Is Sasquatch Good Or Evil Or Both?

[georgerm]

Find the comments at the bottom of this interview with the lady who lived in a cave. Her statements not part of this thread. Scroll down to the comment section and find Jason. He has 39 items he believes to be bigfoot facts based on Native American opinions. Remember, they lived with Sasquatch for about 12,000 years. Sasquatch could easily victimize them.

 

Please  comment on 39 statements made by Jason. The statements are not uplifting, but are they true for some bigfoots or all of them? These statements can be backed up by your experiences and reports from others. Some statements back up Paulide's books and what the Klamath Indians say about bigfoot. Did the bigfoots victimize the Native Americans much more since they couldn't fight back as we can today?  

 

Granted some statements are 'out there' but have fun with some serious comments.

 

http://www.bigfootbuzz.net/woman-lives-with-sasquatch-in-cave/

 

 

Jason says: 

 

November 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM

 

Here is my take on the bigfoot:

 

I (Jason) did exhaustive research on the native American legends about them. This is the best place to look for evidence about them. They have the oldest cultures on north America as a continent and they themselves say the following about bigfoot – and by the way almost every tribe across the continent says the exact same thing!:

 

1. Bigfoot is human and native americans regard them as a tribe of people.
2. Bigfoot is NOT an ape. They are explicitly described as simply TALL and HAIRY people who look EXACTLY LIKE the rest of the red-skinned people (their terms).
3. Bigfoot is NOT stupid, but probably smarter than us.
4. Bigfoot is INDEED telepathic and uses its eyes (and I believe their advanced pineal gland) to hypnotize its prey or paralyze them.
5. People can die by looking a bigfoot in the eyes (probably by the aforesaid reason.)

 

6. Bigfoot range from human height in the 5ft range to heights above 12ft. I will expand on this later.
7. Bigfoot is regarded as a GIANT – unless human height!
8. All bigfoot are HAIRY almost over their entire body, and this is the distinguishing feature that separates them from regular humans. Not size or musculature. Perhaps you could argue telepathic powers etc. …
9. Bigfoot lives underground. Obviously, in cave systems.
10. Rumor is, but is not general consensus as with other points, that Bigfoot emerged 15,000 years ago or so from Mammoth cave system which is the largest in America. They lived alongside native americans when they arrived later, to each their own.

 

11. Bigfoot IS A CANNIBAL! (meaning they eat humans?) I should have made this number one! Also this is their distinguishing feature, for almost all bigfoot are cannibals.
12. Bigfoot are FEARED by native americans. Yes they are revered, but in FEAR. The western myth that bigfoot is magical and a happy being that helps shamans and likes indian tribes is a TOTAL WAD OF TRASH!

 

read more ....................  goes to 39

Edited May 23, 2016 by georgerm

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I will comment on 1 at this point.

 

Natives did not have any knowledge of modern day fossil discovery out of Africa.

They where identifying something  similar but not completely like who they where using the best idea they had at that time.

 

Surely other indian "tribes" were not nearly so different as the Bigfoot.

 

They are even right, in a way, the boundary between Australopithecus and early Homo Habilis is not clearly defined and is even debated scientifically to this day.

 

Homo Habilis would have considered these other hominids to be a similar "tribe" as well.

At that time there was much littler difference than there is now. 

Just a bit more tool use, a bit more brain, and a bit more social organization.

 

So, no, Bigfoot is not an indian tribe.

It is a useful paradigm, however.

Just not getting lost in the paradigm is more important.

We have more science available to us now.

[georgerm]

Seems like Homo habilis is way too ancient to be considered and the diagram shows it becoming extinct.

 

The fossil record is so incomplete, we probably haven't found bigfoots ancestors.

 

 

 

KNM ER 1813 is a relatively complete cranium which dates to 1.9 million years old, discovered at Koobi Fora, Kenya by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973. The brain capacity is 510 cm³, not as impressive as other early specimen and forms of H. habilis discovered.

[georgerm]

 

REVISION:

 

Seems like Homo habilis is way too ancient to be considered and the diagram shows it becoming extinct over a million years ago.

 

The fossil record is so incomplete, we probably haven't found bigfoot's ancestors.

 

SEE ABOVE: The figure on the left is the Homo habilis and the one on the right is a witness sketch of a bigfoot. Homo habilis looks way too monkey like to be in the same category as bigfoot or humans.

 

Homo habilis discovery in 1973:  A relatively complete cranium which dates to 1.9 million years old, discovered at Koobi Fora, Kenya by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973. The brain capacity is 510 cm³, not as impressive as other early specimen and forms of H. habilis discovered.

 

What makes a primate human?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I would suggest reading Origins Reconsidered by Richard Leakey.

 

Then consider which is likely, an Australopithecine survived and science is wrong (in fact it is, looks like the hobbit may be an Australopithecine or have many similarities to) or that something just like it survived that was identical and is called a Bigfoot.

If two things are identical, they are probably the same genus and perhaps even the same species.

 

If you read the book you will know the latest thinking from a leader in the field on this type of subject matter.

It's written in layman's terms and is pretty entertaining as well, so not heavy lifting if you have an aptitude for tourism type reading with some logical archeology and anthropology discussion thrown in.

[MIB]

To my understanding, "good" and "evil" are moral judgments based on intent.   As such, they have a built in implication of consciousness rather than mere instinct.   A lion or bear that eats you is not "evil", it is merely hungry and acting on instinct, same as a venomous spider or snake that bites you in self defense.    Harmful, absolutely, evil, absolutely not.  

 

(Note: I recognize that some particularly narcissistic people consider anything not submitting to their will to be "evil."  That's not what we're talking about I hope.)

 

Basically, I consider the question itself invalid so either answer to be nonsense unless you build in the assumption that bigfoots are self-aware with a sense of right and wrong and occasionally deliberately choose to do "wrong."    It is probably more productive to couch the question in more objective, less subjective, terms.   Risk.  Costs.  Tangible outcomes.   Something that most "camps" can agree on rather than building the value system of one camp or another into the discussion and forcing the others to accept it or not participate.

 

MIB

[Twist]

Sorry I started to read his comments and only got to about half way thru.  Most of his ideas about bigfoot seem to be routed or based in one extreme or another.   When you look at something that has existed for a long time, they seem to float in the middle, hence survival.  If something is one extreme or another they seem to be taken out be natural selection aka evolution.  The things of one extreme or another seem to be the ideal fantasy of stories, either good or bad. Of course as always, the is just my opinion.  Hope this makes sense.  

[BobbyO]

MIB, spot on MIB.

[ShadowBorn]

Now were they here before Native Americans and if so, then they invaded here first. I agree with what MIB has said since they are purely instinctual and are only there for there own survival. It is like any species that wants to live and live freely, they are the same and maybe even more.

[georgerm]

To my understanding, "good" and "evil" are moral judgments based on intent.   As such, they have a built in implication of consciousness rather than mere instinct.   A lion or bear that eats you is not "evil", ( MOST WOULD CONSIDER THIS TO BE BAD, AND IF IT HAS HUMAN DNA MAYBE EVIL) it is merely hungry and acting on instinct, same as a venomous spider or snake that bites you in self defense.    Harmful, absolutely, evil, absolutely not.  

 

(Note: I recognize that some particularly narcissistic people consider anything not submitting to their will to be "evil."  That's not what we're talking about I hope.)

 

Basically, I consider the question itself invalid so either answer to be nonsense unless you build in the assumption that bigfoots are self-aware with a sense of right and wrong and occasionally deliberately choose to do "wrong."    It is probably more productive to couch the question in more objective, less subjective, terms.   Risk.  Costs.  Tangible outcomes.   Something that most "camps" can agree on rather than building the value system of one camp or another into the discussion and forcing the others to accept it or not participate.

 

MIB

 

 

Again, the perception of good or evil is based on the Native American view point, since they lived with this creature for 12,000 years or more.  A famished bigfoot could easily sneak into their villages at night and steal a kid or two for meals. Most would consider this as 'bad or evil' regardless if BF knows no better, which is doubtful. Does bigfoot know better? Tribal Bigfoot written by Paulides states the Klamath River tribes considered the bigfoot to be a 'forest devil'. They must have their reasons.

