Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[ShadowBorn]

True, many of the first expeditions (specifically the tom slick sponsored ones) in search of the yeti were compromised by u.s. intelligence agencies and slick did himself little good by leaving scientists behind in the u.s. and england (slick, et. al, made the decisions of where to search and what items to send back to the scientists recruited to the team but left back at "home base"). Still though, these were serious (but doomed) endeavors requiring real

 

Key word here is : U.S. Intelligence Agencies ,To what purpose did they have in this  in regard to science.

 

The void we have of real science concerning this creature is what is allowing all this paranormal stuff to enter into the picture, slowly we lose credibility as we allow the field to be taken over by extremes. Where are the Rene Da hindens, the Bob Titmus, the kind of guys whose unswerving passion accomplished more for their day than we have for ours. As I have repeatedly stated, we would do well to learn to track, ride on horseback, and to have dogs trained in pursuing primates, and that is what might level the playing field somewhat. These animals can be tracked, although they might be able to escape through their speed and agility, but stories exist of them being captured in the 1800s, and by men of such skills. We have lost the outdoor skills and horsemanship required. It should not be a surprise that the best single piece of film we have of the creature was taken on horseback, it is something that helps cover up the scent as well as audio signature of humans, I doubt there was any conversation in the minutes leading up to seeing Patty, I think they were just riding along. When we are out in the field they can tell we are human long before we get near them, and they have the upper hand. That needs to be reversed.

 

Yes, we have lost our skills that we once had as our ancestors di back then. The ability to track game , and hunt it is a skill that is learned by being in the field and learned by observation. We have lost those skills by technology that science has provided for us. In a way science has held us back by it's advances and this is some thing that these creatures have an advantage over us. We have to go back to the way it was back then in order to advance bigfoot science. Bigfoot science can not be at a stand still because of science refusal to listen. This is why a lot of us has spent out of our own pockets to provide science what little proof we can gather about these creatures. It is not fair or just but it is a route that most of us have chosen for science. A lot of have no idea on how to handle the evidence or how the evidence should be handled since there is no proper protocol for it. Again this all starts with a creation of Bigfoot science that was started by the old guard and has been used by most. 

 

 

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 can't see this being any kind of impediment to discovery of these potential creatures. We are very luckily enjoying a Zeitgeist of enlightenment of human evolution with all the recent discoveries and finds like the hobbit, lucy, Homo naledi and so forth adding to the picture.  This is currently THE PLACE TO BE in science. If this animal exists it no doubt will further advance our knowledge of evolution of bipedal primates, possibly the homo genus, even Medieval superstitions have not retarded our recent revelations, no reason to think this will be the straw that broke the camels back........that broke a long while ago.

Now think about this , the discovery of an ancient man living in the present that may very well be a link to our own DNA. Would that not create hysteria amongst the masses, including the scientist. That our science was wrong in what it has taught in schools , religion and every thing else. Is science big enough to admit this to the world . What will the world think about science , even though it has made some great discoveries. Science would have no idea on how to handle this since we have a living species among us. Also what about the 411 books that have been written and all those people that have gone missing . How would this impact on that, knowing that we have people missing in our forest that cannot be explained but now have some thing to blame it on. How will science deal with that impact? Especially all those stories about how these creatures would steal our women and children after discovery. now do you not think that this is an impediment of discovery of these creatures. No, I am betting that science does not want to jump on this train for the reason I have just explained. It makes good sense for science to have stalled where it has. We are not ready yet for discovery yet. But I have seen preparation for it in commercials and in adds and believe that we are being prepared for discovery. Little by little our minds are being prepped  with small messages by science, every so often settled hints are being offered. It is just a matter of time before science is prepared to announce it. Science will catch up but our world needs to be prepared. 

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^ Scared of bigfoot by what it represents?  I'm all in favor of evolution branched off evolution parallel evolution you name it it has no bearing on our lot as humans.  we can only be what we are.  We can't be the future, we can't be the past.  So what does bigfoot bring to the table?  Magic?  cosmic connections?  Oh come on if you buy that it exists it's a smelly cruder version of we modern humans and no more intelligent than our priate cousins.  Each and every nuance pumped into the myth is the workings of wishful fantasy both for personal affirmation,  entertainment or worse yet to generate support in commercial/attention getting constructs.  Bigfoot has portals and mindspeak.  Well kids even Lost In Space had better scripts.

[Guest DWA]

 

 

I can't see this being any kind of impediment to discovery of these potential creatures. We are very luckily enjoying a Zeitgeist of enlightenment of human evolution with all the recent discoveries and finds like the hobbit, lucy, Homo naledi and so forth adding to the picture.  This is currently THE PLACE TO BE in science. .....

 

 

 

Underscore that.  The frontier is like this in science.  It always has been.

 

One wonders how anyone thinks new things ever are found.  It is ever like this:  someone sees something.  He pursues it; sees another thing...and then another...and then... . Science isn't a dead body of book knowledge.  It is a process applied to evidence.  Bigfoot proponents are at the frontier of the most exciting place in academics...precisely BECAUSE almost none of the cognoscenti are there with them, and all the evidence says they should be.

 

This is how great discoveries happen.  And Bindernagel is really right:  this one has been made.  Not by the vast mass, but by really the only people who count in the actual practice of science:  the ones doing the work.

[Bodhi]

 

True, many of the first expeditions (specifically the tom slick sponsored ones) in search of the yeti were compromised by u.s. intelligence agencies and slick did himself little good by leaving scientists behind in the u.s. and england (slick, et. al, made the decisions of where to search and what items to send back to the scientists recruited to the team but left back at "home base"). Still though, these were serious (but doomed) endeavors requiring real

 

Key word here is : U.S. Intelligence Agencies ,To what purpose did they have in this  in regard to science.

 

The void we have of real science concerning this creature is what is allowing all this paranormal stuff to enter into the picture, slowly we lose credibility as we allow the field to be taken over by extremes. Where are the Rene Da hindens, the Bob Titmus, the kind of guys whose unswerving passion accomplished more for their day than we have for ours. As I have repeatedly stated, we would do well to learn to track, ride on horseback, and to have dogs trained in pursuing primates, and that is what might level the playing field somewhat. These animals can be tracked, although they might be able to escape through their speed and agility, but stories exist of them being captured in the 1800s, and by men of such skills. We have lost the outdoor skills and horsemanship required. It should not be a surprise that the best single piece of film we have of the creature was taken on horseback, it is something that helps cover up the scent as well as audio signature of humans, I doubt there was any conversation in the minutes leading up to seeing Patty, I think they were just riding along. When we are out in the field they can tell we are human long before we get near them, and they have the upper hand. That needs to be reversed.

 

Yes, we have lost our skills that we once had as our ancestors di back then. The ability to track game , and hunt it is a skill that is learned by being in the field and learned by observation. We have lost those skills by technology that science has provided for us. In a way science has held us back by it's advances and this is some thing that these creatures have an advantage over us. We have to go back to the way it was back then in order to advance bigfoot science. Bigfoot science can not be at a stand still because of science refusal to listen. This is why a lot of us has spent out of our own pockets to provide science what little proof we can gather about these creatures. It is not fair or just but it is a route that most of us have chosen for science. A lot of have no idea on how to handle the evidence or how the evidence should be handled since there is no proper protocol for it. Again this all starts with a creation of Bigfoot science that was started by the old guard and has been used by most. 

 

 

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 can't see this being any kind of impediment to discovery of these potential creatures. We are very luckily enjoying a Zeitgeist of enlightenment of human evolution with all the recent discoveries and finds like the hobbit, lucy, Homo naledi and so forth adding to the picture.  This is currently THE PLACE TO BE in science. If this animal exists it no doubt will further advance our knowledge of evolution of bipedal primates, possibly the homo genus, even Medieval superstitions have not retarded our recent revelations, no reason to think this will be the straw that broke the camels back........that broke a long while ago.

