Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[hiflier]

Hi everyone. The title of this thread says it all. This topic is to analyze what we have read in the reports from past to present using a different metric or reference point if you will. I have thought about this concept off and on for a few years now and I am pretty sure that I am not the only one. Sasquatch: what is it exactly? This is a question we have all asked ourselves. Is it ape? Is it a people of some kind? Is it a Human/ape hybrid? Much has been offered for discussion on the matter and nature of this creature but little if anything definitive has resulted from those discussions. Each of us may have our own ideas about what this creature actually is though no general consensus has been reached.

 

After much research and much deep thought I have come to the conclusion- for myself anyway- that Sasquatch for all that it is and for all that it is capable of doing acts like, and looks like a bear in Human form. And as outlandish as that idea is I have to tell you that so many things fit this concept that I now have trouble thinking that it is anything else but that. If you give this subject the same critical analysis that I have given it you may understand why I think this even though you may not agree with my conclusion.

 

We could go right down the list of all of the things that have been reported about this creature and if you do you may find yourselves arriving at the same end. That being that Sasquatch is truly a bear in Human form. In fact I see no other options that come close to this one picture of what that creature is. Everything I've read points to it. Everything. If a bear's intelligence was placed inside a form that was Human in shape as well as physical attributes and abilities then I firmly submit that what one would get is a Sasquatch type creature. I think this an extremely important concept for making progress toward an answer to what it is we are dealing with.

 

This is potentially a rather critical turning point in this phenomenon so I would be greatly appreciated if postings can stay referenced to this topic. Plenty of room for science here so have at it. In five days I will be unavailable to watch and respond to this thread until the end of this month. It will be up to ypu after that to stay on topic as much as possible. If you do not think this conclusion works or is valid please don't just say so- state your reasons for the sake of discussion

[Rockape]

Agreed. I've opined before it's possibly that if BF actually exists, it could be some sort of weird looking bear. 

[bipedalist]

Though natural habitat and ethology of the two may be similar John Bindernagel in his classic comparison silhouette shows the north american black bear to have a much lower crotch and much shorter rear leg length.  No comparison in sightings showing whole figure for sure.  

 

Waist up sightings could be a differing story.  Diet etc. definitely similar to the black bear though. 

 

Also the tactics of the subject in question show much more intelligence than Black Bear, not that the latter aren't extremely adaptive and intelligent.  Reminded of the Bob "Action" Jackson seasonal ranger observations at Yellowstone National Park in the escape and evade modality of movement.  

Edited August 12, 2016 by bipedalist

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Strange, exactly what I've contemplated over time, and very recently as well.

Shapeshifter who can assume human or bear form.

Native American antidote describes bear as the same as human on a spirit level but with less energy, with more energy it is human. Reality is fluid and we are basically living in a cosmic dream of the creator.

Ideas of logic, separation, science, likes and dislikes, physical structures are all just extensions of the dream. 

On that level shapeshifting is plausible but maybe not as commonly understood since the masses don't have an understanding of esoteric principles or operations and they can't be looked up in a book but are abilities that need to be developed.

Perhaps bigfoot is a shaman, there are native anecdotes of bigfoot as a black arts shaman, as well.

 

You could also theorize that many bears are mistaken for bigfoot, a known fact I would think at this point.

This explains the overlap in ranges of up to 100%.

 

The other idea is the best alternate explanation or just that bigfoot likes all the same habitats and ranges that bears do.

 

Could be a bear that evolved to be bipedal and has never been discovered.

 

Most likely is Bigfoot is hominid but due to hairiness  obscures so much of the facial body physiology features that identification is difficult.

 

I bet the idea that fired it off for you was the trailcam photo that had pictures of bears very shortly before two creatures that had features that could be taken for bear and or hominid.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Rockape, weird bear indeed but that about sums it up IMO. Bears have certain characteristics and traits that are reported in the Sasquatch as well. Starting with the obvious basics inherent in both is a good beginning to run the idea to ground- which I have done. Results? Bear in Human-like form. It's rather jarring to think about actually when one adds up all of the details.

 

@bipedalist, we are not really talking about a bear body and its characteristics or misidentifications per se. So the physical proportions of a bear won't apply. Human proportions won't apply either. IMHO it's its own species. It really does seem to be a bear in Human-like form. It does things that a Human can do and things that a Human cannot do. I've submitted many threads on the shape of different parts of a Sasquatch body and also some of the mannerisms that have been reported, some quite recently.

 

Starting off with the obvious would be hair covered and that the hair can be different in color and appearance. Another is red eye shine. Another is the habit of going up and down slopes. Nearly identical diets. avoiding Humans but occasionally being seen. Sometimes aggressive, sometimes not. I do not relate this so much to black bears OR grizzly bears. Sasquatch for all of its characteristics is its own bear type. In truth nothing else make any sense. Even DNA testing says bear ala Sykes and others. Everything about Sasquatch says bear- just not in the form of a typical bear. Completely different species entirely- but still a bear.

 

And in actually it shows intelligence very similar to a bear. But that intelligence is better equipped for use by the mere fact that the Human-like physicality has given it a skill set that a bear could never have. In fact is closer to OUR skill set due to it's Human shape and attributes.

 

I predict this thread will get very busy and very interesting. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by hiflier

[hiflier]

13 minutes ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Could be a bear that evolved to be bipedal and has never been discovered

 

That is exactly where I'm going with this. It maybe the only avenue left to us that makes and sense- should there be anything at all sensible about the Sasquatch subject at all. This obviously will not be discussing folklore, shamans, or shapeshifting. Let's do science on this one if we can.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

5 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

That is exactly where I'm going with this. It maybe the only avenue left to us that makes and sense- should there be anything at all sensible about the Sasquatch subject at all. This obviously will not be discussing folklore, shamans, or shapeshifting. Let's do science on this one if we can.

My guess is what you saw might have been a bear, I say that because I think BF only live in certain environments such as the PNW, perhaps a few other areas that are much smaller in general size. Good data supports this (the 98% accurate kind).

 

What you see in the PNW on the P-G film has body proportions that are consistent with hominids, specifically arm, leg, trunk ratios, foot prints, skull shape, musculature, sagittal crest, hair patterns, foot shape and strucure.

 

The reason bigfoot is hard to place is lack of a defined human type nose, inability to often see ears due to hairiness, no chin or forehead like a modern human that makes the head much squarer and flatter, deep eyes sockets that make the eyes hard to see in the P-G film and similar effects.

 

The feet are very clearly hominid like and not bear like. No pads, claws.

 

Hands are the same. defined long fingers and very hominid like.

 

Bipedalism is another uniques feature and took hominids 6 million or more years to develope beyond the level of a chimp.

 

So in the archaeological record there would be good evidence of a bipedal bear due to wide range and long history there should already have been a discovery.

 

If your headed down the science path you have a much harder case to make than for a hominid.

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[hiflier]

CM, if that is addressed to me I did not have any encounters and have never seen one. So this isn't about me at all. It's about the descriptions in the reports along with what the creatures do or are seen to be doing. A Human-shaped bear is all that fits everything that I have read. Whatever one reports to have witnessed across the board leads to this as the best answer to all of what this Forum is and has been actually discussing. It just seems the obvious solution at this phase of my research.

 

And yes, the subject in the PGF has the body structure of a hominid- but it isn't a hominid. All roads point to bear- in Human form. All roads. This isn't a suggestion- this is really what this thread is about. 

Edited August 12, 2016 by hiflier

[MIB]

While it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind, there's no credible evidence that points more strongly toward bear than primate.   Think it through.   Every DNA sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear.   Every hair sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear.   Even Sykes' bear turned out to be known.   The evidence isn't there to support the idea of an unknown bear.   There are, however, DNA samples that came back unknown primate, there are tracks that point toward unknown primate, and there are hair samples that point towards unknown primate.     Consider also the dentition evidence from BTW's bone finds: primate, not bear.    There are no known bears with opposable thumbs, that walk upright, with nails instead of claws, and so on.    No bears I know of have hooded noses, none have truly flat faces .. even the giant flat faced bear had a substantial snout, just smaller.  

 

However, while bigfoot is unproven, all of those characteristics are proven characteristics of primates.

 

What I saw ... was primate, not bear.

 

So, while there is a slight possibility of an unknown bear out there, if one exists, it is in addition to, not a replacement for, the unknown primate Patty represents.   This is one of those situations where I think Occam's Razor applies.    There is no evidence I know of for bigfoot being a bear that isn't even more supportive of it being a primate.  

 

MIB

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

All roads point to bear- in Human form. All roads. 

 

No, it most absolutely certainly does not. 

 

MIB

[sheri]

Exactly MIB. When you have clearly seen one, there's no way you are going to think it's a human shaped bear.  After you have heard one, you would never think it's a bear. You also never get that idea from reading reports. You will get the idea that they are primate. They have primate tendencies, like rock clacking, breaking branches, grunting, bending trees, which gorilla's do to smaller trees, rock stacking, hooting. The list can go on. In fact it seems they do some things  from each ape group.

[hiflier]

5 minutes ago, MIB said:

While it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind, there's no credible evidence that points more strongly toward bear than primate.  

There's a LOT of the evidence that points to bear.

Think it through.   Every DNA sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear.

Yes.  

Every hair sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear.

Yes.  

Even Sykes' bear turned out to be known.

Yes. 

The evidence isn't there to support the idea of an unknown bear. 

Yes it is. The bear is unknown, the hair is not- it's bear hair! 

There are, however, DNA samples that came back unknown primate

Yes, because the DNA showed the same elements as would appear if an animal had Human form.

 there are tracks that point toward unknown primate, and there are hair samples that point towards unknown primate

This is where mistakes were made early on. The idea of primate/hominid was the obvious conclusion. No one ever thought otherwise. Now you think about it. A bear in Human form WILL LEAVE PRIMATE FOOTPRINTS.

Consider also the dentition evidence from BTW's bone finds: primate, not bear.

A ber in Human form will have different dentition.   

There are no known bears with opposable thumbs, that walk upright, with nails instead of claws, and so on.   

Not until now.

No bears I know of have hooded noses, none have truly flat faces .. even the giant flat faced bear had a substantial snout, just smaller.  

However, while bigfoot is unproven, all of those characteristics are proven characteristics of primates.

Yes. AND an unknown bear.

What I saw ... was primate, not bear.

It was primate in form only. Inside it's a bear. All of the traits and mannerisms are bear. The shape is not.

 

So, while there is a slight possibility of an unknown bear out there, if one exists, it is in addition to, not a replacement for, the unknown primate Patty represents.   This is one of those situations where I think Occam's Razor applies.    There is no evidence I know of for bigfoot being a bear that isn't even more supportive of it being a primate.

Eye shine was one example I gave along with a couple of others. Stick a bear into a 7' tall primate's body and over time it will be more primate but only because it's primate shape allows it to do primate things. But it's hair and DNA will say bear. I think Dr. Sykes knew this.

 

 

[hiflier]

27 minutes ago, sheri said:

Exactly MIB. When you have clearly seen one, there's no way you are going to think it's a human shaped bear.  After you have heard one, you would never think it's a bear. You also never get that idea from reading reports. You will get the idea that they are primate. They have primate tendencies, like rock clacking, breaking branches, grunting, bending trees, which gorilla's do to smaller trees, rock stacking, hooting. The list can go on. In fact it seems they do some things  from each ape group.

 

(I bolded the above) So why wouldn't you think bear? Because it doesn't LOOK like a bear? It doesn't walk like a bear? It doesn't sound like a bear? How could anyone expect those things when the physiology is Human-like? Let's put it differently for a moment. How would you know if there was a Sasquatch in a bear's body? Answer, you wouldn't because it's movements and actions would be limited by it's form.

 

Put a bear into what we call a Sasquatch's body and what do you get? A bear? Nope, you get a Sasquatch through and through. But all of the testing says bear!. The mannerisms are primate but it's not a primate- it has a primates body- but that as primate as it gets. Hey, this isn't easy ya know  We've all been sort of programmed to think primate which includes primate things. Thinking bears includes bear things. But the trick is to think bear but visually see primate. That's when things began to click and fall into place for me.

Edited August 13, 2016 by hiflier

[sheri]

The testing does not say bear. The bear hair was from a bear, not a bigfoot. There's nothing bear about it. Your idea is silly and unfounded. Ever hear the phrase, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, ITS A DUCK. this is an absolute truth.

 

[FarArcher]

Exactly, sheri.

 

These guys keep finding hair and sending it in - and boom!  Bear!  Because a bear left it.

 

That thing I saw wasn't even in the bear universe.  What I saw was not a man, but maybe a primitive type/hybrid of man.

 

Bears don't throw rocks.

[hiflier]

And I'm saying that the bear hair in the testing actually DID come from a Sasquatch. For the reasons I'm pursuing here. Eye shine says BEAR. The idea is far from silly. DNA says so. If it walks like a Sasquatch, looks like a Sasquatch, howls like a Sasquatch then it is what we know to BE a Sasquatch. BUT!! It is a bear that is underneath it all. It's the primate shape that gives the bear the primate qualities but a lot of the qualities that are reported are actually bear qualities. The physical shape is Sasquatch-like in nature but that's where it ends. It's brain is bear all the way.

 

It's hair is bear, and it's DNA is bear. Was "unknown primate" DNA discovered? Some say yes. Why do you think that is if true? Because the physical make up of BearSquatch HAS to have primate DNA because if not then its shape wouldn't be NEAR Sasquatch-like. Soon I would like to begin a list of mannerisms and characteristics that favor the bear scenario by far. The hard part for most is that in never considering this line of thinking they are stuck on the Human/ape hominid line in our evolutionary history up to the present. A primate shaped bear never occurred to them. It didn't occur to Bindernagel, Krantz, Meldrum, Burns, Titmus- none of them. Does this mean they got sidetracked as a result? I say yes, it means exactly that. 

 

 

 

FarArcher, I respectfully submit to you and everyone else that THESE bears do indeed throw rocks. I also submit that you now know exactly what you are dealing with- or soon to be dealing with. It's a bear cloaked in one of the most formidable of shapes- Human- or primate if one prefers the term better. The thought of such a creature raises the hair on the back of my arms. You need to deeply consider this.

Edited August 13, 2016 by hiflier