What Is Sasquatch?

[Guest DWA]

heh heh heh.

 

And if we don't chip down that edifice, the facts assert themselves, and do it for us.

[WSA]

Right, a gibbon don't need your stinkin' house. (Also, I'd be loath to omit, neither does the harry one)

[Guest Darrell]

Again Sasquatch can be anything you want it to be, it just depends on how someone decides to believe what they read or what is told to them. Sub-human, super-human, spirt being, shape shifter whatever you want it to be it is. Pick your position, pick your leader, and make up the rules as you go.

[georgerm]

 

Lightheart just posted a link that helps our discussion progress IMHO, when it comes to answering the question, "What is bigfoot?" The quote below begins to define what is human and what's not.

 

 

"Generally the claim is made that with language and now permanent record keeping we have a cumulative culture that allows us to accomplish many things that other animals could not," Burghardt said. "But that does not mean that individual humans are superior in all abilities to all other species."

 

Now we have a new qualifier for humans; record keeping. Does being a human also have something to do with compassion for others and other species? What about moral conduct? Plain old animals are pretty rough on each other and have no qualms with stealing, murder, pain and suffering imposed on others. That's why we say, "Oh, they're just a bunch of animals." Does BF have moral standards and compassion? Seems like stealing is ok since many ice chests get raided during human camp outs.

 

Bigfoot may have some human DNA but one opinion is, it's not a human, not a subspecies of human, but a subhuman with a high degree of stealth intelligence and survival  powers. Now if BF chooses not to make fires, and knows how to make spears but simply enjoys hunting deer bare handed then we need to reconsider.

 

Do we even know if BF can crossbreed with humans? If so, then this still does not put them on a human level?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2013 by AaronD
Reduced font size

[southernyahoo]

I'm sure they would be intelligent in different ways than us, in reference to LT's link above. though that may not be what is measurable in the evidence or even a specimen. It would be a clue why there isn't more evidence perhaps. 

[David NC]

the first pic on the left is my favorite pic of boisei. Scientist tend to try to sway people to believe along their lines of what their belief is. I would like to see a recreation artist that will take a skull and reconstruct it without knowing anything of what the animal is "supposed" to be. The reconstruction artists do not want to step on SCIENCE's toes so they can keep their jobs. The artist are told where on the TIME LINE that these skulls fall and that is what they determine how "HUMAN" the recreation should look. Science needs to quit perpetrating "the line of evolution" there is no straight line at one time there were dozens of species of hominins coexisting. all these recreations are supposed to be what boisei looked like.

I do not believe sasquatch are human. Humans /mankind use TECHNOLOGY we cannot survive without it. we use technology to bend and shape our natural world the way we see fit, It does not matter to us if this is what that environment needs or can withstand or not, so therefore I believe sasquatch are not human/mankind. You wonder how a group could leave behind tool use it could be as easy an answer as spirituality. We have groups of people today that forego most technology that we enjoy everyday for the simple reason of spiritual beliefs. We also have a large number of people pulling away from the trappings of society to live a simpler life , a great number of these people going without power and running water. How far do we have to delineate from the norm of the day before we are called animals/savages because of the difference in our relationship with our environment?

[David NC]

the bottom pic is what I believe from a lot of reports that one of the sasquatch would look like.

[bipedalist]

Homo floresiensis whom were consider little wild men by the Homo Sapiens living on Flores still used fire. And probably got to Flores by raft or canoe. In other words the primitives thought they were primitive by comparison to their own culture. And the hobbit was light years ahead of squatch in technology.........,,that to me is a big problem with the "squatch is a human" theory.

Well, I pass on that one. Like the fly that was missed by the swatter; that one's off the wall. 

 

Squatch acts much more like an Orang than a Hobbit.

I can only say two things with certainty: They sure don't look like an Orangutan and I don't have a clue about how a Hobbit might act.

 

Regards

 

...... Well, I've got a clue, a hobbit would kick Norseman in the shins if he ever got the chance.....  

[NathanFooter]

 David NC , that bottom pic is not far off from what I seen. 

 

The nose was more human like and the hair was a bit longer and started just under the eye sockets.  

 

With those changes, that could easily pass for an individual of the species.

Edited December 13, 2013 by NathanFooter

[David NC]

That recreation could use a little bit longer hair on the head and a little more hair on the face.

[Branco]

Nathan & David: I agree, the hair on the heads and the chins of the older red (brown, blonde, grey) ones are longer. The ears on the more mature ones are typically covered by hair.

[Branco]

georgerm: Zana was a truly wild, hair covered being who looked, acted like and was treated like a nonhuman. Yet she was, and she bore children who were fathered by humans. Her son that was taken from her and lived and grew to be an intelligent human. Yet Zana was considered an unclassified primate until the DNA showed she was not. Could that not be case with Sasquatch and the other types of enigmatic and unclassified primates here and elsewhere?

 

From all I've read about her for years, her description certainly seems to closely match that of one in the deep south. I would ask that you just take for granted that such a primate exists in the Deep South, and think about it. Why are they there and what is their lineage? (I think I know, as does a LOT of others who have given it a LOT of thought. But I will CERTAINLY wait on the DNA to see for sure.)

[norseman]

Your post here seems to go both ways here, you said speech is firmly entrenched in the homo genus and then seemingly speak as if you feel it is unlikely for such a case of speech retention to take place.

Also , if you believe the sasquatch to be an ape, how then do you explain the ability of language { as we know it } that is seemingly apparent ?

The hand axe is roughly two million years old and most likely predates language as we know it.

Which means that if squatch is human? Then every anthropological human discovery made by science is also their legacy as well........which would include that hand axe.

I don't believe they have language as we know it. And I cannot tell you what you heard, all I can tell you is that if Sasquatch had language we would see that manifest itself in many different areas that we just do not see.

[Guest]

The dichotomy and classification for species is based off of a part of the body. Typically the vertebrae, the mode of locomotion.  For example the mode of locomotion: plantigrade, unguligrade, or digitgrade. Leaves are shape, then size etc.. You all know the model, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genuis, Specific.

Kingdom = Animalia,  Phylum = Chordata,  Class = Mammalia, Order = Primates,   then into sub-orders and where the problem starts. My quick memory. More on this page of classification. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

 

 

They look the mode of locomotion, vertebrae,  Then, they look at overall digits, hands, and then further into skeleton, teeth, then hair, color etc.. But, the type of plantigrade then causes issues. I may suggest reviewing how homo-sapien and homo-sapien-sapien are classified. In doing this, you not only gain a new perspective on how they classify, but where would it be placed. The last portion is a bit tricky because of several classification keys are not the same on the chart.  A new classification model will need to be created, or the "limb" of the tree. The issue with classification of a "Sasquatch" is where to place them in this "fictional" evolutionary tree. (more on this later) Why? Because as the mDNA has proven to be 11K years old, too young for any hominid in the current "working" model, or a model that has been adopted (wanted to clarify). Second, it is a hybrid proven by nDNA. This would require a new page because of parts of the body are "thrown" together and would mess up the tree.  

 

Language is not part of the classification model. This would be only be added to the sociology and region if there is a language. Since it would be the first language, then there would only be one little bubble. If another is studied and found to have a different language, then there would be a deeper and second bubble. 

Edited December 13, 2013 by BadVooDoo

[norseman]

Lol

The mDNA hasn't been proven at all......