Operation Persistence

[Guest DWA]

Totally agree. You should check out the Radio Lab segment. It was great. All about how, as whooping crane populations rebound, people need to teach them all the things they forgot as a species. Awesome stuff.

http://www.radiolab....tion-migration/

My concern with this line of reasoning (and the reason I posted what I did ) is that some people will try to use it to "round up" wood apes (and all animals, I suppose) to semi-human levels of parity with us. There are pretty bright and distinct lines that separate man from animal and we shouldn't forget it.

Right. The "they are human look at the feet" or "they are clearly homo sapiens, they walk on two legs like us" (so does the whooping crane) is something that if I hear it one more time...

And then there's saskeptic, a guy I am arguing with on another thread, who makes an interesting point about forgetting and re-learning stuff.

"The diary of Portuguese explorer Duarte Pacheco Pereira (1506), preserved in the Portuguese National Archive (Torre do Tombo), is probably the first European document to acknowledge chimpanzees built their own rudimentary tools."

And Jane Goodall "discovered" this in, um, 1965...?

And Bindernagel does the tack too, reminding us that the New York Times was going on and on about, so, are we going to confirm these "wildman" reports or not....in 1870...

Edited December 6, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Comparing apples and oranges

[Guest]

In what way?

[Guest]

On Radio Lab, I just heard a story where they describe how whooping cranes have to teach their young how to drink because otherwise they can't figure it out and die. That's part of a set of "learned behaviors" but it's not culture. At least not based on this difinition:

"[T]he term 'culture' in American anthropology had two meanings: (1) the evolved human capacity to classify and represent experiences with symbols, and to act imaginatively and creatively; and (2) the distinct ways that people living in different parts of the world classified and represented their experiences, and acted creatively. Distinctions are currently made between the physical artifacts created by a society, its so-called material culture and everything else, the intangibles such as language, customs, etc., that are the main referent of the term 'culture'."

I'm not saying wood apes don't teach their young basic skills involving hunting or shelter making or what have you. They probably do. But there's no creativity involved. There's no signs of symbology. There's no sasquatch cave paintings or carvings. No evidence of ritual. They do not build fire or appear to have any "technology" of any kind (above, perhaps, very crude tools such that other primates use - sticks and rocks). This is what I mean when I say they're not "human." They act more like gorillas and chimps, not aborigines. They do not do the basic things all people do wherever they are.

I have a somewhat leftfield theory* that BF may be part of a human or near-human group that chose to reject culture/society, or was forcibly rejected - perhaps for being 'different' maybe, possibly through crossbreeding. It's leftfield, but might explain any lack of obvious inherited cultural traits.

*not based on any evidence of course, it's just a whole bunch of speculation

Edited December 6, 2012 by corvus horribilus

[Guest Orygun]

I'm not saying wood apes don't teach their young basic skills involving hunting or shelter making or what have you. They probably do. But there's no creativity involved. There's no signs of symbology. There's no sasquatch cave paintings or carvings. No evidence of ritual. They do not build fire or appear to have any "technology" of any kind (above, perhaps, very crude tools such that other primates use - sticks and rocks). This is what I mean when I say they're not "human." They act more like gorillas and chimps, not aborigines. They do not do the basic things all people do wherever they are.

Just to be clear:

You have had a fleeting glimpse of them once (from what you have reported) and yet you are making a lot of assertions about their behavior. Do they have rituals? You don't know, you haven't seen them enough to determine that. Do they use tools? Perhaps all the stuff being flung at the cabin is via portable trebuchet?

Without actual study of behaviors your position is just that, an opinion that you have gathered based on your experiences, not by observing the actual creatures.

[Guest]

I have a somewhat leftfield theory...

At no point did any species of primate "reject" their natural development. Homo sapiens didn't make a strategic decision to develop as we have. Like we all sat around and voted or something. Individuals can make decisions like that, but not species. Species go where their abilities and evolution take them. And you can't be expelled from that natural development. If they were incompatible with us or some other early competitors and were driven away (which may be exactly what happened), wouldn't they just have developed into something more human-like somewhere else by themselves? Like Homo floresiensis? And wouldn't that ultimately be a dead-end (again, Homo floresiensis)?

If there are examples of what you're describing somewhere in the natural world, then I'm willing to be educated on the matter, but I don't think there is. I think a lot of people want to make them more than they are. Like that old saying about the animal that runs like a horse and sounds like a horse and smells like a horse being a zebra. Wood apes act like apes. They're apes. At least, IMO.

Without actual study of behaviors your position is just that, an opinion that you have gathered based on your experiences, not by observing the actual creatures.

I don't argue that, but I'm not speaking simply from my own personal experiences. I'm working from the combined experiences of those in the TBRC who I firmly believe have been in close contact with these creatures for upwards of six months (and, of course, the vast witness data we're all familiar with). The TBRC has a lot of observational data, but not all there is to have. You're right, we've not been able to observe them so closely that we know for a fact they don't have a burial ritual or something, but "culture" is more than that. There are inevitably physical remnants of culture left behind. Where are those things? Why don't we find them? This isn't like the "why don't we find a body" argument. The detritus of culture would not decompose so quickly or be spread by scavengers. It should be there and it's not. No writing, no rock art, not even artful arrangement of environmental objects.

The problem with your assertion, from my perspective, is it asks us to give them the benefit of the doubt against all observed behavior. That they're somehow a totally new and wholly unique kind of "human" that does none of the things other human-type species have done. I don't understand why they should be given that benefit, especially when doing so leads to a delay in their recognition and ultimate protection.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bipto

[Guest]

Bipto- You may want to read up alittle on how the scientific world evaluates culture. One web site that may enlighten you is nonhumanrights.org. Apples and oranges? Differant species are looked at on their own merits not in comparison to how we behave. An example is interaction with each other and that the scientific world considers (in this case) a Sasquatch valueing anothers rights or space, or the weight of a presented offering. Go ahead and give this site a try, it might help in your observation to consider. Also since you call the Sasquatch a "wood ape", what do you call us--- a "concrete ape? Just wondering.

[Guest]

Tech apes, actually. I like the ring of that.

Also, I'd say I doubt seriously that The Nonhuman Rights Project represents the consensus opinion of science or anyone. It's a fringe movement whose motivations I'm not entirely unsympathetic to, but that are flawed IMO.

[Guest]

I have made a similar observation and I will agree with Bipto. They are animals because they have no culture.

[Guest]

And your assumptions are baseless also without any back up BTW.

[Guest]

So baseless you post your response stating it is such immediately after my post. Kinda tips your hand.

I go out there. I am observant. My integrity is something you dismiss. What about you in any way has a base in this discussion? Because you have an opinion?

Edited December 6, 2012 by Woodswalker

[Guest]

I back up my assertions with the observational data I have at my disposal and the accumulated mass of credible sightings we all get to read.

Plus, obviously, my personal experiences. What I try not to do is make it overly personal or emotional.

[Guest DWA]

I back up my assertions with the observational data I have at my disposal and the accumulated mass of credible sightings we all get to read.

Plus, obviously, my personal experiences. What I try not to do is make it overly personal or emotional.

Really, gang.

The BFF is about let's-talk-bigfoot and let's-help-the-community, not about where's-your-proof.

People will have opinions. They will show here. I've read ...well, you may not want to compare what you have read with what I have. I'm with Bipto.

Now, are we wrong? Omigod, well scientists are never wrong, are they...? So sure, we might be too. Habituators may be all pulling our legs...or they may have a front seat to something we'd love to see. Everybody is putting up and putting in their two cents. Your opinion is invited.

But I'm not sure what it's helping telling the community "I am right and you are wrong."

(Now when we're arguing with skeptics we may have to toy a bit with that last sentence.)

Whatever sasquatch is...show me the proof, and I'm down with it.

[Guest]

Omigod, well scientists are never wrong, are they...? So sure, we might be too.

Maybe this isn't the case with all scientists since they're just people, too, but science itself is best when it's wrong. The purpose of it isn't to have all the answers, but to find them. Hypotheses deserve to be proven right or wrong and it's not until you prove them right or wrong that you actually learn.

The TBRC has created a hypothesis based on its interpretation of facts at its disposal. That's all we can do. What we don't do is imagine things we'd like to be true and then create facts to support that. We have had experiences with wood apes. We have seen them. We have observed and recorded their behavior as best we can so we don't doubt they're there. Everything we've seen and experienced, in our estimation, supports our hypothesis. If we collect data that suggests a different interpretation is in order, we will consider it.

Edited December 6, 2012 by bipto

[Guest DWA]

It's a principle of science: discard that theory when a new one fits the facts better.

Right now, that's all any of us has. But outmoded theories about things we've known about forever are being tossed, all the time. And that is as it should be.