Guest Sallaranda Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 My money is on more human than ape. When I first encountered one face to face I didn't think "That's a heck of a big gorilla". I was thinking "Look how huge that big black man is." Of course at the same moment my brother was screaming "That's not a man! That's not a man!" After close to a minute of direct eye contact I didn't perceive that he was any less intelligent than I. But then, he didn't say anything, which is the best way to preserve others' impression that you are intelligent. When I looked up and saw a pregnant female watching me fish from the other bank of a small lake my first thought was "Where'd the hillbilly woman come from?" It wasn't "Wow, look at the gorilla." She didn't say anything either. I did not perceive her to be as intelligent as I, but she came across as more intelligent than a gorilla or chimp. I've never seen a neanderthal. I've never heard a bigfoot speak, but I have heard several vocalizations. You're the second person to equate intelligence to tool use in a thread I've participated in. I've never seen one use a tool. I have heard them using something to knock on trees, if that qualifies in your book. Since their physical abilities obviate the need for some tools, it may not be an applicable standard for the measure of intelligence in this case. I suppose tree-knocking qualifies as communication. I've also had one toss a couple of pebbles at me. Whether or not she was trying to get my attention she did and she retreated as I pursued her. Is pebble-throwing communication? If so, it would be a fairly loose standard. Tree-knocking does qualify as communication, but not intelligent communication. It's too primitive and simple. A bigfoot cannot convey ideas or thoughts through tree knocking. Maybe they can do that through whooping and other vocalizations, but I doubt it. I've seen a Bigfoot, too. From quite far away through binoculars. My thought was that it was a Sasquatch, and it looked like a half-ape half-human. Never did I see it and think to myself "that looks more human than ape" in fact, the opposite was true in my case. I equally am hesitant to link tool use to intelligence. I've met many very bright folks who couldn't use a chainsaw to save their lives, or knap flint with a gun held to their heads. Everyone here was a beginner on the computer at some point and the odds of it going well at first for everyone are pretty remote. I would wager as well most here couldn't live off the land without any tools, noodling fish is an art, and knowing what and how to consume wild plants isn't exactly everyday common knowledge anymore. It's certainly a fine line. Way I see it is this. Lack of tool use does not equate to lack of knowledge, but presence of tool use equates to relatively high intelligence level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 This is old info but I found it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 This is old info but I found it. http://www.myspace.com/jerrydcoleman/blog/367407953 Sounds like this guy was there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 It's been shown all the great apes not only use but make tools (a stripped branch used to extract termites from a mound counts as a made tool). Orangutans make a kind of call assist. Technically, humans are apes and tool-making isn't something that separates "us" from "them" (although we're better at it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 (edited) Now there's an amusing thought. We exert force against them until their numbers dwindle. They become so scarce that we put them out of mind. After a time they resurge until new reports start coming in, but we're told that they don't exist, so they continue to resurge unmolested. Finally, someone wakes up and says "Gee, look at all the bigfoot." Then it gets interesting. -JDLThat is an interesting thought! Just to be clear, Nephilim were not really just giants, but actually fallen angel-human hybrids that happened to be very tall/big/"mighty men of renown" or you could say, titans. They are not the only "gods" and "demi-gods" that ancient religions refer to, and I think it is intriguing. There is also a line of thought in mysticism that all human giants carry that ancient strain, or newly perpetrated strains (alien/angel-human visitation/interaction/mating is not thought to have ceased to this day). But sometimes there are specific references to hairy demons in the forests, sort of more along the line of satyrs and fauns, or part-human, part beast mythical or cryptic creatures. One such is mentioned in the Pentateuch, along with an admonition not to encourage them by giving them offerings or presenting oneself as (ahem) available. Of course our modern versions have all ironed away these hairy and less convenient references (along with flying serpents, dragons, water monsters, unicorns and so on). Edited May 10, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 -JDL That is an interesting thought! Just to be clear, Nephilim were not really just giants, but actually fallen angel-human hybrids that happened to be very tall/big/"mighty men of renown" or you could say, titans. They are not the only "gods" and "demi-gods" that ancient religions refer to, and I think it is intriguing. There is also a line of thought in mysticism that all human giants carry that