thought to be extinct, like gigantopithecus, or whether it is an entirely undocumented animal. The truth is however that science doesn't have enough specimens, considering the sheer number of different pre humans, to know much about the human lineage up until now. Entire species are classified based entirely off of a couple of bones, therefore there is not even any way to tell what many of these animals looked like. So I basically think that sasquatch would not be considered human. Plus, the entire "human" debate can get pretty hairy, depending on whether it is approached from a purely scientific standpoint or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I can't remember if it was Richard Stubstad, but someone said that if Chimpanzee's are 2 clicks away from humans, Bigfoot are 3/4 of a click away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Dear Twilight Fan. Greetings!!! Good question, I think we know very little about Bigfoot's identity... I have some personal thoughts, I have also heard this theory about "feral humans...going ape?...and I think we are all waiting for the Ketchum report to see if his DNA shows some "humanity" (or human contamination, we do not know...) 1. He does not match any fossil record of human ancestors., (at least, conclusively). 2. Humans are diurnal, they do not grow so tall and strong like Bigfoot, and they do not show midtarsal break. 3. Almasties are reported to be more human-like than Bigfoot. A not-so-gigantic creature with different body proportions, not so different from a caveman. So there is something that simply does not fit on this scheme. Is Bigfoot nearly human? I think nobody knows. But I will mention some interesting things I have read here in the forums. (Of course it is hypothetical, I have no proof of any of this). A. Some witnesses tell they saw a human creature, some others say it was like a mix of human and ape creatures. B. Some native legends tell of a lost tribe of near-humans, but others tell of 2 types of creatures. C. Some researchers from the southern USA have also claimed that there are 2 types of Bigfoot...human-like "reds" and gorilla-like and territorial "blacks". There is another point we have to take into account. What if Bigfoot has some human characteristics due to cross-breeding? So this mystery goes bigger and bigger and I hope will be solved in the near future. What do you think? Best regards. K. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Chimps and humans already share 97% of common DNA. It's the remaining 3% that separates us. I would imagine that BF fits in there somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Chimpanzee vocalizations exhibit traits what many would consider to be rudimentary elements of langauge, and they use tools........however they are far from what I would call human. Many folks interested in the subject appear to romanticize the idea that Sasquatch is some type of gentle "forest person", or attribute supernatural or extraterrestrial qualities to them. If such a creature does actually exist (I'm in the "90% sure camp") they may be one of the most intelligent animals on the planet...........but that is probably all they are......intelligent animals. Even if they have extended sensory abilities beyond what other primates have, there will be a natural scientific explanation for those sensory abilities. When I see people claiming that they are telepathic, or can materialize at will, I cringe. Can you honestly blame mainstream science for ignoring the phenomenon, when many of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for serious research into the subject offer up paranormal or supernatural explanations for allegedly observed behaviours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest COGrizzly Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I agree with Guy - no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TexasTracker Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 My vote is no as well... I think the broad term "relic hominid" is appropriate. As we learn more and find more fossil evidence, we will learn that our family tree is closer to a family briar patch. I also agree that the Almas/Almasty sounds amazingly close to Neanderthal.... I think finding that creature will be on par with our discovery over here. Just hoping I live long enough to see that happen. JMO on all this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 If such a creature does actually exist ........ they may be one of the most intelligent animals on the planet...........but that is probably all they are......intelligent animals. And that is all we are too. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Sorry, Mike. Humans > Animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Sorry TF......humans are a subset of animals. If not, this is your choice: Animal Mineral Vegetable Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You look at things from a purely biological POV. But there are far greater reasons why humans are ABOVE the animals. In many, many ways...You and I have discussed this before so you know what I'm referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 We may have some abilities that put us above the OTHER animals, but we are still an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 We'll agree to disagree on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts