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

[jayjeti]

 

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 ….

 

 

 

Maryland Monroe had six toes on her feet, like a lot of other people; so, there can be deformities.  Polio is a disease, not a natural deformity.  But some foot casts could be misleading, in my opinion, where five toes look like four due to two of the toes appearing as one, or the little toe not leaving a defined impression.  A lot of the plaster casts of footprints are not good sharp impressions depending on the soil and conditions they were cast in.

[Guest]

Phew! Jayjeti you’ve thrown a lot of fuel in that fire my friend. Me? I have no issue with anything you commented on. It’s very possible. I want be very careful not rest this point solely (on pun intended Lol) on foot tracks, it is merely a guess.

 

That said, how do we explain unnatural teeth? Not all of these things have them, and to that I submit maybe just a smaller percentage that do.

 

This is presented strictly for consideration and not meant to be supportive evidential proof.

 

Bigfoot Different Species

January 1896

Muncie, Indiana

An animal that walks on all fours or stands erect at pleasure has been terrorizing the sparsely settled neighborhood on the outskirts of the town. The animal is said to resemble a small man, and to have tusks, and is probably a monkey escaped from a circus.

Source: Lexington Morning Herald, Lexington, Kentucky January 3, 1896

 

Bigfoot Different Species  

September 1962

Lost Trail Pass, Montana

Reed Christenson and family while nearing the top of the pass a 6 foot tall dark brown creature with long fangs, long arms and no neck, it walked to the side of the road and went up bank and watched their car go by. Their French Poodle acted strangely during the encounter.

Source: JG BC Archives, Greg Mastel

Edited November 13, 2014 by Gumshoeye

[Guest DWA]

Contributing greatly to the confusion is eyewitness terminology and the inevitable differences in individuals.

 

I've seen people with canine teeth that said 'vampire' to me.  Someone else might see the same thing and mark it unremarkable (maybe because of all such they have seen).  Not only do deformities happen (which can not only mean different numbers of toes but that some toes due to their positioning might not register in a track), but roaming the backcountry as a predator is a hazardous occupation...and barefoot, doubly so.

 

Meldrum makes a compelling case - supported by other tracks cast - that the "Shipton" yeti track was an individual with macrodactyly.

Edited November 16, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I have just found a report where two fisherman claim …. Now that is not me saying this, they claim have been fishing several miles out in the Gulf of Mexico, after they launched from their harbor in Florida. They reported seeing a Bigfoot swimming, yes I said swimming very easily. That said, if were authenticated would that not place another twist in species types?

 

Next, as mentioned above after sampling a few thousand reports paying close attention to only those reports describing physical features such height, coloring, facial appearances and eyes I am still wondering where pray tell do the predominate European Caucasoid features come from that many describe? 

 

They describe a 7-8-9 foot beast they are reporting pure blue or green eyes, blonde or light brown hair, fair or pink complexions with hairless or little facial hair on an otherwise extraordinarily hairy being.

 

There many reports of beings described as one would expect from a Bigfoot being that I have seen, and that is the head. Many of those described a Bigfoot body but elongated snout with protruding canines. Descriptions of the head vary only in their choice of wording i.e. snout like a dog, like bear, like a baboon, like a kangaroo. Everything else described is Bigfoot similar. Not at all, but many of them center on the Border States closest to the Mississippi River.  

 

So count me in as a believer in different species.

[Incorrigible1]

Not all reports should be taken seriously.

[Night Walker]

DWA Wrote:

There are aboriginals in Australia without the slightest vestige of seagoing capability, something I find very hard to believe a seagoing people would simply purge given all its obvious advantages.  Besides which sasquatch is reported to have an extreme aquatic component compared to other primates.  I once frowned at yowie; seeing the reports as I now have, I have to wonder what people are seeing.  I know that at various times, "island hopping" or rafting would have been plausible from the Asian mainland.  I think that once the subject is tackled by the mainstream, possibilities will be investigated that simply aren't now.

 

 

Some estimates place the Australian aboriginals to 60,000 years ago.  There have been several periods during that time when ocean levels were low enough they could cross over.  This could have allowed ancestors of Yowies a route too.

 

Here's a quote from an article:

 

"The first settlement of Australia most likely occurred during the last glacial maximum. During this time Australia and New Guinea were joined as a single land mass called Sahul. The south-east Asian continent and islands were also joined as a single land mass called Sunda. It is theorised that the first Australians crossed the sea between Sahul and Sunda about 60,000 to 40,000 years ago. Other dates have been suggested, and this timeframe is not seen as conclusive. Sunda and Sahul had a permanent water-crossing, meaning that the first Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had to make a crossing on the open sea (see Wallace Line)."

 

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

 

So, as it says above at times the land masses from the southeast Asian continent and Australia were connected.

 

No it doesn't. It says "the first Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had to make a crossing on the open sea (see Wallace Line)".

 

Sahul = Australia + New Guinea

Sunda = Asian continent & islands

 

Wallace Line:

 

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

 

The largest (non-flying) creature to make that ocean crossing without a boat are rats clinging to debris. It should be noted that New Zealand (2,500 miles east of southern Australia) also has it's own supposed version of Bigfoot, too...

[MIB]

I've read several times that the two most genetically diverse humans are generally less diverse than two chimps in the same troop.   This is attributed to a genetic bottleneck ... the "genetic Eve", if you will.    If sasquatch did not face the same near extinction and bottleneck, it's possible or even probable that all the different "forms" reported could be normal variation within a single species.   In other words, it's our similarity that's weird, not other species diversity.

 

That doesn't make it "the truth", mind you, but it's possible and should be considered.

 

MIB

[Guest DWA]

No it doesn't. It says "the first Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people had to make a crossing on the open sea (see Wallace Line)".

 

Sahul = Australia + New Guinea

Sunda = Asian continent & islands

 

Wallace Line:

 

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

 

The largest (non-flying) creature to make that ocean crossing without a boat are rats clinging to debris. It should be noted that New Zealand (2,500 miles east of southern Australia) also has it's own supposed version of Bigfoot, too...

 

Here's all I look at to entertain the possibility:  is there a large and consistent body of evidence?

 

If there is, then denying that evidence might have a biological basis is leaning on assumptions.  I don't like leaning on assumptions.  And neither does science.  (Scientists, now, do it way, way too often.)  If evidence says the yowie is in Australia, confirm it first and then you'll find out how it got there.

 

Many an assumption has been overturned by better information.  The largest (non-flying) creature to make the crossing that scientists acknowledge may be rats.  But scientists are still on the hook to explain the evidence for yowie; and the untested assumption that Folk Must Be Kwayzee doesn't cut it.  Too many witnesses seem the opposite of crazy.

 

NZ has its hairy guy and so does Hawaii.  But is there a large and consistent body of evidence?  Not that I've seen.

Edited November 18, 2014 by DWA

[Drew]

Here is a family tree of Bigfoot.

 

[Guest DWA]

I have just found a report where two fisherman claim …. Now that is not me saying this, they claim have been fishing several miles out in the Gulf of Mexico, after they launched from their harbor in Florida. They reported seeing a Bigfoot swimming, yes I said swimming very easily. That said, if were authenticated would that not place another twist in species types?

 

The extreme aquatic bent of sasquatch, at least compared to primates in general, is a consistent feature in reports.  They have been seen miles off the coast of AK, never mind the Gulf; reports of very competent swimming are numerous, and there is copious evidence of a significant seafood component in the sasquatch diet.

 

Now what that - and other things you mention in your post - might say about multiple species, well, search me.  But we find one single primate species in isolation - or only two, for that matter - almost nowhere we look.

Edited November 18, 2014 by DWA

[Guest DWA]

Here is a family tree of Bigfoot.

 

You forgot "sleeplessness/drugs."  But an A for Art!

[Guest]

Bigfoot Attack, Carrying Weapon, Bigfoot Different Species DM

July 1972

Defiance, Ohio

A  railway worker was busy working on some tracks when he looked up to see coming down the tracks a figure with an estimated height of seven to nine feet. As the figure approached more closely, the worker described seeing “fangs†like large canines, protruding from this figure’s mouth. The creature was also very hairy. He reported two very odd things, first the creature walked in a rather peculiar “side to side†manner as if it as shuffling down the track. Secondly it was carrying a big stick over its shoulder, with which it struck railroad worker. After beating the witness it disappeared into the brush. Bruises were found on the witness.

Source: The Northeastern Ohio Bigfoot 

[Night Walker]

Here's all I look at to entertain the possibility:  is there a large and consistent body of evidence?

 

If there is, then denying that evidence might have a biological basis is leaning on assumptions.  I don't like leaning on assumptions.  And neither does science.  (Scientists, now, do it way, way too often.)  If evidence says the yowie is in Australia, confirm it first and then you'll find out how it got there.

 

Many an assumption has been overturned by better information.  The largest (non-flying) creature to make the crossing that scientists acknowledge may be rats.  But scientists are still on the hook to explain the evidence for yowie; and the untested assumption that Folk Must Be Kwayzee doesn't cut it.  Too many witnesses seem the opposite of crazy.

 

NZ has its hairy guy and so does Hawaii.  But is there a large and consistent body of evidence?  Not that I've seen.

 

What evidence is there for the Yowie? No DNA evidence, hairs are always from mundane creatures, no pictures or video, footprints have altered over time and any consistency depends largely on who "finds" them. There is nothing that requires explaining...

 

As for Yowie sightings and experiences - I don't subscribe to the "Folk Must Be Kwayzee" line of reasoning but there are actually great variations to what is reported. Any consistency seems to depend largely on who you know and what you believe prior to the claim. Those seeking undiscovered apes "see" what they expect as do those who seek the spiritualist-Yowie. That's not crazy - that's just human nature...

[Guest]

What evidence is there for the Yowie? No DNA evidence, hairs are always from mundane creatures, no pictures or video, footprints have altered over time and any consistency depends largely on who "finds" them. There is nothing that requires explaining...

 

As for Yowie sightings and experiences - I don't subscribe to the "Folk Must Be Kwayzee" line of reasoning but there are actually great variations to what is reported. Any consistency seems to depend largely on who you know and what you believe prior to the claim. Those seeking undiscovered apes "see" what they expect as do those who seek the spiritualist-Yowie. That's not crazy - that's just human nature...

 

Hello Night Walker, I agree with your message in part, but I am not sure how consistency seems to depend on what you (anyone) believes prior to that claim? I was hoping you could elaborate a bit more if you don't mind .....

Edited November 22, 2014 by Gumshoeye

[Night Walker]

Hello Night Walker, I agree with your message in part, but I am not sure how consistency seems to depend on what you (anyone) believes prior to that claim? I was hoping you could elaborate a bit more if you don't mind .....

 

Sure. As I said above: "Those seeking undiscovered apes "see" what they expect as do those who seek the spiritualist-Yowie." I'll expand a bit upon that...

 

Those that seek the Yowie as a flesh-and-blood ape tend to collect sightings (often their own or from friends and friends-of-friends) that support that view whilst dismissing reports that contain paranormal/supernatural/spiritualist elements. Similarly, paranormalists tend to collect sightings (again, often from their own experiences and from those in their immediate social circles) which support that view. Who can say which is the correct approach when the objective evidence for both is largely the same - nothing but fakes, ambiguity, and misidentifications. Perhaps neither is correct...

 

Is the Yowie able to communicate with people psychically and vanish into thin air? Is it just a giant ape? We cannot even say that the Yowie is real but if you believe it is then it is real to you - be that an ape or some sort of paranormal entity. And what is subjectively real does not mean that it is also objectively real. Some people find that hard to grasp particularly when they "know" the truth...

 

Did that make sense?