georgerm Posted January 26, 2016 Author Posted January 26, 2016 Quote Norseman, 25 Jan 2016 - 5:51 p.m. "But your Gorillas comparison has shot you in the foot. "Because the poor hapless Gorillas are still being slaughtered like cattle 150 years later! "But a Sasquatch skull would stick a fork in skeptics once and for all." I beg your pardon, Norseman; I wasn't clear. But you've made my point for me. Gorillas started bein' shot by men with guns 150 years ago. They're still bein' shot with guns today. ... They didn't learn to hide from men with guns. According to stories that I've read, fiction or fact, Bigfoot was shot by men with guns more than 150 years ago and even up until the early 20th century. ... But not lately? Instead nowadays, they're more likely to be shot with cameras. But I keep reading that Bf, most of them, are camera-wise and avoid those too. My point is that Bigfoot learned what the Gorillas have been unable to learn. This may show that Bigfoot reasons and learns from experience. But if Bigfoot can reason-learn-adapt, why doesn't he make tools? That one's easy, assuming his brain is similar to ours but not identical. In us, left & right brain functions are different. To greatly over-simplify, the left brain is analytical; the right brain is intuitive. I suggest that Bigfoot is as intelligent as we are in right brain functions. But he never got around to developing much left brain function. Or perhaps his left brain developed differently than ours. He may see us as an unwelcome guest in the woods or even a serious enemy. That didn't motivate him to invent the spear. He's well able to throw rocks and large chunks of wood. As for sticking a fork in skeptics, I suspect they're a bit too right-brained to get it. (edited by Oonjerah for spacing.) Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled. I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope"). Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal. Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread). Now, this is a great science question that needs an answer along with many others before sasquatch science is unstalled. We don't have these answers and we can only suppose or theorize. 1. What comes to mind is some bigfoots need easy prey such as chickens, cows, or dogs in order to survive. 2. Some bigfoots such as juveniles or out casts have been pushed out of remote habitats by more dominant clans. 3. Bigfoots can't avoid roads and other human elements in order to keep up their migration pattern. This leads to question 3. a. Does bigfoot migrate? It becomes obvious we have more questions than answers. One documentary on TV showed a credentialed biologist studying Snow Leopard in Asia, and he made a great blind. He spent months and months in the cold until he got great videos of the creature.
WSA Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 For a problem as thorny as this one, the more people you can throw at it the better...especially if those people are credentialed biologists. Training does matter... no sleight to all of the amateur researchers out there... but it does. Biologists, like the animals they study, all have niches. If you have expertise in say, packrat middens, you might have some expertise to bring to the investigation, who knows? Look at BigTreeWalker's work for a prime example of this. I mean, gnawed bones? How intriguing is that ? And who is to say a climatologist or an expert in pre-Columbian civilizations would have nothing to contribute? Looking at this issue narrowly, gives you narrow results, if you get any at all. There is a huge knowledge vacuum here that results in lots and lots of speculations, some of which are frankly off-the-charts bizarre, and only serve to alienate more serious minded professionals. You close that knowledge gap you pull more legitimate researchers in, and synergistic results will follow. This nut will be cracked. ("Cracked", defined by me as: We can classify this animal, accurately estimate its population, reproductive rate and territorial range, and predict its diet), most likely by those not even born yet, who see this problem as the scientific challenge of their lives, who have the education, vision and leadership to enlist others, and who also have the essential , "I MUST see this through..!" compulsion that fuels all worthwhile scientific endeavors. (If some are bound to try and preempt this work with discouraging words, let me just say I find no inspiration in that worldview, nor would they, I'm betting) 2
norseman Posted January 26, 2016 Admin Posted January 26, 2016 I beg your pardon, Norseman; I wasn't clear. But you've made my point for me. Gorillas started bein' shot by men with guns 150 years ago. They're still bein' shot with guns today. ... They didn't learn to hide from men with guns. According to stories that I've read, fiction or fact, Bigfoot was shot by men with guns more than 150 years ago and even up until the early 20th century. ... But not lately? Instead nowadays, they're more likely to be shot with cameras. But I keep reading that Bf, most of them, are camera-wise and avoid those too. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Justin Smeja? The GCBRO? NAWAC? We have accounts of them being shot today.....so your point that they have somehow learned to stay away from guns is null and void. And we have many more accounts of armed men looking down the barrel but choosing not to shoot, including Bob Gimlin. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx My point is that Bigfoot learned what the Gorillas have been unable to learn. This may show that Bigfoot reasons and learns from experience. But if Bigfoot can reason-learn-adapt, why doesn't he make tools? That one's easy, assuming his brain is similar to ours but not identical. In us, left & right brain functions are different. To greatly over-simplify, the left brain is analytical; the right brain is intuitive. I suggest that Bigfoot is as intelligent as we are in right brain functions. But he never got around to developing much left brain function. Or perhaps his left brain developed differently than ours. He may see us as an unwelcome guest in the woods or even a serious enemy. That didn't motivate him to invent the spear. He's well able to throw rocks and large chunks of wood. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No.....no its anything from easy. If Squatch is of the genus Homo? Then where is his tool kit? Because that is what the species within our genus do. Its that simple! We cannot break a bull elk's neck with our bare hands. We cannot exist in winter without fire and shelter. We cannot procure game without weapons created by our own hands. And neither could Homo Neanderthals, Homo Hedelbergensis or Homo Erectus........ So if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck? Its a duck.... The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there.
Cotter Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 I'd like to comment that the 'running from man' isn't an all or nothing premise. Many other wild animals that have learned to fear humans are seen around human populated areas. Wolves and coyotes one of the more reclusive canines often are spotted in urban areas. Heck, a coyote will hang out around farms - so long as nobody is outside. Crack a door or a window and its gone. I also think that attributing the intelligence to a human is wrong, I think attributing the intelligence to a gorilla is wrong. What we're dealing with here is something in-between. Something with a definite cognizance, but not to the level of tool building. Even if they didn't 'need' tools per se, I would surmise there would have been some rudimentary incorporation of some form of tool making. And norse - of course we can't break the neck of a bull elk, but we can wrestle a bull bovine to the ground and hold it there. Of course, some training is required. :-) Just wanted to mention that.
norseman Posted January 26, 2016 Admin Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) No we can't. With the help of a horse we can bulldog a castrated 500 lbs male bovine to the ground We would be going for a ride on a 1500 lbs bull Elk. Also we have tons and tons of dead coyotes on the ground. So it would bear logic that if lots of Sasquatches were hanging around urban areas, we would have a dead one in our hands. Its true great apes make tools. But its a given that IF you belong to the genus Homo? Then you can control fire and flake stone tools. Edited January 26, 2016 by norseman
SWWASAS Posted January 26, 2016 BFF Patron Posted January 26, 2016 ^^^^ You and Meldrum seem to be on the same page with what BF is and is not because of the lack of constructed tools. I am leaning that way but until we examine one of their dens, caves, or wherever they spend time in during the winter, I think that it is too early to make the call. If they use fire it is in the winter. If they use tools they fabricate, they would be found in their winter habitat if they even have fixed winter quarters. Witness accounts rarely mention BF carrying anything but prey. So Meldrum and you are likely correct. Contrary to what we would surmise from early humans, fabricated tools would be extremely valuable things. Passed down generation to generation. And only discarded when they were so broken they were no longer functional. Much of what we find with early humans might be just because we have the propensity to fight and kill each other. Leaving casualties and tools or weapons where they were struck down. Certainly things of value would be collected by the victors, if they could be located before moving out of enemy territory. Human history is one of marauding conquest, much of that hit and run, before the locals locate the marauders and retaliate. We knew little about early European humans, until caves were excavated, and even then the physical artifacts associated with them was largely unknown. The so called Iceman, found melting out of the snow in the Alps, gave us the best picture of humans of the time near the ice age. Much of what we know now about their clothing, weapons, diet etc were gleaned from that one well preserved body. Who knows, maybe someone can find a BF melting out of a glacier someplace and explode our knowledge about them too?
Guest WesT Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 All of the great apes are tool users. Chimpanzees even use spears modifying the ends by honing them with their teeth. My theory is, we don't know what tools they are capable of producing, because any time a person gets close to something they have made, they are escorted out of the area. I predict their main resource for tool making is wood, not stone. Wood easily degrades back into the environment leaving no little or no trace of it's use as a tool. Listed below are the things a reclusive hominid such as a Sasquatch would want you to know about them and their use of tools. And by golly it's working.
ShadowBorn Posted January 26, 2016 Moderator Posted January 26, 2016 No.....no its anything from easy. If Squatch is of the genus Homo? Then where is his tool kit? Because that is what the species within our genus do. Its that simple! We cannot break a bull elk's neck with our bare hands. We cannot exist in winter without fire and shelter. We cannot procure game without weapons created by our own hands. And neither could Homo Neanderthals, Homo Hedelbergensis or Homo Erectus........ So if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck? Its a duck.... The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there Norseman See I do not see it this way since this is the way we were taught in school and taught in life. As humans we are taught to be human we need skills to be developed in us for our survival. We have no idea on how their brains have developed until we have on a slab. But one thing is for sure that they have been shot in the past and those that shot them chose not to keep it as a trophy, like they would with a Chimp or a Gorilla. So there must have been some thing about them that placed fear as to not keep them as a trophy or even shoot them. Your last sentence that it says that " The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there " There is way more of a relationship between us and them even though we do not have the data to prove this. But reports do show a creature that shows a lot of interest towards us humans. Our ancestry shows that that there was mating being done with our women with giants. You can see this on rock face where our ancestors once settled and you hear about this in our present. People are scared of what can be found about these creatures, Science has stalled cause it does not want to go further. It will open to many doors for man, some doors that should stay closed. This creature steps on way to many opinions, views and if they open this door will even step on creation in a religious way. Is it worth going down that path. Maybe IMO science has chose to stall, and maybe even them have chosen stay hidden.JMOI
Incorrigible1 Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Some of these replies make my brain hurt. "Science" in not some all-encompassing bureaucracy, requiring a secret log-in to access. It's a process, and one rarely used by BF advocates.
WSA Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 ^^^ Agreed I1, but my emphasis is that training is required to do it right. When addressing "science", I am referring to those who have acquired that education in classic scientific methods and are actively employing it in their daily work. For the most part, over that last 50 years, those people have been otherwise occupied with other things that better secure professional stature and compensation. When/if enough of them turn their attention to this, we'll be that much better off. Nearly all of the present and past BF research has been more like the geeky kid who desperately wants the popular girl to like him. In his eagerness and haste, he falls all over himself, earning nothing but her contempt. They are as Charlie Brown to his/their Little Red Haired Girl.
Guest Crowlogic Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 I beg your pardon, Norseman; I wasn't clear. But you've made my point for me. Gorillas started bein' shot by men with guns 150 years ago. They're still bein' shot with guns today. ... They didn't learn to hide from men with guns. According to stories that I've read, fiction or fact, Bigfoot was shot by men with guns more than 150 years ago and even up until the early 20th century. ... But not lately? Instead nowadays, they're more likely to be shot with cameras. But I keep reading that Bf, most of them, are camera-wise and avoid those too. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Justin Smeja? The GCBRO? NAWAC? We have accounts of them being shot today.....so your point that they have somehow learned to stay away from guns is null and void. And we have many more accounts of armed men looking down the barrel but choosing not to shoot, including Bob Gimlin. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx My point is that Bigfoot learned what the Gorillas have been unable to learn. This may show that Bigfoot reasons and learns from experience. But if Bigfoot can reason-learn-adapt, why doesn't he make tools? That one's easy, assuming his brain is similar to ours but not identical. In us, left & right brain functions are different. To greatly over-simplify, the left brain is analytical; the right brain is intuitive. I suggest that Bigfoot is as intelligent as we are in right brain functions. But he never got around to developing much left brain function. Or perhaps his left brain developed differently than ours. He may see us as an unwelcome guest in the woods or even a serious enemy. That didn't motivate him to invent the spear. He's well able to throw rocks and large chunks of wood. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx No.....no its anything from easy. If Squatch is of the genus Homo? Then where is his tool kit? Because that is what the species within our genus do. Its that simple! We cannot break a bull elk's neck with our bare hands. We cannot exist in winter without fire and shelter. We cannot procure game without weapons created by our own hands. And neither could Homo Neanderthals, Homo Hedelbergensis or Homo Erectus........ So if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck? Its a duck.... The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there. Norse Gorillas are pretty smart. And they didn't learn.. But Ravens will fly towards the sound of gunfire because they have learned it usually leads to a killing site and leftovers and carrion. Gee are Ravens smarter than Gorillas? If so then they are almost as smart as us.
norseman Posted January 26, 2016 Admin Posted January 26, 2016 No.....no its anything from easy. If Squatch is of the genus Homo? Then where is his tool kit? Because that is what the species within our genus do. Its that simple! We cannot break a bull elk's neck with our bare hands. We cannot exist in winter without fire and shelter. We cannot procure game without weapons created by our own hands. And neither could Homo Neanderthals, Homo Hedelbergensis or Homo Erectus........ So if it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck and walks like a duck? Its a duck.... The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there NorsemanSee I do not see it this way since this is the way we were taught in school and taught in life. As humans we are taught to be human we need skills to be developed in us for our survival. We have no idea on how their brains have developed until we have on a slab. But one thing is for sure that they have been shot in the past and those that shot them chose not to keep it as a trophy, like they would with a Chimp or a Gorilla. So there must have been some thing about them that placed fear as to not keep them as a trophy or even shoot them. Your last sentence that it says that " The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there " There is way more of a relationship between us and them even though we do not have the data to prove this. But reports do show a creature that shows a lot of interest towards us humans. Our ancestry shows that that there was mating being done with our women with giants. You can see this on rock face where our ancestors once settled and you hear about this in our present. People are scared of what can be found about these creatures, Science has stalled cause it does not want to go further. It will open to many doors for man, some doors that should stay closed. This creature steps on way to many opinions, views and if they open this door will even step on creation in a religious way. Is it worth going down that path. Maybe IMO science has chose to stall, and maybe even them have chosen stay hidden.JMOI I think many people miss the small nuances that make humans human. Its true we do not have a cadaver to dissect. But we can extrapolate what we will find based on supposed physical traits and species characteristics. Humans are taught to be human....but we have physical adaptations that make us human as well. These adaptations happened along time ago as a survival strategy. A chimpanzee cannot tie a knot to go fishing with nor can he flake stone. Not only does he lack the intelligence but his muscle fibers lack the neurons for fine motor skills. Our ancestors were different, therefore you are different. Thats not taught, thats a very real physical trait passed down to you by our ancestors. The trade off for fine motor skills is losing strength. A chimp is as strong as two men, but he cannot tie a knot to fish with. How strong is a Sasquatch reported to be? What can we extrapolate from that?
norseman Posted January 26, 2016 Admin Posted January 26, 2016 ^^^^ You and Meldrum seem to be on the same page with what BF is and is not because of the lack of constructed tools. I am leaning that way but until we examine one of their dens, caves, or wherever they spend time in during the winter, I think that it is too early to make the call. If they use fire it is in the winter. If they use tools they fabricate, they would be found in their winter habitat if they even have fixed winter quarters. Witness accounts rarely mention BF carrying anything but prey. So Meldrum and you are likely correct. Contrary to what we would surmise from early humans, fabricated tools would be extremely valuable things. Passed down generation to generation. And only discarded when they were so broken they were no longer functional. Much of what we find with early humans might be just because we have the propensity to fight and kill each other. Leaving casualties and tools or weapons where they were struck down. Certainly things of value would be collected by the victors, if they could be located before moving out of enemy territory. Human history is one of marauding conquest, much of that hit and run, before the locals locate the marauders and retaliate. We knew little about early European humans, until caves were excavated, and even then the physical artifacts associated with them was largely unknown. The so called Iceman, found melting out of the snow in the Alps, gave us the best picture of humans of the time near the ice age. Much of what we know now about their clothing, weapons, diet etc were gleaned from that one well preserved body. Who knows, maybe someone can find a BF melting out of a glacier someplace and explode our knowledge about them too? Yes, but again, what can we extrapolate on what we have not found? Lets say for example that tribes of Homo Erectus were still extant on our national forests. What sort of evidence could we expect to find of their passing? Central fire rings? Heavy cave occupation? Charred animal bones and marrow excavation? Discarded flakes from stone tool manufacture? Defacation? Dead family members? Picture a bomb going off in the immediate area of habitation. Do we find this with Sasquatch?
ShadowBorn Posted January 26, 2016 Moderator Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) The trade off for fine motor skills is losing strength. A chimp is as strong as two men, but he cannot tie a knot to fish with. How strong is a Sasquatch reported to be? What can we extrapolate from that? As far as nature goes its development did not reach that point so the chimp is what it is. Just like we are what we are as humans and the way we have developed. These creatures are stuck in a time where their development have not reach ours as nature has intended. IMO We can teach chimps to perform acts and they do have a capable brain to perform these acts. This all was performed by science and understood by scientist. Was not experiments done on the concept that this creature was an Ape or even a Chimp of some sort. But nothing was proven by those acts, there fore more thought needed to be placed. See, this is science being performed in its most simplest form. One idea to the next until a solution to the problem is found is science. Go from one solution to the next until you find the right formula that works. Taking note of every step that gets you closer ,moving forward, two step back, three steps forward. Science Science" in not some all-encompassing bureaucracy, requiring a secret log-in to access. It's a process, and one rarely used by BF advocates To some it may be when money is involve, Imagine a discovery of a creature that is able to illuminate its eyes at night. A creature that can see in total darkness with no light at all. A creature that can tap some one on the shoulder and when they turn around never see who did it. Who knows about their hearing and all the other stuff that goes with them. Yes I can see science doing exactly this:" requiring a secret log-in to access " files on this creatures existence. We do not need science to stall since science has done it on it's own already. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Just want to add that I do not have the knowledge of animal behavior nor do I have years studying Biology. At this point People who have studied ancient humans and how we lived back then is needed. I would say a behaviorist of humans if there is such a thing would be needed to understand these creatures.IMO Edited January 26, 2016 by ShadowBorn
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Tool creation requires more than just a high intelligence. In primates, it also requires hands that have dexterity or precision. In theory, it's totally possible for an animal to have human-like intelligence and at the same time not be able to craft tools like spears.
Recommended Posts