Is Sasquatch Good Or Evil Or Both?

[norseman]

I'm telling you the conflict in your own mind need not exist.

Most human-cougar attacks involve old cougars, hungry cougars.

Most human-cougar encounters send the human blissfully on their way unaware of the cougars presence.

But there are exceptions to every rule.

[Guest WesT]

Maybe so but I still felt like I was being yanked round.  I probably just need to read it again and then be more specific with what I find contradictory. But roasted babies.... good grief gimme a break.

 

Most cougar attacks, as well as bear attacks, are from starving animals. But sometimes Cougars will attack because they've lost their fear of humans due to contracting canine distemper. When that happens, the Cougar doesn't kill for food.

[norseman]

As I said there are exceptions....

The article is garbage. But I do defend the probability that Sasquatch as a wild creature is probably not Harry from Harry and the Hendersons.

[Guest WesT]

As do I. It's an opportunist, just like all animals, including ourselves. It goes against all we know of the natural world to fantasize it's a giant teddybear.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Gorillas and Orangutans, which are a somewhat comparable animal, are fairly placid unless making a threat display.

And since they are not predators I think human fatalities must be pretty low.

You can cuddle with Orangutans, you might want to watch out for chimps and large monkeys, though (bite your face off, rip your limbs from the socket's, etc., etc.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[georgerm]

It's not that I can't see humans becoming dinner. If we look at other top predators, who live and hunt side by side competing for the same food resources, we see that a vulnerable lion cub is killed by the rival Hyena, or Cheetah. If any one of the top predators catches another top predator (or their young) in a vulnerable situation, they are killed and eaten. So that part isn't such a stretch when we take a look at how the natural world operates. Things have certainly changed now as we don't rely on the forest to feed us as was the case in the past.

 

Roasted babies?..... want to and can wipe out the humans?..... and yet, they are afraid of us and do everything possible to avoid contact? Well, which is it?  Then my eyes glaze over and I start to get a headache.

 

 

Sorry for the headache. Yes, the 39 comments were rambling and the author seems to think his Native American sources were accurate. We get the general picture regardless of how poorly written the statements are. One thread concept is to speculate about the problems the Native Americans had with bigfoot. They had all kinds of nasty names for them. Why?  Can you list them since I've got to go now.

 

One thing I don't want to do is to stereotype bigfoot, and claim that they are mostly nasty creatures like a hungry cougar that will eat a child in a heartbeat. Make sure that you read the story of bigfoot saving the snake bit Indian so you know Bigfoot has some saintly qualities.

 

However, the native Americans claimed they were human like. Does this mean they have long memories, can hate, and inflict long term revenge. There is a point when sociopathic killers become evil, and this is fair use of the term regardless of any verbal sidestepping. 

[georgerm]

I dunno Georgerm, on many levels I would handicap a paleo Indian with a flint knife and a sinew-backed bow as a favorite over a modern human equipped with a FLIR and a semi-auto.  While I presume a Sasquatch is always going to be the comparative master of the environment, my guess is the Indian counterpart was much, much closer to their skill level than a modern, so-called civilized human could be. I'm doubting a Sasquatch would risk getting maimed or killed if other food was abundant.  I'm not buying this emphasized preference for human flesh either. Protein is protein, and why bother with long pig when a deer doesn't pack a bow or spear? A calorie is a calorie, and the fewer risks and investment in energy to get that calorie, the better, and that is going to be the one any species will prefer.  

 

Hello WSA ........... glad to hear from you. Rather than thinking of several Indians against a bigfoot, I'm thinking globally or looking at the big picture back then and now. Let's look at this from  bigfoot's perspective. We hop into bigfoot's head and see through their eyes back during Native American times and today. If bigfoot is human like as some tribes claim, with a fair amount of intelligence, they know picking off modern people can create problems their clan. 

 

We know it so why wouldn't they know it? Sane criminals and intelligent bigfoots that want to roll or eat hikers know this can bring out large search parties traveling on roads, with planes and from numerous towns. Now let's drop back 700 years. Along comes a hiker and bigfoot is famished or pissed due to past abuse. Does it weigh the odds of having villagers miles and miles away catching it?

 

Have today's bigfoots changed and punish or kill other bigfoots that kill humans and endanger the whole clan? Are they risk takers with long lasting hatred?

 

I realize this calls for speculation, but if we are not dealing with an ape but a smart hominid that is nearly impossible to catch or study, much is possible IMHO. Have fun with the topic but stay cool.

 

Below is a sketch of Patty without her facial hair.   hmmmmm ............. pretty human like!

Edited May 26, 2016 by georgerm

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

It's not that I can't see humans becoming dinner. If we look at other top predators, who live and hunt side by side competing for the same food resources, we see that a vulnerable lion cub is killed by the rival Hyena, or Cheetah. If any one of the top predators catches another top predator (or their young) in a vulnerable situation, they are killed and eaten. So that part isn't such a stretch when we take a look at how the natural world operates. Things have certainly changed now as we don't rely on the forest to feed us as was the case in the past.

 

Roasted babies?..... want to and can wipe out the humans?..... and yet, they are afraid of us and do everything possible to avoid contact? Well, which is it?  Then my eyes glaze over and I start to get a headache.

 

 

Sorry for the headache. Yes, the 39 comments were rambling and the author seems to think his Native American sources were accurate. We get the general picture regardless of how poorly written the statements are. One thread concept is to speculate about the problems the Native Americans had with bigfoot. They had all kinds of nasty names for them. Why?  Can you list them since I've got to go now.

 

One thing I don't want to do is to stereotype bigfoot, and claim that they are mostly nasty creatures like a hungry cougar that will eat a child in a heartbeat. Make sure that you read the story of bigfoot saving the snake bit Indian so you know Bigfoot has some saintly qualities.

 

However, the native Americans claimed they were human like. Does this mean they have long memories, can hate, and inflict long term revenge. There is a point when sociopathic killers become evil, and this is fair use of the term regardless of any verbal sidestepping. 

 

As very near relatives they would have all the potential of a man, but with smaller brains they have less symbolic language, less technology, less social structure. But the potential is there as the very beginning of human development overlapped with the great ape we call a sasquatch, we are much more closely related than, say, to a Bonobo Chimp.

Look up humanzee some time.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Some art criticism is that you're missing the sagittal crest and Patty does not have a neck.

Kudos if you made the drawing yourself, however, kind of looks like Stalin. 

Edited May 26, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[Guest WesT]

 

Sorry for the headache. Yes, the 39 comments were rambling and the author seems to think his Native American sources were accurate. We get the general picture regardless of how poorly written the statements are. One thread concept is to speculate about the problems the Native Americans had with bigfoot. They had all kinds of nasty names for them. Why?  Can you list them since I've got to go now.

 

One thing I don't want to do is to stereotype bigfoot, and claim that they are mostly nasty creatures like a hungry cougar that will eat a child in a heartbeat. Make sure that you read the story of bigfoot saving the snake bit Indian so you know Bigfoot has some saintly qualities.e

 

However, the native Americans claimed they were human like. Does this mean they have long memories, can hate, and inflict long term revenge. There is a point when sociopathic killers become evil, and this is fair use of the term regardless of any verbal sidestepping. 

 

No worries about the headache, that's why they make BC Powders lol. I'm not familiar with any of the nasty names they gave them, this is the first I've heard of that. I must have missed smelly retarded sunny beach somewhere along the way. But I would say yes, there were undoubtedly problems, since they were in direct competition for food. Just that, by itself, is going to cause friction.

 

I'd bet diamonds to doughnuts if a NA saw a gorilla or an Orangutan as recently as 200 years ago they'd say it was human like. They may have even thought they were another human tribe. But that's just because they were unaware of great apes and had no knowledge of the hominid fossil record.

Edited May 27, 2016 by WesT

[georgerm]

 

 

Sorry for the headache. Yes, the 39 comments were rambling and the author seems to think his Native American sources were accurate. We get the general picture regardless of how poorly written the statements are. One thread concept is to speculate about the problems the Native Americans had with bigfoot. They had all kinds of nasty names for them. Why?  Can you list them since I've got to go now.

 

One thing I don't want to do is to stereotype bigfoot, and claim that they are mostly nasty creatures like a hungry cougar that will eat a child in a heartbeat. Make sure that you read the story of bigfoot saving the snake bit Indian so you know Bigfoot has some saintly qualities.e

 

However, the native Americans claimed they were human like. Does this mean they have long memories, can hate, and inflict long term revenge. There is a point when sociopathic killers become evil, and this is fair use of the term regardless of any verbal sidestepping. 

 

No worries about the headache, that's why they make BC Powders lol. I'm not familiar with any of the nasty names they gave them, this is the first I've heard of that. I must have missed smelly retarded sunny beach somewhere along the way.  WHAT? But I would say yes, there were undoubtedly problems, since they were in direct competition for food. Just that, by itself, is going to cause friction.

 

I'd bet diamonds to doughnuts if a NA saw a gorilla or an Orangutan as recently as 200 years ago they'd say it was human like. They may have even thought they were another human tribe. THIS STATEMENT SEEMS INSULTIVE TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN. EXPLAIN MORE TO GET OUT OF THE HOLE. But that's just because they were unaware of great apes and had no knowledge of the hominid fossil record.

 

 

Your comments are really unclear but thanks for replying. Try to clarify so we can have a good discussion.

[Guest WesT]

You stated the NA had all kinds of nasty names for them. News to me.

Next, I was pointing out the fact that since great apes don't exist on this continent coupled with the fact the NA were unaware of the great apes that existed elsewhere they might think a Gorilla was a different tribe of people. I'm not sure how you can squeeze an insult out of that, but I don't know how to explain it any better.

[norseman]

Orangutan literally means "wildman of the woods".

[Guest WesT]

In the Nage language of central Flores, ebu means 'grandmother' and gogo means 'he who eats anything'. An English equivalent might be something like "granny glutton."

[BigTreeWalker]

I see no insult in WesT's response. If the native Americans didn't have a frame of reference for the great apes, and they didn't. What frame of reference would they use? Most likely themselves. That's not supposition, it's a simple deduction.