Guest peter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I say ape. What say you? Ape; anything else is either a Darwin or Roddenberry fantasy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 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. I will add my humble opinion on this part. Animals, wild or domestic, can be quite unpredictable. I have many scars that form my opinion on this. And I do think that if real, someone's romanticism of BF will get them harmed/killed. If what I have been in fairly close proximity to is BF, I ain't trying to be friends. I don't really care where it falls genetically, I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it. I guess that would put me in the ape category. I don't want to comment on humanizing of animals, it could go nowhere productive for this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 ^there is a difference between "humanizing" animals, and recognizing that some types of animals can and do have complex intellectual and/or emotional capacities that rise above the level of brute instinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mdhunter Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) ^ I agree 100%. I had written something a little longer and deleted it. I was referring to the likes of Disney with "humanizing" and how that can be a not so good thing. Comparing it to what you are saying about some types of animals, which I personally agree with 100% (through experience). And is pretty well accepted as scientific fact. Edit: I pretty much agree with your first post also Mulder. Edited October 12, 2012 by mdhunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) I agree with OntarioSquatch. I believe Bigfoot is a Homo of some kind. There have been numerous other known Homo species that have lived along side Homo Sapiens until about 24,000 years ago. I wonder what happened 24,001 years ago to cause this extinction, but allowed Homo Sapiens, Denisovans and Floresiens to live on. And what happened in the last few thousand years that caused the extinction of Denisovans and Floresiens, but continued to let us live on? It's a head scratcher... Ape; anything else is either a Darwin or Roddenberry fantasy.. I can infer from this statement a religious connotation. And from what I understand religious based comments are not allowed in this forum. That being said, science has us as Hominids. Hominid = Great Ape. Humans are Hominidae Homo Sapien. Gorillas are Homindae Gorilla Gorilla. Chimps are Homindae Pan Troglodytes. Bigfoot is probably a Hominid, not unlike humans, but probably more recognizable as one of the following: Homo habilis Homo rudolfensis Homo ergaster Homo georgicus Homo erectus Homo cepranensis Homo antecessor Homo heidelbergensis Homo rhodesiensis Homo neanderthalensis Homo sapiens idaltu Archaic Homo sapiens (Cro-magnon) Homo floresiensis Dryopithecus Oreopithecus (hominin status disputed) Paranthropus Australopithecus Sahelanthropus (hominin status highly problematic) Orrorin Ardipithecus Kenyanthropus (Thanks Wikipedia) Edited October 12, 2012 by Mounty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Being a modern human is all about cranial capability and early learning. If you were unfortunate to leave a very young child in the wild, and that child was fortunate enough to survive somehow to adulthood either with the help of other animals or on its own (very unlikely but not impossible), then it is unlikely that the resultant adult would behave anything like you and I. Its behaviour might resemble an animal, perhaps. For me, bigfoot is a Homo Erectus descendant of some sort: my guess would be a Denisovan / HSS 'crossbreed'. I base this partly on footprints (very like what we have for Homo Neanderthalensis), partly on the small but useful migratory evidence we have for the last 100K years, but chiefly on the fact that there is excellent 'crossbreed' evidence in all of us today who are not of contemporary African origin. Being hairy and not acting 'human' is not enough for me to think BF is an ape. Edited October 12, 2012 by corvus horribilus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I could really write a long, in depth reply on this. I could site examples of wild people/children as corvus mentioned. Being what most people consider "Human" is definitively influenced by how they are raised,and taught early in life. I say, Sasquatch is not a "Human" by what most accept as the standard for being human, but it is certainly not an ape. I think at one time we where not so different, and our evolutionary paths went down two totally different directions. My very first class in Anthropology way back when, the prof said......you have to cast aside your predetermined notions that building things, inventing things, and society structure have anything at all to do with intelligence, they do not. Its important to remember, even the people we label as primitive, think we are the non-humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 How do genetic humans fair when raised non-human? How do genetic non-humans fair when raised human? The forbidden experiment would be to raise a Hss infant in sasquatch society, and a sasquatch infant in Hss society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Humans are animals. I think a Sasquatch's intelligence might be another hint at what they are. An "ape" like a chimp or gorilla wouldn't be able to stay hidden in every state and province like that. Think about how a wild and uneducated human being would behave in the wild. I'm guessing they would behave a lot like most other animals. Edited October 12, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) An experiment was carried out in the 30's with Gua, a chimpanzee of 7.5 months raised together with Donald, a human child of 10 months age. http://en.wikipedia....ua_(chimpanzee) The long and short of it is that mental abilities were similar up until when Donald reached 16 months, after which the spark of verbal language turned on in Donald but not in Gua. Could this be one of many criteria for being 'modern human' ? Edited October 12, 2012 by poignant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Trust me, they talk. I think that is a big point in favor of their humanity. However, they are also sort of derpy. What is with the lack of tools? I am sure they have some, but no table saws or anything really good. I don't think they even make baskets, although they weave branches together in trees. Very contradictory to my mind. When I have some over for dinner, after they pass the laws to protect them, I will inquire of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SquatchinNY Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I know a knowledgeable friend (Not the camping guy), who thinks they are "feral humans". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 You can see footage, and learn a fair bit about feral humans, I have not looked on you tube, but I bet its there. It is very interesting, and even somewhat disturbing, especially the girl who was raised with dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted October 13, 2012 Moderator Share Posted October 13, 2012 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. I totally agree and there is no way to know what the intentions of these creature really are uless they tell you. My big fear is what will happen if you happen to run into one that is having a bad day.Then what will you do run or take it cause you know you will have no choice but to take the beating.What an awfull way to die by being beaten by fist of fury,tossed like a rag doll or having your limbs torn off.Yak and awful turn of events one would have thinking that they are such sweet hearts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Humans are animals. I think a Sasquatch's intelligence might be another hint at what they are. An "ape" like a chimp or gorilla wouldn't be able to stay hidden in every state and province like that. Some 60,000 lowland gorillas managed to do just that for some time in a relatively cramped area. Trust me, they talk. I think that is a big point in favor of their humanity. However, they are also sort of derpy. What is with the lack of tools? I am sure they have some, but no table saws or anything really good. I don't think they even make baskets, although they weave branches together in trees. Very contradictory to my mind. When I have some over for dinner, after they pass the laws to protect them, I will inquire of them. Being much more physically capable, they have lesser need for tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts