The Family Tree - Different Species Of Bigfoot? Or... Maybe Not? (Theory/opinion)

[Guest DWA]

As to the bear hypothesis, it's like much other bigfoot skepticism:  we need to come up with an explanation, and what people are saying they are seeing doesn't work for us, so here's one! 

 

Saying it could - conceivably and I'd never bet on it - happen doesn't mean it is in fact happening.  People know bears to be part of the NA fauna; they "know" - incorrectly according to the evidence - that primates are not.  I just can't presume people are seeing something that they know is there and imagining something that they "know" isn't; people's minds, when they're in good working order, just don't generally work that way.  Even if someone might have some sort of disorder prompting him to do it, I'm simply not buying that it explains a substantial number of encounters.  I've never read a sasquatch report that, from the witness's description, could allow "bear" as a reasonable conclusion.  And I don't think it's the scientific thing to do to discount what the witness says unless there is a reason, specific to the instant case, to do it.  That people can be mistaken (usually for good reasons that do not apply to sasquatch encounters) doesn't mean that one can presume they are when it's inconvenient to accept what they say.

 

Look at Meldrum's field guide.  As one who's read most of the reports, I can assert that he accurately summarizes what people say they  are seeing.  And it's not a bear.

 

As to bigfoot deriving from prosimian ancestors:  presumably that's how the whole primate line got started.  We just can't go any further than that given what we know now.  "Ape or something very similar" is a very good educated guess based on the evidence.  I just don't like to do taxonomy before a specimen is in hand.  Whether they evolved in NA or came from somewhere else I feel the same way about, although the latter may be the better presumption.  But that's also an educated guess more than anything else.

 

Other than saying yowie is more plausible to me now than I once thought, I can't tell you, and await proof.

[Guest DWA]

[double post]

Edited September 27, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

Oh that damned double post!!!!!

 

People know bears is not true. Really it isn't. I know many people who could not identify a bear versus anything else. I can within reason. But I am also a bigfoot enthusiast who wants bigfoot to be real. I could be fooled and I know it. Most modern Americans can't even show you on a map where they live. How could you expect half of them to tell you where black bears or brown bears live let alone bigfoot? I admit to being pessimistic about my fellow Americans but there you have it. They couldn't findbigfoot in a bright lit room much less in a dark forest.

 

Yowie is best looked at as a separate thing from bigfoot even if it is the same thing as bigfoot just smaller.

[bipedalist]

Morphologically I agree Yowie might be different from Bigfoot.  But having read detailed phenotypic descriptions of behavior they seem very similar.  From the waist up at distance a bear standing could possibly be misidentified as a squatch.  A full profile standing bear looks nothing like a squatch except in a nondetailed silhouette from great distance on a hilltop or something.  Not even close. I think back to the Bindernagel illustration showing the comparison. https://www.google.com/search?q=bigfoot+vs+bear+illustration&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&imgil=gmqFKOn5sldd7M%253A%253BdQHJy0rCxbkysM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fcryptomundo.com%25252Fcryptozoo-news%25252Fradford-again%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=gmqFKOn5sldd7M%253A%252CdQHJy0rCxbkysM%252C_&usg=__zYK-EmFLuLUYuXkiBZfzMCmaa7E%3D&biw=1777&bih=861&dpr=0.9&ved=0CC4Qyjc&ei=mvwmVK7FA5HgoATugYKICw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=gmqFKOn5sldd7M%253A%3BdQHJy0rCxbkysM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcryptomundo.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252Fcaption1.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcryptomundo.com%252Fcryptozoo-news%252Fradford-again%252F%3B375%3B224

Edited September 27, 2014 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Bipedal primates probably do have similar appearances and behaviors by and large. If Bigfoot is descended from an australopithecine like we and Homo flores are then they are already more similar than H. sapiens and chimpanzees. If they then inhabit similar habitats, they could very likely evolve along similar lines. We already know the hobbits were in Flores and it isn't a real stretch to imagine them rafting along from one island to another while holding onto trees downed by tidal waves or hurricanes.

[Guest]

My opinion is let's establish Bigfoot first then on to a dogman. Unless the dm is a mutation or somewhat a subspecies.. my two cents. Enjoying being a BF forum member, can't get enough of this stuff!

[Incorrigible1]

Welcome, BCDave. Glad you're enjoying yourself.

[Doc Holliday]

mutiple species ...or just creepy cousins ... yet no mention of the overly flatulent relative of the skunk ape possibly referred to as Bigfart , strange that.

[Guest]

The thought of dual species of Bigfoot is a subject that no doubt leaves some either confused or scoffing at the prospects of another type species, it did me.  So after it began set in a bit I went back to reread what I thought I knew. Do I think there are more than one species of Bigfoot beings yes I am afraid I do.

 

None of this information should be considered empirical science.

 

I sampled 2,761 reports of Bigfoot sightings paying particular attention to only those who noted foot tracks and relative size and types.  397 of those reported finding some sort foot tracks either in concert with a physical sighting or before or afterward with an actual sighting.

 

• 25 of foot tracks reported were other than five toed prints
• 15 of 397 reported foot tracks were three toed prints
• 9 of 397 reported foot tracks were four toed prints
• 1 of 397 reported foot tracks were six toed prints

 

Three Toed Foot Tracks

 

Alabama

Arkansas

California

Illinois

Michigan (2)

Missouri (3)

North Carolina

Ohio (2)

Tennessee

Texas

 

Four Toed Foot Tracks

 

Colorado

Indiana

Mississippi

Oregon

Tennessee (2)

Texas

Washington

 

Six Toed Tracks

 

South Dakota

 

[David NC]

Gumshoeye. The difference of the number of toes found in tracks does not equate to a different species. Depending on the action at the time some toes may not register in the track. Then their is a condition called "Syndactyly"  for the webbing of digits together which would appear as fewer digits when they really have five. There is "Polydactyly" which is more than normal numbers of digits which effects both hands and feet and sometimes both hands and feet in the same individual. Below is a picture of a 6 year old boy in China that is effected by both.

[Guest]

Hello David NC - Good post… I overlooked that but it was very informative too. I don’t know if I would necessarily apply human anomalies of medical gene traits to these beings would you? I know they stand out but what I failed to point out was that I want to consider there may be regional differences… I know there physical differences considering blonde haired blue eyed European Caucasoid human-like hairy things that simply don’t look like the “Patti†type. They nevertheless possess the half-man half-primate attributes. It is certainly a springboard for more discussion and perhaps shake loose some additional substantive discussion either way.

 

What you pointed out is necessarily a human defect is it? Or can it be DNA genetic trait?  

[Guest]

 

I mean if we disallow any connection between differences in foot tracks, and speaking of Bigfoot beings here, on the basis that it cannot be different species because humans share in known causes for“Polydactyly" why not other don’t Bigfoot also share polio, or other natural human deformities? I don’t know, Human and Bigfoot DNA is different and we are two separate species, I think ….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[David NC]

Gumshoeye. The above occurs normally in some mammals. According to the Boston Childrens Hospital "Syndactyly" is a fairly common congenital defect that runs in familys. It effects 1in 2500-3000 births. Boys more often than girls. Caucasoid descent more often than other ethnic backgrounds. I believe there are at least 2 if not 3 "ethnic" groups(for lack of better word) of Sasquatch. The reports have heavy accent on one looking a lot like a gorilla in the face and less of a neck. One that looks like a hairy, robust but overall human look. I have read of a couple reports from NC that were of what people describe as  dogman. The dogman in these reports was described as a Sasquatch body and the face of a canine, not the look of what TV portrays as a Werewolf. I believe they are far closer to us in genetics than any other primate, so for them to have defects very similar to humans does not strike me as overly odd.

[Guest]

Hello NC David,

 

Keep posting, that is very interesting. I was not aware of that either. Where the Dogman is concerned though, I don’t know what to think about that though. I have seen what appeared to be a huge figure reddish brown kangaroo type being sitting below a freeway. The sighting itself occurred on an overpass. It was perched on its hind quarters on the edge of field and a wooded area facing the same direction as the flow of traffic but partly obscured from view. It was side profile view of the thing and it was notably large given the distance.  The elongated snout from the profile made me think of a baboon snout or a kangaroo and everything else that I could see in that eye-ball glance was enough for me to do a double take. I was occupying the inside right lane and traffic was moving steadily in pace with me making it impossible to pull to the shoulder without causing a crash.

 

Are you familiar with Joe Black?

 

 

 

[David NC]

Gumshoeye. I do not know what to think about the canine face reported. That is a legend that goes way back into antiquity as well. Anubis being one of the first I can remember right off the top of my head. I do not think about them much and probably won't unless faced with one and I will deal with it then. Their are a few  legends about them abducting woman, with an even smaller number referring to a pregnancy resulting. I do not really see how a human female, even a larger human female, could carry a hybrid the size that it would be to a term were the child would survive. The crossing a human male and a sasquatch female would have a higher full term success rate, if our DNA is close enough.