What Is Sasquatch?

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

Just a couple of more comments. 1) Does that mean that we are in agreement? 2) Does this lead to negating, or reducing, the moral issue of taking a type specimen (although it does NOT allow for leniency in only wounding the creature as I'm sure you readily agree). 3) Are you willing to wait out the efforts of Derekfoot's team for further investigation before pursuing that type specimen? And 4) is this the underlying purpose of this topic?

My turn to ask the hard questions.

Edited December 7, 2013 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello All,

To get back on topic, I would seriously consider an Orangutan/Gigantopithicus hybrid; at least for the Branco/Asian hypothesis of one of the three species. Mainly because of four things: intelligence, size, red hair, and opposible thumbs. One could add in arm length vs. leg length and bipedalism but that's a bit redundant. There is no eyeshine in Orangutan but no one knows about Gigantopithicus.

Edited December 7, 2013 by hiflier

[norseman]

Hello Norseman,

Just a couple of more comments. 1) Does that mean that we are in agreement? 2) Does this lead to negating, or reducing, the moral issue of taking a type specimen (although it does NOT allow for leniency in only wounding the creature as I'm sure you readily agree). 3) Are you willing to wait out the efforts of Derekfoot's team for further investigation before pursuing that type specimen? And 4) is this the underlying purpose of this topic?

My turn to ask the hard questions.

I personally think it's an ape......yes, but would love to discuss opposing views in this thread.

I don't think so, I think outside of discovery it should be made illegal to kill ape species including obviously the genus homo.

No , because I do not hold out any hope of Derek's team producing solid proof. Although their anecdotal evidence is quite impressive and I enjoy reading his reports greatly.

Not really, not looking for a pro kill debate or some sort of moral green light because of its place on the tree of life. I just like discussing these things.

[Guest zenmonkey]

Good list norseman! I always leaned toward the giganto hypothesis or something close to an orang. I always personally ignored the whole speech language thing myself but more and more credible  people are coming foreword saying they have heard something to that effect. That takes it out of the Ape category and into something a little more. personally I think its just an incredible sub species of ape. The whole forrest people thing never did it for me.

[bipedalist]

Hello All,

To get back on topic, I would seriously consider an Orangutan/Gigantopithicus hybrid; at least for the Branco/Asian hypothesis of one of the three species. Mainly because of four things: intelligence, size, red hair, and opposible thumbs. One could add in arm length vs. leg length and bipedalism but that's a bit redundant. There is no eyeshine in Orangutan but no one knows about Gigantopithicus.

 

Cnanges in genetic characteristics resulting in a new phenotype could occur in a thousand years or less (re: eyeshine or retinal membrane features or whatever). 

 

I guess the first question we have to ask is, is it within the genus homo or outside of it?

Our genus has the best chance of giving rise to a bipedal creature, as we best represent bipedalism but that means all the rest of the trappings of the genus homo come with it. Large social groups, tool manufacture, fire, and the active pursuit of prey over long distances.

We still have Homo Sapiens living this lifestyle in places like the Amazon and New Guinea.

Sasquatch doesn't seem to fit that mold, or anything remotely close.

Other than bipedalism they seem to be much more like an Orang. solitary, shy, long vocalizations, limited tool use, nest building and no fire.

 

 

I think the solitary thing is certainly up for discussion from indicators such as Branco's observations and such.  I think it is given way too much air-time for the reality of observations made by those close to the action.  Shoot even NAWAC describes groups of target species engaging them (with unexplainable phonemic utterances I might add).

Edited December 7, 2013 by bipedalist

[southernyahoo]

Norse and I have butted heads on this many times and I'll just do my best to lay it out from what I see in the evidence.

 

1. Starting with the PGF, best video and most compelling. The biomechanics of locomotion is just too much like us, which carries all the adaptations of bipedal walking, the bone strutures, balance , muscle developement to not be in the genus homo.

 

2. The tracks are large but exhibit the arrangement of toes that goes with bipedality and thus all fossil tracks like them are attributed to the genus homo or a direct ancestral hominid..

 

3. The vocalizations often have perceptable quantal vowels which, among terrestrial mammals , is unique to modern humans and hotly debated among Anthropologists as to whether earlier forms of hominins like Neanderthal could produce them and thus ,speak like us.

 

4. Facial descriptions often contain the hooded large nose, large but humanlike lips, hair on the eyebrows, whites around the eyes and generally a flat face ( decreased prognathism ) All go with genus homo. Very few reports of the long canines we might associate with the other apes.

 

5. The hair samples have been described to be indistinguishable from human by any criteria, other than the distal ends uncut or worn for Sas. (Fahrenbach). I don't necessarily feel they all are indistinguishable, but Fahrenbach  deserves mention for his long effort on this front.

 

6. The DNA, if they really do have human DNA in them, anywhere, it would be rediculous to classify them anywhere but in the genus homo. Note that I'm not talking about the 98 % we share with other apes but the smaller percentage that makes us human. 

 

 

Currently I think BF are a cross between us and another hominin from an earlier split on the genus homo line, one that kept some physical adaptations that permits their way of life in the wild.

[norseman]

But most reports are of a single individual...... Sure there could be several close by but a "tribe" of individuals? Would be way to easy to track and observe.

[bipedalist]

Well, if anybody in this thread feels like they are omniscient regarding what squatch is then don't hold back, LOL.

 

Still, singular sightings and road crossings may be the statistical mode or even median for recorded observations in databases but what we are increasingly learning from those with close opportunity to "see" or observe more is that they are usually presenting themselves in that fashion for a possible purpose or while engaged in a specific mission such as picking roadkill out of a ditch or some such thing.  In a case like that I think it is rather naive to think they are not traveling with a full complement or backup (JMHO based on things of significance in my personal experience and in distilling the available data from unmistakable close sightings of multiples). 

 

In the meantime I am going to subscribe more to southernyahoo's lists (short of the current dna research "studies" proferred, for now anyways) than a database skewed toward singular views from the windshield of a vehicle or fast moving observations. 

[hiflier]

Hello bipedalist,

 

Databases are for the most part anecdotal anyway. More reports are of a single animal sighting than multiple. It does seem that the deeper one goes into habitat and spend time there is when group encounters occur. I think an element of risk escalates in thet regard.

[norseman]

Norse and I have butted heads on this many times and I'll just do my best to lay it out from what I see in the evidence.

1. Starting with the PGF, best video and most compelling. The biomechanics of locomotion is just too much like us, which carries all the adaptations of bipedal walking, the bone strutures, balance , muscle developement to not be in the genus homo.

2. The tracks are large but exhibit the arrangement of toes that goes with bipedality and thus all fossil tracks like them are attributed to the genus homo or a direct ancestral hominid..

3. The vocalizations often have perceptable quantal vowels which, among terrestrial mammals , is unique to modern humans and hotly debated among Anthropologists as to whether earlier forms of hominins like Neanderthal could produce them and thus ,speak like us.

4. Facial descriptions often contain the hooded large nose, large but humanlike lips, hair on the eyebrows, whites around the eyes and generally a flat face ( decreased prognathism ) All go with genus homo. Very few reports of the long canines we might associate with the other apes.

5. The hair samples have been described to be indistinguishable from human by any criteria, other than the distal ends uncut or worn for Sas. (Fahrenbach). I don't necessarily feel they all are indistinguishable, but Fahrenbach deserves mention for his long effort on this front.

6. The DNA, if they really do have human DNA in them, anywhere, it would be rediculous to classify them anywhere but in the genus homo. Note that I'm not talking about the 98 % we share with other apes but the smaller percentage that makes us human.

Currently I think BF are a cross between us and another hominin from an earlier split on the genus homo line, one that kept some physical adaptations that permits their way of life in the wild.

1) that's true of course and I'm not opposed to squatch being somewhere on the family tree prior to the rise of the genus homo. But we do know now that there was one and possibly other apes that were bipedal as well, but of course we do not know if this adaptation was very similar to our own form of walking or something very different. As we seem to be the only known example still extant on the planet.

But there is ample evidence that patty's gait does differ significantly from our own as well as the anatomy of the foot. With her compliant gait and mid tarsal break does she represent some archaic form of human locomotion or does she like us represent the last of her kind in a parallel adaptation not related to humans at all? I think only a type specimen will solve the mystery.

2) again true, but this is a chicken vs egg question. Is it logical to assume that if you give up a life of swinging in the trees and become bipedal that you will lose your ability to grasp branches with your foot? I think so. And I think its logical to assume that this bipedal adaptation may have happened many times and not just once. Just as radiation out of Africa happened many times and not just once. And remember, oreopithicus fossils are found in Southern Europe.

3) yes but how do we vet vocalizations? If the vocalizations sound just like us? Then maybe they are us. I think that this field concerning squatch is in its infancy.....and I find it the least compelling. I've seen researchers assign squatch calls to known animals on a regular basis, and I've heard many calls that sound like uncle Bob hiding in the bushes.

4) a hooded nose could be a temperate climate adaptation. Again very hard to pin down from the fossil record as it's soft flesh. Large canines have been reported before but I would agree not the majority of reports. But to be fair if a silverback is not baring his teeth at me I would not know the size of his canines either in a brief encounter. Also some extinct apes show decreased prognathism such as Anoiapethicus.

5) what then would make us believe that we are not dealing with a human? I thought a lack of a medulla was unique vs a human?

6) Of course.

What bugs me is that the hand axe is millions of years old, and the use of fire almost that long and I think pro homo enthusiasts need to do a lot of explaining as to why a member of our genus would regress backwards away from such technology that makes it easier to survive.

[Guest Boolywooger]

Branco has interated a three-species from three-global-origin hypothesis.

I must have missed that post. Can someone point me toward it?

[Guest]

Norseman this is something I'm interested in: eyewitness reports of groups of sassies. There is so many questions regarding this. What's the biggest ever bf grouping eye' report. What were the big group doing... etc.

[NathanFooter]

 I have to agree with just about everything SY posted at the top. The individual I seen in 09 was very human like in the face and over all build, imagine the body of an Olympic sprinter with almost no neck and long built arms that was covered in hair.

 

 The biggest reason I lean toward homo is that the sasquatch apparently use some form of so called ,, protolanguage ,, witch in fact may be a complex language equal to our own according to several qualified linguistic experts.   Some here would argue that we do not KNOW sasquatch are the source of these sounds but If recall correctly there are several written reports and at least one told to me of people witnessing a sasquatch make such sounds.

 

 Second, is that the known apes have a protruding mouth structure, where as in most of the reports I have taken or read seem to indicate a mostly flat face with very human features.

 

 I am still open to the ape theory but my experience pushes me toward Just my thoughts

[Guest]

Woooo NathanFooter gl with ur analysises. I'll have to disagree.

[southernyahoo]

What bugs me is that the hand axe is millions of years old, and the use of fire almost that long and I think pro homo enthusiasts need to do a lot of explaining as to why a member of our genus would regress backwards away from such technology that makes it easier to survive.

 

I don;t look at it like a total regression, I think our ancestors were adapted for less reliance on tools, and a portion of them split off and evolved towards physical prowess rather than forming larger groups which depend on gathering of resources. They could simply be more adapted to roaming and physically taking what they need as they go.

 

There might be the simple explanation that they don't use hand axes, or it might be that a hand axe found just isn't attributed to BF as it is thought that no hominins who would depend on them are still extant. How might we know if we can't tell when it was made. with exception of those found in a strata dating to a certain period?