Sister Species Of Neanderthal?

[WSA]

And how did I miss that the first time around? Brilliant.

 

I mean, you can only be pushed so far, right?

[Guest]

She was dead, if the Humans had wanted her to be.........and it would have made little difference if the men had been armed with Bows or Spears. I do not believe that it was a good thing to bump into your cousins in the forest alone in pre history. 

 

I think you give our ancestors more credit than is due...

 

I don't believe humans with spears could have killed a squatch...

_{May we compare humans to lions and squatch to leopards? Now lions (us) are the undisputed kings of the jungle. However, when studied deeper, leopards are actually a lot more successful than lions. They have a wider range and wider prey species. Of course if they cross paths the leopard will lose, however the leopard has evolved to ensure they don't cross paths too often.}

 

_{It appears squatch have evolved to avoid crossing paths with us and there is still plenty of habitat which enables this apparently.}

[norseman]

I think you give our ancestors more credit than is due...

 

I don't believe humans with spears could have killed a squatch...

_{May we compare humans to lions and squatch to leopards? Now lions (us) are the undisputed kings of the jungle. However, when studied deeper, leopards are actually a lot more successful than lions. They have a wider range and wider prey species. Of course if they cross paths the leopard will lose, however the leopard has evolved to ensure they don't cross paths too often.}

 

_{It appears squatch have evolved to avoid crossing paths with us and there is still plenty of habitat which enables this apparently.}

 

Your making my point.

 

Sasquatch isn't apart of the genus Homo IMO. It's a bipedal ape that took a very different evolutionary path (not by choice mind you), but because of survival. It could not defeat early humans because we run in packs and puncture repeatedly everything we could see and corner.

 

They fled to the shadows. They didn't stand and fight like other competing Homo species did, which were either assimilated or obliterated.

[WSA]

Yep, I would agree this is the most likely scenario Norse. It is the classic flight v. fight instinct at work. Some adapt by standing and fighting, and end up being overcome by superior numbers and/or technology (this includes forced breeding with the conquerors) or fleeing to more remote habitats.  Adaptation follows from the choice the animal makes, or adaptation IS the choice. Evolution cements these choices into the gene pool.  Pretty much your standard  Darwinian selection at work. 

[southernyahoo]

 

 

I've never seen a Lynx or a Wolverine in the wild either...........and yet they are there. So am I to conclude that they too have the same intelligence or are smarter than Humans?

 

Look at other cryptids..........who are equally as elusive, but represent non ape species, such as large long neck dinosaurs? 

 

Surely we cannot use elusiveness as a measuring stick to decide what is smart and what is not.

 

We have to use the fossil record, Homo Erectus used fire and fashioned stone hand axes millions of years ago, on the evolutionary tree? Should I expect to find Sasquatch above or below that branch of the tree? I say below.

 

I would say that if bigfoot is real and where it is seen, then it is very intelligent, or we would find them dead or could hunt it down. Do you think pure shock when we see it stops that from happening? 

[hiflier]

Hello southernyahoo,

You bring up a great point. Hunters just by the act of hunting understand what it's like from both the aspects of hunting and the act of being hunted. It's the nature of the situation that brings this more into focus. Seeing reports from hunters one gets to look into the mind of one a bit, and where a Bigfoot sighting is made the thoughts concerning why they didn't pull the trigger vary but in many cases it is out of fear. Hunters know best what happens when an animal is only wounded- bad things can happen and they understand the potential of that better than most.

Many things can occur in one's mind in a matter of a split second and no doubt a miss or a non-kill shot has to be in the forfront of their minds. Sasquatch is a big animal and the likelihood of a hunter doubting a definite kill, or even how to kill an animal that large, must be part if that instantaneous equation. If they get past the shock and fear that is. If they are hunting relatively alone this has to be even more of a concern about their OWN survival should a decision be made to shoot the animal. It doesn't seem to occur often although there are reports of people actually taking the shot.

The "what if I miss" though I would think is one of the chief factors in NOT taking the shot, especially if one is alone. I wonder if most question whether what they are using for a weapon is adequate to do the job and I'll venture that many decide it's not just by experience. I would not want to be in that situation given the choice.

Edited August 24, 2013 by hiflier

[WRabbit]

I think most hunters would hesitate to shoot while trying to figure out what they're seeing (to make sure it isn't human).  A pro-kill hunter looking for the creature would be a different story.

[Guest]

So much of our views on the existence/non-existence of another bipedal hominid on this earth is shaded by our overall inability to grok that we are only just the victor in a very long war between similar species. This brutal natural selection process may have very likely driven the runner-ups into furtive seclusion. Given our propensity to visit murder on our own kind, this seems to be a sound adaptive strategy on their part. Say what you want on the kill/no-kill debate, you can't overlook the proof of humans' default setting of killing first, then examining what you've killed to learn more about it. We do that. A lot. We out-breed and out-kill all comers. We are the locust horde and we would sooner open a can of whoop-ass on you than spit. Every other sentient being on the planet knows that well, and a Sasquatch probably would know it better than anything out there.

 

And if life wasn't that way, we wouldn't have made it past the pre-ameba stage.

I think you give our ancestors more credit than is due...

 

I don't believe humans with spears could have killed a squatch...

_{May we compare humans to lions and squatch to leopards? Now lions (us) are the undisputed kings of the jungle. However, when studied deeper, leopards are actually a lot more successful than lions. They have a wider range and wider prey species. Of course if they cross paths the leopard will lose, however the leopard has evolved to ensure they don't cross paths too often.}

 

_{It appears squatch have evolved to avoid crossing paths with us and there is still plenty of habitat which enables this apparently.}

There are stories about American Indians going after them when they took too many of their women/children and showing them up. Bows and arrows and spears. 5 arrows in the torso will eventually be fatal.

[southernyahoo]

Hello southernyahoo,

You bring up a great point. Hunters just by the act of hunting understand what it's like from both the aspects of hunting and the act of being hunted. It's the nature of the situation that brings this more into focus. Seeing reports from hunters one gets to look into the mind of one a bit, and where a Bigfoot sighting is made the thoughts concerning why they didn't pull the trigger vary but in many cases it is out of fear. Hunters know best what happens when an animal is only wounded- bad things can happen and they understand the potential of that better than most.

Many things can occur in one's mind in a matter of a split second and no doubt a miss or a non-kill shot has to be in the forfront of their minds. Sasquatch is a big animal and the likelihood of a hunter doubting a definite kill, or even how to kill an animal that large, must be part if that instantaneous equation. If they get past the shock and fear that is. If they are hunting relatively alone this has to be even more of a concern about their OWN survival should a decision be made to shoot the animal. It doesn't seem to occur often although there are reports of people actually taking the shot.

The "what if I miss" though I would think is one of the chief factors in NOT taking the shot, especially if one is alone. I wonder if most question whether what they are using for a weapon is adequate to do the job and I'll venture that many decide it's not just by experience. I would not want to be in that situation given the choice.

 

I agree that exactly what people see in that moment makes a difference and doubt about many things creeps or crashes into the equation. I think my primary point to Norseman is that when left alone, BF has an exceptional track record of leaving no specimens/bodies behind. It would have to be a conscious effort on their part, to be spread out in various parts of the country and be this consistent.

[norseman]

I would say that if bigfoot is real and where it is seen, then it is very intelligent, or we would find them dead or could hunt it down. Do you think pure shock when we see it stops that from happening? 

 

I don't have all the answers of course:)

 

But I certainly think a deer hunter bent on putting meat in his freezer for the winter, is not in "giant bipedal ape mode" if he stumbles upon one.

 

I would not call them intelligent, but I would call them wily. Chimps make drives and catch prey strategically, just like we hear about Squatch...........are Chimps intelligent? I suppose that depends on your perspective. 

[Sunflower]

Chimps have been filmed working on problem solving so yes if they can figure out how to get the treat from the puzzle box, that says they are intelligent.

 

Hairy guys figure out how to open chicken houses over and over again.  They know that door knobs have to be turned to open the door.  If the door happens to be locked from the inside they can tear it off.  That's problem solving lol.

[Guest DWA]

I'd say it depends on what scale you wish to measure intelligence. Perhaps once you have a decades worth of hunting them, you'll understand their intelligence better. If intelligence were measured in elusiveness, I'd say sasquatch has put a whoopin on us for the last 5 decades, and it's not entirely because nobody will shoot one on sight, but conversely because they will.

Well, to read the lit, many a hunter has been in position to give us that specimen, and almost to a man they chose not to.

 

(A couple, at least, made the other choice, one by accident, one not recorded, and no I'm not talking Dyer or Smeja.  That they didn't bring a body back for the scientists doesn't make them liars.)

 

What's "hiding" these animals is our refusal to recognize that they could be real, which yeah, is a question that involves intelligence, and its application, isn't it?