the parkie Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Branco you might approach management here ....... they may have a space for you to organize your material if you don't have current plans for it. A very good idea Branco, if a book is out of the question. Such a shame that all those reports are no longer available. Another repository for them could be the answer.
Branco Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Branco you might approach management here ....... they may have a space for you to organize your material if you don't have current plans for it. We discussed donating my reports to the BFF when Mike decided to shut the web site down, but Bobbie Short had said earlier that she would like to have them. She had been busy on her book, and I didn't think she would want to take time from the book to transfer the reports to her site. While discussing it here on the Forum, she contacted Mike to say she still wanted them. She retrieved most of the Arkansas reports and said she would get those from Alabama and WV after the book was finished. As you know, she passed away before the book was finished. If the BFF wants the reports for their report data base, they are welcome to them. The reports contain a wealth of info, not from me, but from the folks who have learned a lot more about them than I. As I said earlier; those reports have been placed unsorted by date or location on a web blog that has not been made public. If the managements wants them I will provide access to the blog. I'm unclear about the thumbs but I sure put a lot of stock in the Tx observation of the hickory nut crushing sighting report. Are you really serious? Man, that's one I would like to see. I know black bear break the hickory nuts with their teeth, but it seems impossible to me that a BF could do that with its fingers and thumb. If he did, the meat from those things are hard to get out of the hulls. I think a man would starve to death breaking them between rocks and picking out the meat with a pocket knife! LOL. (I figured what the BF was cracking open was probably wild pecans. The meat from those are a lot easier to remove from the shell. But, the witness may be absolutely right.) As always, thanks for your suggestions and comments.
WSA Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) Yeah, tough to make a living out of hickory nuts, even in a good mast year. Natives had the right technique....pound them open w/mortar & pestle, boil them in a vessel with water and skim off the meat and oil. That technology is way above even the most generous description of Sasquatch abilities. Now, the NAWAC have offered up evidence to show they do pound open nuts with one stone against another, so who knows? Maybe a Sasquatch does what a Sasquatch has to do. This does tie in to our defintion of what is human and what is not, or more exactly, how that definition has changed. It was once accepted as doctrine that only humans used tools...unti we learned other non-humans species do, and the list continues to grow. This week it was proposed that crocs use sticks to lure birds. I'm sure it won't be the last discovery of that kind. We know we've not cornered the market on language, and our definition of what is, or isn't, "speech" continues to morph. For my money, a Sasquatch is no less human than I, and I'm no less a monkey than he. Where does that leave us, ultimately? Does it matter? To me, no. If the NAWAC (and you Norse) succeeds in their stated mission, it is not likely to not matter for very long though, granted. The re-definition of "homicide" is bound to be front and center of that post-kill analysis. There is no way to contain or predict that outcome, and I'm sure everyone who hopes to put cross-hairs on one is well aware. If not, they should be. You pulls the trigger, you takes your chances. Maybe not so much the first time it is done, but for sure every time subsequent to that. Edited December 10, 2013 by WSA
Guest Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Wsa- you may want to go to the website nonhumanrights.org and on the left hand side of the first page click on Steve Wises' "Dyson lecture" which explains how legal rights and legal personage is assighed to animate subjects and/or if legal personage is obtined.
Guest Urkelbot Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 I don't think it a likely scenario from an evolutionary stand point to go from erectus, neanderthal, or human to bigfoot. Why give up stone tools, fire, tribe/group all traits which make survival much easier at a small cost. Increasing size by a factor 3-5 while still possessing a large brain requires much more calories. Gaining that size at the expense of the lost traits would make it near impossible to compete. Unless bigfoot has a completely different niche, such as herbivory, then general omnivore erectus/neanderthal/human. But Bigfoot is reported to be omnivorous and doesn't even appear capable of competing with the black bear. The size increase of bigfoot makes no sense. Cold adaption is dependent on surface area/mass so why grow tall? Shorter and more squat would be a better adaptation. Also why evolve stealth along with size wouldn't smaller size make more sense for stealth? The gigantopithecus model makes more sense. In that evolutionary scenario bipedialism is accompanied with a decrease in size. Never had tool use, fire, group/tribe structure to loose. I think people just want bigfoot to be human. For the same reason they give bigfoot all the fantasy attributes like the manticore or sphinx. Super strength, stealth, intelligence, speed not even including the more ridiculous traits mind speak, IR vision, 40 foot lunges, human language, ability to ride trains, etc. All that and bigfoot can't compete with the black bear for resources or just develop a large enough population to leave behind fossils, remains, etc.
WSA Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Urkelbot....not able to compete with a black bear? What do you mean? In what sense, and on what evidence do you rely?
MIB Posted December 10, 2013 Moderator Posted December 10, 2013 (edited) Why give up stone tools, fire, tribe/group all traits which make survival much easier at a small cost. Increasing size by a factor 3-5 while still possessing a large brain requires much more calories. Who said they gave them up? Who said they ever had them? We didn't always. Assuming we're closely related which may or may not be right, it remains an unproven assumption at best, the split which separates our line from theirs may have been far enough back that we hadn't developed particularly sophisticated tools either. Tools ... if you have the physical prowess to use what is available on site at need without a lot of modification, you don't have to develop more sophisticated tools and, without the effort invested in their making, you probably don't take whatever you used with you, you drop it when you're done knowing another will be handy at next need. Think about how different we would be if we could find what we need where we need it instead of having to make it, store it, and bring it with us. We might be ... Sasquatch. Fire ... same thing, if you were a human megafauna, maybe you don't suffer in today's cold because you're adapted to something even colder yet, and if you've got the digestive tract for it, you don't need it for cooking food either. Tribe ... there is plenty of anecdotal information to suggest they do indeed live in family / "tribal" units. MIB Edited December 10, 2013 by WV FOOTER Remove Video due to foul language.
Guest Urkelbot Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 If Bigfoot was using fire and stone tools there would be physical evidence left behind. Despite the fact bigfoot can magucally make their remains hidden it is beyond prepostourous that they also manage to hide their stone tools/manufactur sites and fires.Yes erectus/neanderthal/human had fire and stone tools. Increased physical strength doesn't come out of nowhere. Bigfoot didn't just wake up find out it was strong and then decide " hey who needs this hand axe". It would have been slow and there would need to be an advantage in loosing the ability to manufacture and use tools. That scenario only works to advantage if brain size decreases, less calories needed. Fire gets you more calories per pound of meat and protection as well as warmth. You loose fire than fewer calories and you have a more difficult time fighting off the other megafauna who want your dinner. The scenario only works if you accept a smaller brain.
WSA Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Urkelbot....they aren't hiding their tools in Area X. The NAWAC has found two such examples of them discarding things when they've used them for the intended purpose. But no, I don't think they have fire, and I don't know of any serious evidence to the contrary.
Cotter Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Perhaps fermentation/decomposition is substituted for fire in regards to 'cooking' meat.
NathanFooter Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 I don't think it a likely scenario from an evolutionary stand point to go from erectus, neanderthal, or human to bigfoot. Why give up stone tools, fire, tribe/group all traits which make survival much easier at a small cost. Increasing size by a factor 3-5 while still possessing a large brain requires much more calories. Gaining that size at the expense of the lost traits would make it near impossible to compete. Unless bigfoot has a completely different niche, such as herbivory, then general omnivore erectus/neanderthal/human. But Bigfoot is reported to be omnivorous and doesn't even appear capable of competing with the black bear. The size increase of bigfoot makes no sense. Cold adaption is dependent on surface area/mass so why grow tall? Shorter and more squat would be a better adaptation. Also why evolve stealth along with size wouldn't smaller size make more sense for stealth? The gigantopithecus model makes more sense. In that evolutionary scenario bipedialism is accompanied with a decrease in size. Never had tool use, fire, group/tribe structure to loose. I think people just want bigfoot to be human. For the same reason they give bigfoot all the fantasy attributes like the manticore or sphinx. Super strength, stealth, intelligence, speed not even including the more ridiculous traits mind speak, IR vision, 40 foot lunges, human language, ability to ride trains, etc. All that and bigfoot can't compete with the black bear for resources or just develop a large enough population to leave behind fossils, remains, etc. Why would you want to be tall VS short and thick ? Well when you are chasing big game you would want to be fast enough to catch your food, being tall gives you long strides and immense power by way of forward weight to push off of. Not able to compete with bears ? There is very suggestive data that says other wise, both in the case for sasquatch and humans. You believe that human or human like language is ridiculous ? So did I at one point LOL but that does not change the fact that people are hearing and recording it moments before sightings and track finds. People want Sasquatch to be human ? Yes, I agree many do want it to be some kind of person just because it is more interesting that way but there are objective researchers who simply believe it is based on the evidence.
Guest Urkelbot Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Short and thick would be a better adaptation to cold then being tall. Less surface area/volume. A spear would be much more effective than running down a deer. I think the whole bigfoot wrestles down deer and other prey is bigfoot fanfiction. At best they are probablly taking sick/crippled/old deer or eating carrion. If its so easy for bigfoot to hunt deer, which there is lots of, then why such low populations. Bears out-compete bigfoot or if they have completely different ecological niche are much more successful. This is simple lots of bears, lots of live bears, lots of dead bears, lots of bear fossils all over asia and north america. No live bigfoot confirmed, dead confirmed, fossils confirmed. If bigfoot does exist it's poplulation is small and has most likely always been small. As far as language I was addressing the claims bigfoot can speak English or other human languages. I don't think its impossible bigfoot could have some crude rudimentary language.
hiflier Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Hello WSA, In Urkelbot's defense I don't think you understood what was written in the last post. What was written was essentailly what you said in response to it.
NathanFooter Posted December 10, 2013 Posted December 10, 2013 Short and thick would be a better adaptation to cold then being tall. Less surface area/volume. A spear would be much more effective than running down a deer. I think the whole bigfoot wrestles down deer and other prey is bigfoot fanfiction. At best they are probablly taking sick/crippled/old deer or eating carrion. If its so easy for bigfoot to hunt deer, which there is lots of, then why such low populations. Bears out-compete bigfoot or if they have completely different ecological niche are much more successful. This is simple lots of bears, lots of live bears, lots of dead bears, lots of bear fossils all over asia and north america. No live bigfoot confirmed, dead confirmed, fossils confirmed. If bigfoot does exist it's poplulation is small and has most likely always been small. As far as language I was addressing the claims bigfoot can speak English or other human languages. I don't think its impossible bigfoot could have some crude rudimentary language. There is reports of them chasing deer and hogs. In the case of bears , birth rates, birth numbers and a variety of other factors may have influence on the population ratios. There is plenty of reports and evidence that indicate sasquatch and bears do live in the same places. Thank you for the clarification on your reference to language, I misunderstood what you where getting at.
Recommended Posts