Now think about this , the discovery of an ancient man living in the present that may very well be a link to our own DNA. Would that not create hysteria amongst the masses, including the scientist. That our science was wrong in what it has taught in schools , religion and every thing else. Is science big enough to admit this to the world . What will the world think about science , even though it has made some great discoveries. Science would have no idea on how to handle this since we have a living species among us. Also what about the 411 books that have been written and all those people that have gone missing . How would this impact on that, knowing that we have people missing in our forest that cannot be explained but now have some thing to blame it on. How will science deal with that impact? Especially all those stories about how these creatures would steal our women and children after discovery. now do you not think that this is an impediment of discovery of these creatures. No, I am betting that science does not want to jump on this train for the reason I have just explained. It makes good sense for science to have stalled where it has. We are not ready yet for discovery yet. But I have seen preparation for it in commercials and in adds and believe that we are being prepared for discovery. Little by little our minds are being prepped  with small messages by science, every so often settled hints are being offered. It is just a matter of time before science is prepared to announce it. Science will catch up but our world needs to be prepared. 

 

Tom slick was running his expedition around the time the chinese were invading the area and so the cia(?) wanted to know anything they could about what was going on. It's been awhile since I read the book which covered those early expeditions but I think a number of the scientists involved had been in the intelligence services during the war and I think that slick had some connections to the cia as well. It might have been dulles who came to slick initially. If the history of those early expeditions are something you are interested in let me know and I'll dig through and find out which book it is that I'm paraphrasing.

 

Long story longer, it wasn't about quashing information it was about spying on the chinese communists/socialists. sorry if I gave the wrong impression on that.

[Cotter]

 

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.

Yes, and we know this because we have ample physical evidence of their presence, their carcasses along roads, and clear, unambiguous, pictures and video. I'll say it again. If the range is, basically, all of north america AND some of them hang out near civilization AND still nothing near scientific evidence? There is something wrong with the logic of that argument.

 

 

Well, I don't necessarily buy into the thought they're 'hanging out' near civilization per se.  Like wolves and mtn lions will pass through on occasion.  I think also that there is a frequency of occurrence to consider as well.  I don't think there's a huge population of BF out there as some would tend to believe.  Meaning, how many times does a wild animal actually go into an urban area (passing through or otherwise) and is NOT seen or photographed.  The picture below is of an alleged mountain lion that was seen by multiple witnesses last year in Milwaukee, WI.  Not many pics were taken, and the ones that were looked like the one below (a google search of Milwaukee mountain lion will get you a bunch of info).  I wouldn't consider this unambiguous.  A several week search and trapping operation ensued by local law enforcement and DNR resulted in nothing but a few trapped stray dogs.  I think that we just can't assume if a BF were to stroll through an urban area, it would necessarily have been hit by a car, photographed (unambiguously), or even seen for that matter.  That said, I don't buy into any sort of notion that they are setting up camp under bridges in Chicago or the like.  And I would say that eye witness accounts, tho the poorest of all evidence, is still evidence.  But that's a whole 'nother thread!

 

 

"I'm banned from the nawac thread

 

me too.  :-( 

Agreed.

There is a social phenom going on, because this creature is not as prolific as reported. Simply because it is not logical.

 

Even though it's not prolific, doesn't mean it can't pass through a more urban area.

Now, for those living in the outskirts of large cities and have them hanging out in the city park......well.....

[JDL]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years.

 

Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes:

 

1.  Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food.

2.  Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition.  Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations.

3.  As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations.

4.  Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night.

5.  Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc.

6.  Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters.  They may even have preyed on humans at times. 

7.  Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival.  The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times.

8.  As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off.

9.  Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe.  Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today.  Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names.

 

So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict.  Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation.

 

lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition.

 

The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). 

http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp

Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent.

There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found.

Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science.

 

I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary.

 

So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years.

 

Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes:

 

1.  Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food.

2.  Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition.  Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations.

3.  As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations.

4.  Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night.

5.  Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc.

6.  Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters.  They may even have preyed on humans at times. 

7.  Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival.  The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times.

8.  As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off.

9.  Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe.  Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today.  Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names.

 

So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict.  Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation.

 

lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition.

 

The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). 

http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp

Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent.

There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found.

Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science.

 

I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary.

 

So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit?

 

 

Dude, you're persistently immune to reason and prone to introduce straw man topics that haven't even been touched upon.

 

First, they do leave behind hair, scat, footprints, etc..  Your saying that they don't doesn't make it so.

Second, I didn't mention the poem, Beowulf, or for that matter even think about it while posting, but feel free to go where your fantasy takes you.

Third, I am an applied scientist, but am unfamiliar with your science-based background.

Fourth, another example of an animal that has the characteristic of using stealth so that it can pilfer food without engaging in direct conflict?

I submit that Man fits this description.

[Bodhi]

 

 

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.

Yes, and we know this because we have ample physical evidence of their presence, their carcasses along roads, and clear, unambiguous, pictures and video. I'll say it again. If the range is, basically, all of north america AND some of them hang out near civilization AND still nothing near scientific evidence? There is something wrong with the logic of that argument.

 

 

Well, I don't necessarily buy into the thought they're 'hanging out' near civilization per se.  Like wolves and mtn lions will pass through on occasion.  I think also that there is a frequency of occurrence to consider as well.  I don't think there's a huge population of BF out there as some would tend to believe.  Meaning, how many times does a wild animal actually go into an urban area (passing through or otherwise) and is NOT seen or photographed.  The picture below is of an alleged mountain lion that was seen by multiple witnesses last year in Milwaukee, WI.  Not many pics were taken, and the ones that were looked like the one below (a google search of Milwaukee mountain lion will get you a bunch of info).  I wouldn't consider this unambiguous.  A several week search and trapping operation ensued by local law enforcement and DNR resulted in nothing but a few trapped stray dogs.  I think that we just can't assume if a BF were to stroll through an urban area, it would necessarily have been hit by a car, photographed (unambiguously), or even seen for that matter.  That said, I don't buy into any sort of notion that they are setting up camp under bridges in Chicago or the like.  And I would say that eye witness accounts, tho the poorest of all evidence, is still evidence.  But that's a whole 'nother thread!

 

 

"I'm banned from the nawac thread

 

me too.  :-( 

Agreed.

There is a social phenom going on, because this creature is not as prolific as reported. Simply because it is not logical.

 

Even though it's not prolific, doesn't mean it can't pass through a more urban area.

Now, for those living in the outskirts of large cities and have them hanging out in the city park......well.....

 

It's a problem of addressing the various methodological challenges that exist. I've read posts from members such as mib who claim that no behavioral claim should be discounted, while I see that as a road to chaos. My position is that any theory has to be internally consistent and predictive as to expected future behavior or it isn't a theory (it has to be testable).

If they hang around civilization then an explanation as to how they've still avoided leaving a trace needs to be a part of any theory for that behavior. If they avoid civilization then claims of baiting them with gifts, and reports in/near civilization deserve added scrutiny. And if a behavior is claimed that has not been documented in any other known animal, that claim should be shelved (mindspeak,cloaking, leaping 100 ft).

 

also...

The idea that the animals might travel through urban areas opens up a lot of questions. How often, under what stresses does this occur, for how long, etc. It has would have to be rare as no one has gone out to find their pet only to find a hole in their fence with a tuft of coarse, long, brown hair snagged on it, nor do we read of giant footprints under apple trees. So food seems unlikely. Migration seems unlikely too, given the claim that they do not want to hang around humans. Could an injured animal head in for some easy grub, sure. But consider the number of reports alongside roads, and in close proximity to humans. Something doesn't add up.

and

While I understand the point regarding the mountain lion, I do think that a 7 to 12 foot tall biped walking through a neighborhood is likely to be more noticeable than a mountain lion (which could be more easily mistaken at casual glance for animals we expect to be see in the context of a neighborhood).

[Bodhi]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years.

 

Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes:

 

1.  Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food.

2.  Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition.  Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations.

3.  As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations.

4.  Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night.

5.  Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc.

6.  Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters.  They may even have preyed on humans at times. 

7.  Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival.  The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times.

8.  As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off.

9.  Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe.  Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today.  Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names.

 

So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict.  Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation.

 

lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition.

 

The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). 

http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp

Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent.

There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found.

Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science.

 

I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary.

 

So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years.

 

Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes:

 

1.  Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food.

2.  Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition.  Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations.

3.  As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations.

4.  Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night.

5.  Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc.

6.  Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters.  They may even have preyed on humans at times. 

7.  Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival.  The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times.

8.  As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off.

9.  Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe.  Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today.  Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names.

 

So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict.  Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation.

 

lots of supposition. name for me if you will ANY other animal which lives on the edges of modern civilization and yet leaves no hair, scat, bones, blood, is never hit by an vehicle (and has continued to do so with a 100% success rate)? There is no internal logic in your argument, it's all special pleading and supposition.

 

The celtic thing is funny in that it's from an epic poem (sorta' like Beowulf). 

http://www.bfro.net/legends/Iwein.asp

Are you positing poems as part of evidence in a science thread? That says something about the field that I've repeatedly noted. Internal consistency is absent.

There are true science types who are attempting to catalog behaviors so predictions can be made about future behavior so a solution may be found.

Then there are the folks who start adding ancient epic celtic poems out of nowhere and things go from science to..... I have no idea what but it isn't science.

 

I personally feel that those who do this and the portals stuff do NOT want a definitive answer at all. I couldn't begin to guess at the motivations for such a thing but I suppose they vary.

 

So, the example of another animal which displays the characteristics you posit?

 

 

Dude, you're persistently immune to reason and prone to introduce straw man topics that haven't even been touched upon.

 

First, they do leave behind hair, scat, footprints, etc..  Your saying that they don't doesn't make it so.

Second, I didn't mention the poem, Beowulf, or for that matter even think about it while posting, but feel free to go where your fantasy takes you.

Third, I am an applied scientist, but am unfamiliar with your science-based background.

Fourth, another example of an animal that has the characteristic of using stealth so that it can pilfer food without engaging in direct conflict?

I submit that Man fits this description.

 

Great news there! Where are the results of the tests on those specimens of scat, blood, hair? I'm assuming that since you are an applied scientist and I am not you can back this up. By the way, I didn't mention prints in my example, but you pretend that I did and then accuse me of using a straw man..... funny that.

 

No, you didn't mention beowulf but the bfro link I included did. The link is in the "legend" section of the bfro site by the way. The celtic bigfoot you reference is from an 8,000 line ancient epic poem. So yes, it did remind me of beowulf in that both are ancient, epic poems involving monsters(Grendel in Beowulf and the giant in your celtic poem). Not too much of a stretch I thought.

 

I have no science background and look forward to those specimens of blood, scat and hair you assure me are there.

 

Speaking of straw man arguments again, let's look at your response. First, I didn't say anything about "engaging in direct conflict" nice try.   An animal which leaves no trace of itself while living on the edge of civilization and you choose man, I don't know where to begin. Men/women do get hit by cars whilst crossing roads, they are seen in photos,films and so on. An animal which leaves no trace of itself while interacting with civilization, never gets hits by a vehicle.... man. I know you were trying to be snarky but wow, swing and a miss there.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Bodhi

[JDL]

Bodhi, I've watched you consistently dismiss every bit of evidence that has been offered. 

 

For example:  there is internal consistency within the bigfoot reports, but you have categorically dismissed all reports as unreliable based on nothing more than opinion.

 

This forum has also introduced hair and fecal sample analyses that indicate the samples are from no identified animal, but you turn that around and pose that bigfoot leaves no identifiable evidence.  Chicken or the egg here.

 

Did you intentionally omit prints from your post?  If so, why?  And why would you object to their inclusion as evidence left behind?  Krantz and Meldrum have heavily documented such evidence, which is in fact left behind.

 

I wasn't being snarky about man, either.  Man is the most appropriate comparison.

I was the one who introduced the avoidance of conflict in the post to which you responded.  Am I not permitted to carry this theme forward, preserving the integrity of my initial post?

You have so maaaany subjective rules.  I get lost in all of the obfuscation.  Could please produce a compendium of all of your rules that the rest of us can use as a handbook?

Edited January 27, 2016 by JDL

[Guest DWA]

Any scientist worth his skepticals understands that internal consistency over a large volume of anecdotes is a bona fide reality marker.  If not proof it is a yellow flag saying "search here because you're likely to find out, if you do, that they're describing exactly what they all saw."

 

When that is balanced with an equal volume of equally consistent forensic evidence, i.e., the footprints,  then the yellow flag simply gets that much bigger and more intense, saying "look anytime, fool."  Footprint evidence can convict in courts of law; contrary to the screeches of the uninformed, no area of human society is more up to date in its scientific methods than jurisprudence.

 

The power of the evidence has been so far denied out of ignorance...including that of a lot of 'scientists' for whom that term is at best questionable, at least when the talk gets out of their very narrow avenues of expertise.

[georgerm]

Credible and multiple witnesses send criminals to jail for long terms since their testimonies are evidence. The same applies to bigfoot witnesses.  Many scientist don't read or agree with what credible witnesses are saying in regards to bigfoot due to preconceptions. It's unfortunate BFRO doesn't require witnesses to sign their statements like Paulides does with his testimonials.

 

If you feel yourself getting hot under the collar while talking bigfoot ............................ sit back  ........................ have a beer and mellow out. Blame it on bigfoot for making discovery so confusing and difficult.

 

Bigfoot is seen along roads due to greater odds with the steady stream of viewers in cars. Cars speed along roads making wildlife sighting more available.

[Oonjerah]

Quote
Norseman, #168, 26 Jan 2016, 9:39 a.m.  
"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!
&  
"The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there."

 

Norseman, #177, 26 Jan 2016, 11:56 a.m.   
"How strong is a Sasquatch reported to be? What can we extrapolate from that?"

 

Norseman, #185, 26 Jan 2016, 1:31 p.m. 
"Sasquatch does not exhibit Homo like traits based on reports."

 

Norseman, #194, 26 Jan 2016, 3:19 p.m.  
"They possess great strength (like a bear) which is not represented in the genus homo anywhere."

 

UnQuote
=====================================

 

OK. ...  What about Zana?

 

According to the story, Zana was a big, strong, dumb brute. And she's homo.
Why not Bigfoot?

 

I guess: All homos are not the same. Filling different niches, perhaps?

[Celtic Raider]

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 can't see this being any kind of impediment to discovery of these potential creatures. We are very luckily enjoying a Zeitgeist of enlightenment of human evolution with all the recent discoveries and finds like the hobbit, lucy, Homo naledi and so forth adding to the picture.  This is currently THE PLACE TO BE in science. If this animal exists it no doubt will further advance our knowledge of evolution of bipedal primates, possibly the homo genus, even Medieval superstitions have not retarded our recent revelations, no reason to think this will be the straw that broke the camels back........that broke a long while ago.

Now think about this , the discovery of an ancient man living in the present that may very well be a link to our own DNA. Would that not create hysteria amongst the masses, including the scientist. That our science was wrong in what it has taught in schools , religion and every thing else. Is science big enough to admit this to the world . What will the world think about science , even though it has made some great discoveries. Science would have no idea on how to handle this since we have a living species among us. Also what about the 411 books that have been written and all those people that have gone missing . How would this impact on that, knowing that we have people missing in our forest that cannot be explained but now have some thing to blame it on. How will science deal with that impact? Especially all those stories about how these creatures would steal our women and children after discovery. now do you not think that this is an impediment of discovery of these creatures. No, I am betting that science does not want to jump on this train for the reason I have just explained. It makes good sense for science to have stalled where it has. We are not ready yet for discovery yet. But I have seen preparation for it in commercials and in adds and believe that we are being prepared for discovery. Little by little our minds are being prepped  with small messages by science, every so often settled hints are being offered. It is just a matter of time before science is prepared to announce it. Science will catch up but our world needs to be prepared. 

 

 

I understand what you're thinking ShadowBorn but think the exact opposite would be true!

 

Science has ridden itself of the religious dogma that plagued it and stifled it for generations, we are currently in a great era with regard to discoveries particularly relating to early humans and primates, we have recently discovered bonobos, bili apes, early hominids and the scientific world is abuzz with these discoveries. Now is the right time and place if any to introduce a new bipedal species.............. science is a progressive thing, it's not a one and done solution, if new evidence is presented the theorums change............that's the beauty of it and that's why a lot of what was previously taught is now fraught with error. But it's the way it has to be, we can't continue to teach things that are now shown to be wrong just to be more comfortable to some people. If a discovery comes, science would handle it by being scientific, by taking emotion out of the equation and studying the creature to determine where it fits in the great web of evolution. I really don't think it's going to cause panic or the general public to lose all trust in science or wildlife officials etc. I think it will be embraced.

 

One other point I would think is feasible is that if a new, bipedal ape was found, especially one which closely resembled us (in relation to other apes) scientists would be crawling out of the woodwork all over to secure the infamous 'grant money'. What primatologist / biologist / anthrapologist wouldn't want a piece of this action?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Going back to the old guard, I bet they would love to have a chance with today's technology in hand, as well as the knowledge they contributed and was built upon. I think one fatal flaw in the methodology they employed was that they always were chasing reports, instead of really searching out the movements of the creatures, they flew to this spot, drove to that spot, and basically did cursory investigations. I know that Rene had his opportunities at sightings, but he was always off to the next spot before things would transpire, Will Jevning attempted pursuading him into staying on a night or two more during one such investigation, Rene was too impatient and left, later the group had an encounter with multiple Sasquatch. It is one thing to research sightings, and quite another to do real field research. Much of what they did was in daylight, and it beacons the question, were they that set on a sighting, or were they guarding themselves from one, there are certainly risks that come with doing it the right way. My guess is that if they spent as much time figuring out the patterns of the creatures as they did chasing reports, they would have had their sightings in the process.

 

Conclusion: We have grown in that respect, more time is actually being spent in the right areas at the right times, and more data is being collected, but in the process we have alerted them to our knowledge of them, and they have responded by becoming more elusive, and retreating further into wilderness areas. It must be painfully obvious to them when they see humans tying to find them, looking at the ground, always looking around, that would make them more wary, just like deer when hunting season is approaching seem to know that humans are stalking them, and change their behavior accordingly.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[norseman]

Quote

Norseman, #168, 26 Jan 2016, 9:39 a.m.

"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!

&

"The only relationship a Sasquatch and a Human have is that they are both bipedal primates. The similarities abruptly end right there."

Norseman, #177, 26 Jan 2016, 11:56 a.m.

"How strong is a Sasquatch reported to be? What can we extrapolate from that?"

Norseman, #185, 26 Jan 2016, 1:31 p.m.

"Sasquatch does not exhibit Homo like traits based on reports."

Norseman, #194, 26 Jan 2016, 3:19 p.m.

"They possess great strength (like a bear) which is not represented in the genus homo anywhere."

UnQuote

=====================================

OK. ... What about Zana?

According to the story, Zana was a big, strong, dumb brute. And she's homo.

Why not Bigfoot?

I guess: All homos are not the same. Filling different niches, perhaps?

I'm 6'3" 275 lbs and covered in hair and moved grand pianos for a living........according to your logic? Does this make me Bigfoot?

Zana if given half a chance instead of being kept as a slave? Probably could have easily readjusted into civilized society after being wild for so many years. But she wasnt given that chance.

Feral homo sapiens are not homo erectus or A. Boisei.

Edited January 28, 2016 by norseman