 

Let's define evil first so we have a basis for discussion. We are not talking about the religious spin on the word. Wikipedia: However, elements that are commonly associated with evil involve unbalanced behavior involving expediency, selfishness, ignorance, or neglect.^[3] 

 

Now sure, we can sit in our secure homes and debate whether bigfoot is good or bad. Put yourself in the Native American head and ask the question. They lived with little to no defenses against a bigfoot that wanted to kidnap people and eat them as Mark states. Sure we can write from our couches and state this is natural bigfoot behavior but if your family was effected, many would consider this to be bad behavior. Is this bad enough to hunt them down and to consider them evil?

 

The NA considered bigfoot to be human so do they know right from wrong? Are they smart enough to know they could abuse the Native Americans that had little power to combat them? Present society can produce huge groups to hunt them down so are bigfoots careful who they pick off? Paulides seems to think so. They have been reported to carry off livestock rather than people today. Why? Do they know today's people can lash out, so we are the forbidden fruit?  

 

Did bigfoot consider the Native Americans as the enemy to kill at will since they drove them high into the mountain cliffs over a 12,000 year period? The sketch below is possibley what a witness saw.

 

Before commenting, please read all 39 comments.

Edited May 24, 2016 by georgerm

[MIB]

I read the comments.   I stand by what I said.   "Good" and "evil" are at best loaded, judgemental, biased terms.    They are **interpretations**, not observations.   Science is based on observation.   If we are not diligently attempting science, we're not contributing anything of value towards our own understanding, never mind anyone else's.   

 

Jumping from that which we likely will not agree on to something else, I am very interested in information coming from the Klamath Tribes.   Their historical tribal lands encompass several areas I've been researching intermittently for several years.   There is some decidedly weird stuff going on which I hope is "only bigfoot".   Please keep your ears open for any contacts I might be able to make over there.

 

MIB

[georgerm]

My thread title could have been better MIB.

 

We don't need to debate the good evil thing, and your points are well taken. We have bigger fish to fry.  

 

Let's rephrase the title to Is Bigfoot Friendly or Dangerous from the Native American experience.  What would you call it?

 

What weird stuff have you heard?  A gal that works for me is a Yurok Indian that is from Yreka on the Klamath River. She had one bigfoot story and maybe she can dig up more.

 

Here is a report from a Klamath Indian that was saved by a bigfoot after he suffered a rattle snake bite. Good story.

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/legends/modoc.htm

 

 

We believe that this book is the first time a Bigfoot research group has stayed on site for an extended period and chronicled their investigation in a book designed for the public. We have no doubt that the research will cause many in the Bigfoot community to take pause and examine our findings closely. Is Bigfoot an anibelieves that bigfoot/sasquatch has strong links to the Native American population and as such can be found near their reservations. We have been told many times that the biped does understand Native American language and as such we are including the below listed map outlining the languages found in North America- Thanks to Wikipedia for supplying the map.

Edited May 25, 2016 by georgerm

[guyzonthropus]

Crypto~ I'm sorry, but you can't say that by reading Leakey' s Origins that anyone will be getting the latest thinking on the topic of human evolution..I read that as one of my textbooks in a physical anthropology class back in mid 90's at the latest, if not before. Within that field there are many opposing and conflicting theories of how we came to be, and the route that path took. One guy makes a find, claims it to be a pivotal point in our evolution, fitting it into his own systematics, vindicating his theories and life's work, while discrediting the research of others, then a few years later, dating techniques or DNA recovery methods improve and make apparent both schools of thought had part of it right, but by no means completely so. With the fossil record as fragmented and hugely non-representational as it is due to the very nature of the process, I would think that a clear progression of developmental forms derived from what we've dug from the earth is still a ways off.

After all, one might consider the possibility that those species discovered in the fossil beds of Africa are in fact evolutionary lines of the species we humans either displaced to lesser habitats/ecosystems as our populations expanded or drove to extinction as we moved into their regions from where we developed, perhaps an environment less conducive to the process of fossilization, thereby leaving no tangible evidence of our rise, but rather only the bones of those we outcompeted and replaced(at least I didn't say "ate"...)

But until we get a reliable eye-witness or go through the entire mantle with one of those little bone-brushes and a sporty hat we're none too apt to know the whole story, if even then....

MIB & Shadow~ The idea that most any animal is "purely instinctual" is erroneous at best, and just to be simiocentric, especially in regards to primates. Any creature that exists in static form will be removed from the food chain by those that do not. Virtually every vertebrate have the capacity to learn, and, to some extent, modify their behaviors in response to their environment otherwise predators will eventually recognize the pattern and exploit it(an example of learning in itself)

Fish learn, amphibians learn, reptiles learn, birds learn as do mammals...things learned by individuals through either experience or the teaching of others, that give rise to new behavior patterns denotes non-instinctual components of their being.

As for good and evil, well, I bet you could write a whole book on that alone...lol however it's manifestation in animals depends in part, I would think, on the specific individual creatures degree of sentience and self awareness within its social context, as the issue itself is indeed moote in either isolation or a vacuum..but pretty much every species I've encountered or worked with, having raised fish, herps, bird and mammals, and been a keeper at two zoos, and watched a bunch of nature shows(!) shows a fairly wide diversity of demeanor and attitude, some being placid or less apt to try to kill us straight out while other individuals are, euphemistically speaking, more on the "Kill them! Kill them all!" side of the spectrum.

Some individuals learn faster than other members of the same species, but this does not denote position on the good'n'evil continuum itself, as, except for a few individuals, it's something of a nature/nurture sorta thing in that it's rarely just one or the other, but rather, a dynamic ratio of the two(a simplification, as there's probably a number of additional influencing factors, but we humans do love our qualities!)

So such things usually are a results of our/your/their genetically provided predispositions responding to/integrating experiences interacting with the external environment, thus it really can go to any point on the compass, and alter course at any point.

Good&evil is also in part a matter of perspective...while a gazelle might well think of all lions as evil(but who REALLY knows what those gazelles are thinking....?)lions might just think most gazelles as tasty....

Do our crops and livestock view us as evil, despite the fact we feed, fertilize, water and house them all their lives, up until we kill them as food? Or is it evil to discount that last question as trivial? Ok, maybe we kill/harvest out the need to feed, but do we judge other such creatures doing the same because we are blind to our own nature, love the arbitrary moral superiority, can't resist a good double standard, read it in a pamphlet a ways back or because we're the species that invented the gavel? Maybe, nowadays,it because we pay others to do it for us,... Regardless, it does not veil our shared commonality sufficiently enough to justify the distinction we impose. Most animals exist within a social context, both intraspecifically, and intraspecifically, which, to varying extent

[guyzonthropus]

Sorry...old dude accidentally deleted the other half (!) So this is just a quick tie up of my last post above...

which, to varying extent impart forms of morality..

But I'm with MIB with the idea that good and evil are largely sentience dependent and varied by each indidual. A purely instinctual creature would not really fall into that other than by our own designation. It requires intent, like the bear in that Anthony Hopkins movie, in that it consciously chose it's pursuit. But is that evil? Or just what his parents taught him? Were his parents evil bears? Probably...

Dang! Sorry for the diatribe, thought it was decaf.....

And I apologize to you Georgem, as I was composing, deleting half by accident, then finishing the good&evil bits prior to seeing the "we don't need to do the good &evil thing"

Doh!

guy

Edited May 25, 2016 by guyzonthropus

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

I notice that Patty does not look like a hairy Indian, but a primitive hominid.

 

My main reply, though, is at the point of divergence from earlier hominid such as Australopithecus some of Homo  man began to experience spiritual states achieved through some type of early yoga techniques and deep meditation, concentration, absorption.

 

in other words some our lineage became saints and quickened our lineages evolution.

 

As a result the descendents of those early psycho spiritual pioneers started developing more in their higher chakras.

We became heart and mind centered with high levels of creativity which led to inventions and changes in lifestyle and physiology that led to larger brains, advanced communication, and technologies that made us less dependent on the physical world and freed us to pursue a more spiritual evolutionary path so we could devote more time to higher states of consciousness and joy.

Other branches of the family we originated in did not follow that path and remained more subconscious and instinct driven and more immersed in a more primitive enmeshment with the physical world and represented a more animalistic path.

 

I think that occasionally individual animals become saints as well, but is much more uncommon (like a white buffalo, giant animals, animals with unusual psychic abilities).

 

In fact one of my ideas for a current painting is to include a Bigfoot saint, it seemed like an interesting idea.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna