Wild Bigfoot

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I don't claim to know everything about Bigfoot. Never have. Yet I do know a few things about wild animals and animals in general. Animals are... well, animals! We, as humans, tend to ascribe human attributes to animals. For instance, my grandmother has a small dog. She treats this dog like a person. This dog would die if left alone in the wild for a day because it has been spoiled rotten. She has told me that this dog is part of the family in no uncertain terms.

I know that people tend to anthropomorphize their animals, as well as animals in general. They see the animals as having feelings and emotions as a human would.

I believe that this could be the case with Bigfoot, especially since it has such a human-like appearance. I've heard everything from Bigfoot braids it's hair to Bigfoot jumps moving trains. While these things could be possible, I don't find them to be very probable.

While Bigfoot could be a sentient being, I wonder if we have ascribed human characteristics to the creature that just don't exist. Does it mourn for it's dead? Does it fall in love? Does it have a bond with others in it's community? Does it believe in an afterlife? Does it rely on instinct or does it actually have the ability to learn as humans do?

Personally, I believe that Bigfoot is an animal - Regardless of how human-like it may be. I believe it could be cannibalistic. I think that it could be communal, but so is a lion. It could be migratory, but so are animals such as elk. Most animals only have two things on their mind - Mating and food. Do they respect others of their kind, or do they just exist within their own desire for what they need or want with no regard for others of their kind?

I say ape. What say you?

Feel free to post examples of Bigfoot being carnal or displaying traits of human behavior.

[Guest Kronprinz Adam]

I don't claim to know everything about Bigfoot.....While Bigfoot could be a sentient being, I wonder if we have ascribed human characteristics to the creature that just don't exist. Personally, I believe that Bigfoot is an animal...I say ape. What say you?

Feel free to post examples of Bigfoot being carnal or displaying traits of human behavior.

Dear See-teh-cah

Greetings from Guatemala!! It is a tough question (specially becase no biologist or expert in animal behavior has had the chance to study Bigfoot, so everything we know comes from sightings and glimpses of Bigfoot activity). There are several points of view, from the pure animalistic one to the wise creature protector of the woods...

I suggest this article, is a classic one, from Dmitry Bayanov, that tries to answer this though question..."Is manimal more man than animal?"

http://www.hominolog.../discussion.htm

I have my own ideas. I recently saw a documentary about genetics...a german scientist did several genetic tests on Neanderthal bones in order to extract information about these creatures, and compare to chimps and humans....the documentary explained that there is only 3-4% of genetic difference between humans and chimps..

We share similar genes, but they are somewhat expressed differently in humans and chimps...some characteristics are like more "intense" in humans...the 3-4% genetic difference is related to the brain activity...complex culture, intellect, creativity, social pattens, learning....(We can make a simple analogy, is like having 2 computers with similar hardware but running different software).

Chimps are smart and curious creatures. For sure, their strenght, speed and agility makes easier for them to survive in the forest. After watching this program. I started to think that maybe, the genetic difference between humans and Bigfoot or Almasty creatures (although Almasties are described more human-like), should be less than 3%....but 1-2% difference in intellectual activity should be enough to make humans live in cities and towns, while the Bigfoot and Almasty remain in the wilderness...for sure they survive in the forest better than us due to strength and endurance, but it seems they lack a portion of the intellectual develpment of humans...probably their development is in another direction, having mental structures different from us and following their inherent instincts...

The program concluded that Neanderthals were not a direct human ancestors or a direct chimp offspring...but something "different", like a parallel branch...

Best regards,

K. Adam.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Kronprinz Adam

[indiefoot]

Does your Grandma's dog talk? I heard what I believe to have been two BF exchanging sentences in a language that sounded like a gutteral form of asian. At the time I thought Korean.

[Guest]

I say people. Because they have language. Because they build shelters, use lashing (yes), and build screens and blinds we never notice, use some tools, and save humans sometimes, when they are not eating them They do eat people I think. But so do some humans. Which leads to kuru....but that is another thread. And not people. Because of the ooooo oooo ooo noises and chest thumping and general apieness.

Of course, what makes a human a human, exactly, is a long debated topic, ....I am not sure we really have to choose. DNA will tell us a lot. Comes back "unknown primate," I hear. That isn't a human and isn't another primate. So maybe it's in some middle territory. Another wait and see situation.

[ShadowBorn]

Like i have said many times before ,there are times that i am not sure of their intentions.I do believe that they are wild and may act like an animal.But this is their being or way of life.There are not to many things one can say since these creatures are not the creatues of habit like our other forest friends are.Deer you can perdict same goes with elk and bear.But there is nothing that says that you can perdict there next movement. They have this Instinct of animal in them but at the same time they seem to be like us in ways that I or we can not understand.But wild they surely are and there is no mistake about that.

[Guest thermalman]

Kron............it's that 3-4% that makes the difference between chimps and man. Not much in percentage, but when you attach it to the 3 billion pairs of chromosomes, you're now talking about 90K different pairs.

[Guest]

I have problems with the OP.