ancient strain, or newly perpetrated strains (alien/angel-human visitation/interaction/mating is not thought to have ceased to this day). But sometimes there are specific references to hairy demons in the forests, sort of more along the line of satyrs and fauns, or part-human, part beast mythical or cryptic creatures. One such is mentioned in the Pentateuch, along with an admonition not to encourage them by giving them offerings or presenting oneself as (ahem) available. Of course our modern versions have all ironed away these hairy and less convenient references (along with flying serpents, dragons, water monsters, unicorns and so on). I'm very interested in European references to bigfoot-like beings. Can you recommend any besides Pentateuch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 JDL- look at the legends for trolls and such, Grimm's fairy tales are a good source for giant, ogre, and wild man and wild woman tales in Europe. There is some connection to Carnival and Shrovetide associated with these beings, and ironically enough, they coincide with some of the observations we have of bigfoot's supposed migratory routes here in North America. Beowulf is also a classic. Skeptics might argue that you are reading too much into these stories just as we do with the NA legends, but read them again from a different perspective and make up your own mind about them. BluePez has a nice collection of photographs of old woodcuts and stone work that represent the hairy man in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think we're simply talking past each other at this point. Your comments are predicated on the fact that you have never seen one and are skeptical about there existence. That's ok by me. You seem like a very reasonable person JDL, and I appreciate your comments. I guess I would be shocked to learn that in the ancient past there hadn't been an entire spectrum of interaction among Homo sapiens and other extant members of our genus, ultimately culminating in competitive exclusion that left us in charge. As for the stories from the Carter farm, can you explain to me how, as a person of science, you attach any credibility to them at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I think we're simply talking past each other at this point. Your comments are predicated on the fact that you have never seen one and are skeptical about there existence. That's ok by me. Actually, I believe Saskeptic HAS encountered a Bigfoot. Have you asked him about his recent birdwatching encounter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 Hey JDL. Out of curiosity, how close were you to them at your sightings? If you were fairly close, what color skin did they have and what was their nose shaped like? Did it have nostrils like us or like a Gorilla's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 (Drew is not making this up. I indeed had what would be considered a "Class B" encounter by the BFRO. This was on Apr. 16, while in the field with 3 master's-level field biologists. It was myself and one of the other biologists who had the encounter. Discussing here would be an egregious derail of course, but I wanted to provide some context for Drew's comment.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 So, Sas. When can we expect to see the video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 (Drew is not making this up. I indeed had what would be considered a "Class B" encounter by the BFRO. This was on Apr. 16, while in the field with 3 master's-level field biologists. It was myself and one of the other biologists who had the encounter. Discussing here would be an egregious derail of course, but I wanted to provide some context for Drew's comment.) My point being, of course, that JDL assumed Saskeptic has not had an encounter, and therefore Saskeptic cannot maintain an objective position on the subject of Bigfoot. Now, knowing that Saskeptic has indeed had an encounter, is his position more easily defended? In other words, "I have encountered Bigfoot, and Bigfoot is not a hairy, upright, unclassified, bipedal apeman." Is that legit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 JDL said: Bringing this arc back around to the thread, the Carter Farm account deals directly with recent interspecies relations, same thing I'm pondering about in the past, and I'll point out that it was Grandpa Carter who maintained that Fox and his clan were the descendents of Esau. If so, do you suppose they have a sense of history? If so, I doubt it would go all the way back to whenever the Esau story first occurred or was first told. But I gather that they were conscious of past conflict with our species. Susi asks: If they are smart enough to carry an oral history down through their generations, why don't they have more complex living habitations? It takes the ability to communicate to pass their history along, and I am not aware that they may live in family or social groups, nor that they speak in anything that sounds like speech, just grunts, groans, and screaming. The first I've heard about groups of BF has been due to the Carter Farm project, and the info garnered from that research. What's up with all of this? Do they communicate in someway besides their wood-knocking and territorial markings? Do they truly have a spoken language of some sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts