If Bigfoot Were Real.

[guyzonthropus]

Wasn't M.K.D. proposing that she was indeed carrying something in her left hand at some point?

[Incorrigible1]

And wearing jewelry, as I recall. Of course, he saw a blood-red water pool, and several bf in the surrounding tree-line. Yikes.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

^Didn't he believe in some shooting conspiracy or something?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I think I have made my point as to what I think of this creatures existence, now I head north into the boreal wilderness in hopes of moving beyond simple belief, however based on experience and logic. In the end you have to get into the outdoors to have any chance to become a knower, of which I am not. 

[guyzonthropus]

Incorrigible- while watching M.K.'s video on the there being a second BF, where he's moving the frames back and forth, pointing out motions in mid-screen, I did indeed find a third one moving in the opposite direction that Patty is traveling. In saying this, I would put forth that if what he is pointing out is a second one, then what I found is near certainly a third.

[salubrious]

On 7/28/2016 at 6:51 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

In that case please accept my humble apologies.

Perhaps my skin is too thin.

Accepted!

 

I also found some of the prior posts to which you referred earlier. I can see how you might have been annoyed if you were thinking someone had seen those posts. In fact I had but had forgotten about them. The perils of age...

[SWWASAS]

On 7/29/2016 at 10:19 AM, DWA said:

I think there are *lots* of animals that know the importance of remaining undetected, just as there are a number that appear to have possible rituals related to the death of another.  I just don't go looking for bigfoot burials, anymore than we've done that to locate any other animal we've confirmed.  I especially don't do this when there isn't solid evidence pointing to the possibility, which I'd have to be pointed to because I'd say there is none.

I was watching a documentary last night about burial practices with human and prehuman ancestors.     There seems to be a huge correlation between burial and rituals.     As human culture evolved and the concept of afterlife developed,  so did the ritual associated with burial or internment.     It was not thought that Neanderthal had any burial ritual and all and perhaps was even mostly cannibalistic until a recent discovery of several Neanderthal skeletons buried together in a group with cultural artifacts placed with the bodies.    Homofloresiensis apparently tended to their dead also.    Apparently once a species evolves into ritual beliefs about afterlife etc, then that triggers burial or internment with the attempt to preserve or protect the remains.   I recall some witness reports of BF sitting in a road, in pouring rain, staring off to the South.    They seemed oblivious to the approach of the vehicle the witness was driving.    My thought was that it was a grieving process or an attempt at suicide because of a loss.      The grieving process is observed in many animals so it is not much of a stretch to believe that BF may grieve.    If grieving evolves into concepts of afterlife and ritual,  then we can expect BF will care for the dead like prehuman and humans have through much of their history.    And as humans have done, the method may vary by geographical region.       I have wondered if the rare and horrific Ohio howl from BF is, rather than some sort of territorial vocalization which seems strange for a reclusive creature,   is instead an expression of grief at the loss of a family member.         

Edited July 30, 2016 by SWWASAS

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑

 

That sounds  most interesting. Please share your source. I watched something similar on  the science channel.  Unexplained files or something like that.

[Guest SquatchinNY]

^I believe that was the "sighting lf 2 BF in colorado" thread.

[SWWASAS]

The network the show was on was history channel.   I was just clicking through and found it mid program.     The Neanderthal segment got my attention.    I was taught in school that they were brutish cannibals that ate their own dead so ritualistic burial was certainly different.     But like I said, much of what I was taught in college has been found to be wrong.      It seemed to relate a lot to this thread.     I cannot source the BF grieving witness account as I have so many books and frequent the BFRO database also.     Just another of those anecdotal stories no one believes anyway.  

 

 I thought it interesting that the suspected BF grave I found, if the bird like rock stack meant anything, was laid out with the feet facing East.     Humans have been burying their dead with the feet towards the rising sun for a long time.   Just assembling the bird like rock stack,  there is no way it was natural because of how it was delicately balanced,    indicates ritual burial to me.      One word of caution that I am surprised the skeptics have not already brought up.       We have had a series of serial killers in the Pacific Northwest.    Their favorite place for body disposal is the woods.      Ted Bundy and Robert Yates killed dozens of woman and disposed of their bodies in the woods.   Most of the victims would never have been found without the killers aid in finding the locations.    Many dozens have never been found.     I would suspect that professional killers employed by the criminal element would use the woods also.    I wonder how many hunters have shot another, and rather than face justice just buried the evidence against them.   And certainly old graves might more likely be Native Americans.      Just as with BF, bodies are easy to disappear in the wet,  acidic soil, of the PNW.    But my point is finding a grave does not necessarily mean a BF is in there.  

Edited July 31, 2016 by SWWASAS

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

On 7/29/2016 at 1:47 AM, BigTreeWalker said:

 

 

Cryptic, you want everyone to approach the skull type and size scientifically. Yet you yourself do not do so. If you're going to compare the early hominids, take your pick which one, they were small compared to us. Regardless what shape you think Patty's skull is considering her stature and body build, her head is probably bigger than ours. You want to make those comparisons, then scale them to the correct size. The problem is, it would still only be a rough estimate at best. As others above have commented, unless you have an actual sasquatch skull to work with, you are just guessing. 

I am guessing, and I scaled the skull.

I would say a 100% match pretty much illustrates that.

The profile like fully within the outline.

 

The only difference is the 3D model has an artifact and would need to adjust for muscle thickness and skin.

 

I am trained in anatomy and physiology and life drawing so I don't worry about my abilities so much.

I also have am self taught in hominid anthropology and archeology including human archeology.

 

Your interpretation is obviously different, that is fine, we can disagree, it happens in "science" (whatever that is) all the time.

 

I wonder if you are trying to be troll or are offering honest feedback, however.

You can clarify that if you wish.

 

To say I am not scientific on this forum makes me smile, however.

Did I say I was not guessing? It's called theoretical speculation, which is all you're going to get with Bigfoot at this point.

But it is drawn from a film that can be used for measurements.

 

 

The hominids from the past would have to become larger as we did.

I have posted about this in depth in the past so no need for me to rehash.

The head size in comparison is relevant to Homo Sapiens for what reasons? (yours)

 

The brain's structure is what is most important.

 

Proportionally the size relative to the body is consistent with Homo Habilis, Paranthropus Boisei.

 

I have provided a comparison Meldrum sent, you will have to search for the thread but is likely the one on "What branch of the family tree does Patty belong".

 

I could break down my illustration but Meldrum did a good job on the thread I provided. Of course that was not accepted either. 

 

And Meldrum is a real scientist, so what chance would I have?

 

Zip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BigTreeWalker]

You are the one that mentioned being scientific about the comparisons and proportions. 

 

On 7/28/2016 at 0:54 PM, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Measure the proportions, that would be the scientific approach.

 

John Green had Jim McClarin walk Patty's path. So we do have a human head size for comparison and proportions. All I'm saying is whenever a brain size is mentioned in relation to intelligence it's simply a guess at best. And unless you scaled up those sizes you have mentioned then they also have no real bearing on the subject.

 

This just reminds me of early studies on the brain where they measured and used the shapes of various people's heads to determine their brain size and thus supposed intelligence. Our knowledge of the brain has come a ways since then. 

[guyzonthropus]

XxxBig Tree-back when I was a sociology then  anthropology major I remember coming across the bio-reductionists of the later 1800's who were saying that various physical features indicated social/mental development. Oddly enough, they found the German male to be the pinnacle of human evolution/development (go figure....)

 

Amongst the traits taken into consideration for their study was cranial size/capacity  as well as genitalial magnitude, and thereby judged the Africans as inferior to the Europeans, in that while cranial differences were minor, well.. the other, not so much, at least in their eyes, and maybe locker rooms. They saw African women as the least developed, in that they were not only African, but women as well. Not only racist, but sexist to boot!

 If I recall correctly, that was also about the time phrenology was in high fashion, the "reading" of one's head shape and bumps and such to determine one's nature and abilities, probably future as well, as I know we humans and our obsession with trying to know what lies ahead.......

 

Crypto- if Origins is the most recent physical anthro text you've read(I just came across my copy of it while moving boxes) it's time to catch up, man! Personally, I thought Richard Leakey had been discredited years ago, but I could well be wrong about that. Not quite of the same genre, but a book I read around the same time was Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene which had rather new conceptual approaches to things, then there was Berger&Luckmans the Social Construction of Reality, that's a good read as well...

[BigTreeWalker]

Thanks Guy for elaborating more on that, which is the point I was trying to get across. If anyone is interested in more studies on brain size and development here are some interesting articles. 

 

http://www.livescience.com/32142-are-big-brains-smarter.html

 

https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-brain-size-doesnt-correlate-with-intelligence-180947627/

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter/

 

 

As a couple of the articles mentioned the whole brain size thing is still a controversial subject, but progress is being made on what actually creates intelligence in a brain. It definitely is not a cut and dried subject as simple as size. I saw something there about Albert Einstein's brain being average size but having more glial cells, which a fatty non-nerve cells which provide structure. Then they did speculate on the possibility that he had better connections between his nerve pathways. 

 

[FarArcher]

 

 

I don't make any assumptions about cranial size one way or the other.  I do know they have bigger punkins than humans - but how much of that is allocated to the brain by comparison is beyond me.

 

I know their eyes are much larger than ours, and a lot higher on the head that our eyes, but I don't know how that would affect brain cavity size.

 

I know they're not technologically oriented as humans are, but they seem to have developed the predatory survival skills honed to a fine practice - much, much more advanced than humans.  They seem to excel in the very terrains humans find most difficult to traverse.

 

They are apparently their most capable by being highly crepuscular and nocturnal, though they can also do quite well during daylight hours. 

 

We're only a couple hundred years removed from being diurnal.  Our inventions of electrical and chemical lighting enable us limited nighttime activities, but if the electric goes out, we go back to being primitive diurnal creatures.  

 

I feel the intelligence is not quite as developed as full humans in all aspects, but then again, I see a lot of humans that I am astounded they can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.  BF's have tactical excellence and seem to work well together - something not many humans can do.

 

Their lifestyle doesn't require them an alphabet, and they seem to have little need for highly developed weapons - as they apparently have skills humans could only dream of.

 

One being - avoiding the highly intelligent humans hunting them.  As though human field skills and capabilities are anywhere near theirs.  Especially at night.