First, even if they are "apes" as opposed to HSS or some derivative/cousin to/whatever thereof, that does not make them "animals" in the sense that See is implying. Highly developed intellectual/emotional behaviors are well documented among higher primates, esp the orangutan, chimpanzee and gorilla. There is very good evidence that gorillas are in fact sentient (if somewhat intellectually limited), and possess distinct personalities beyond behaviors that are simple impulse/reaction instincts.

Which leads into my larger objection, that highly evolved complex mentalities capable of things like emotion are the exclusive province. It is well documented that various other animals such as elephants, dogs, cats, etc are more than capable of displaying individual temperaments that cannot be explained as ingrained instinctual behavior. That's not something we are "projecting" onto them, that's something we are recognizing that is already part of them, as complex intellectual beings.

Now where we may get into trouble (which may be what See is really getting at) is to expect a non-human being to react in the exact same way as a human being. Not all developed intellects have to process similar situations in a similar manner. More "primitive" intellects, such as those possessed by a wolf, or a big cat, or a bear, (or Bigfoot) will produce more "primitive" reactions and responses. This is entirely in keeping with an overall less advanced state of development, which favors physicality over the mentality. Humans, on the other hand, developed to favor the mentality over the physicality. This has forced us to adopt less primal and more sophisticated intellects and emotions to deal with the fact that we must interact in larger groups and more complex ways in order to prosper species-wise.

[Guest]

See , I agree. For eons people had no problem knowing what was animal what was human

Now we need someone with a phd before we can know what to think

I've seen no evidence that bigfoot uses fire or tools or builds shelter

Rem

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

We are supposedly the only humans alive today. I think due to that, our view of what is human and what isn't is pretty limited. I agree that Sasquatch are wild and uncivilized, but their life style might not be the best indicator of where exactly on the tree of life they are. Living organisms are constantly changing, so I think they could very well be humans that simply live a different way. At this point I'm convinced they are Homo *something*. Whether or not they would be categorized as Homo Sapiens *something* is my burning question.

[Guest BFSleuth]

While Bigfoot could be a sentient being, I wonder if we have ascribed human characteristics to the creature that just don't exist. Does it mourn for it's dead? Does it fall in love? Does it have a bond with others in it's community? Does it believe in an afterlife? Does it rely on instinct or does it actually have the ability to learn as humans do?

I think some of the behaviors observed in certain birds and mammals could be ascribed to possible mourning (or at least recognition of death). Chimps and crows will gather around a dead member of their group for a period of time. I think your observation that the only thing that animals think of is eating or procreation is likely too limiting. I would take a more expansive or open minded view of animal cognition and behavior and note that it is likely to be on a continuum with human cognition and behavior, rather than a dichotomy. Historically we humans have wanted to note a clear and complete separation of ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom for a variety of reasons. However, I think there is much more in common than many people think.

Certainly by the time you get to higher primates or cetacea there is much more than only food or procreation on their minds, and evidence of real learning that is passed on through social structures and communication. If the rumors of the closeness of BF DNA are proven to be true, then it would open the possibility to high level cognition, communication, and potential for complex social behavior and adaptations passed through generations.

I think they are likely the most complex and intelligent animal on the planet, next to humans. In some areas they may have superior cognition or abilities for processing stimuli and based on behavioral observations would have perceptions that exceed human capacity (such as night vision or sense of smell). If they truly do have language and the ability to pass learning from generation to generation, then that would be remarkable. They would potentially be a "missing link" to our understanding of the animal world, as was mentioned by some Native American tribes that noted they are "between" the world of man and animal.

[Guest]

I don't care what they are, as long as it is scientifically documented what they are.I do not get romantic regarding the topic. I know that makes for boring conversation, and I apologise.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Now where we may get into trouble (which may be what See is really getting at) is to expect a non-human being to react in the exact same way as a human being.

Bingo. Short and sweet.

I believe this expectation will get somebody hurt or killed if and when they come into contact with the creature. JMHO.

Great responses, guys. Keep posting your thoughts. Examples to substantiate either view are most welcome.

[AaronD]

See, my opinion is and has always been--giant hybrid humans whose centuries in the wild have adapted their bodies (hair, resilience to cold, raw meat diet), and for whatever reason they have never joined civilization---it appears they have gone to great pains to avoid it. JMO, and of course, I have nothing to back it up Maybe someday, someone will record an Interview with a Sasquatch

[Guest]

Bingo. Short and sweet.

I believe this expectation will get somebody hurt or killed if and when they come into contact with the creature. JMHO.

Obviously that is potentially true. I am firmly of the opinion, after much reading and talking to those with more direct experience than I have, that you are running a risk being near one of these creatures, no differently than if you were near a bear or such in the wild. You do NOT know what the situation is, nor can you absolutely predict what their response is going to be to you and your activities.

Oh, and Sleuth, you forgot elephants and gorillas in your list of animals known to mourn.

[Guest JenJen of Oldstones]

When I first started reading about Bigfoot, when I was just curious, I guess I assumed it was an animal. But based on what I've read since becoming obsessed, I find myself leaning towards the-Sasquatch-is-a-primitive-human camp. However, if I'd ever had an encounter, I might think differently. It was really eerie reading the answers on the "Is Bigfoot Human?" thread from people who have had Class A encounters, most of whom answered the question with an emphatic "NO."