Sasquatch: Bear In Human Form?

[ShadowBorn]

Quote

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.

They do not think either like these creatures do. These guys are three or four steps ahead and bears are not just that smart. I see them ape/human like with capabilties I do not understand. Will a bear learn to live around you or will it try to invade your space? I cannot see them as bears and not the ones i saw through the starlight. There was no bear features on them at all. I will agree with Faracher yet I have never had large boulder size rocks thrown at me yet.

[hiflier]

ShadowBorn, Your and FarArcher's post along with others are meeting with up with a mental stumbling block. One that I had myself for a long time until I began to look at the concept that I am presenting here. This didn't happen overnight. It was a huge process of elimination that brought me here.

 

The stumbling block is bears will think and act like bears because their body shapes do not require them to think beyond being a bear. So they of course act like bears, think like bears, and do all of those things that bears do including walking upright.

 

Humans can do what we do because of our body shape allows for it. PLUS we have quite the brain power that includes tremendous right-brained capacities for abstract thinking. The great apes not so much but can learn skills from us that they wouldn't normally need in the wild. That indicates their intelligence capacity for learning is great. Bears have intelligence too that allow them to learn skills that we can teach them to do.

 

But bears are still limited by their body shape. We could teach to tie shoes as we do apes but their body parts simply will not allow them to perform the task. But put that bear mind into a HUMAN-shaped body and it WILL learn new skill sets because it now can. Over hundreds of years that skill set will grow exponentially even with only a left brain to work with. It may not have abstract thinking so it won't create a wheel or have fire but what it would turn out to be is....a Sasquatch; with the skill set of a Sasquatch.

 

Their thinking therefore will no longer be that of a normal bear. And they obviously will not have bear features. They will have hands and so will learn to throw rocks and pick up things, and twist trees- and RUN on their two legs. As a result they will have it all over their bear cousins who are still in the shape of a bear which still maintains it's bear thinking and cannot throw rocks.

 

Same intelligence, same family, different body shape, different skill set. Both left-brained animals.  They share their habitats. They are cousins which think differently because they have different physical capabilities. They have learned the things their different shapes have allowed them to learn. They also both have bear hair and eye shine too.

 

 

[FarArcher]

hiflier, you are absolutely correct.  I have a mental stumbling block.

 

Just my personal opinion of course, and I haven't done a lot of soul-searching as maybe you have, but I think we'll find these things to be somewhere biologically between a man and an ape.  

 

Advanced species of higher ape, or primitive species of man.  

 

I think maybe they don't use fire nor come up with a wheel because they have no need for either one.  Most places and terrains these things spend their time - a wheel would be of no benefit.  Fire?  Maybe they don't need that, either.

 

One thing humans can't do is consume cellulose.  Cows can.  Termites can.  Deer can. Other animals can consume cellulose and break it down to glucose because they have the enzymes that can do that, but we humans don't have the required enzymes to break cellulose down into glucose.  Maybe BF has these enzymes - and can find nutrition in plants we can't.  Enabling them to eat anywhere and everywhere.  Maybe their digestion system is different from ours, and thus they don't have the same need for fire we do.

 

They have longer body hair than we do, and maybe they have a different insulation layer in their bodies that we don't have - ensuring they are better able to conserve body temperature without the need for fire.  Maybe they hole up in hand-built wikiups or caves, and that's sufficient to protect them from temperature extremes.

 

I don't know any of this stuff - pure speculation on my part.

[hiflier]

Thank you FarArcher for giving this some extra thought time. Bears also cannot consume cellulose. They lack what we lack, the cellulose enzyme that you spoke of. Deer and other ungulates chew cud which is cellulose that was broken down in the stomach and regurgitated. Primates like Chimpanzees and Humans pass most of whatever insoluble fiber they eat. Only soluble fifer can be used by us which is only a small percentage of the total fiber we consume. Bears are in the same boat as we are when it comes to cellulose consumption. I would have to say without really knowing that Sasquatch cannot consume cellulose either.

 

So much we don't know, eh? But my strong desire to know keeps me chipping away at this. You know, if Bigfoot has a true bear nature that has been enhanced by having a primate form what does that do for approaching the subject in the field? Because ultimately that is where this thread is heading. I mean there is a point to this which is why I started this thread. And I think the point is a rather serious one to consider. I mean, imagine dealing with a greatly enhanced bear mentality? A bear's mind and nature on steroids simply because it possesses a primate-type of physical form.

 

My point being: an advanced bear nature that has the advantage of higher primate physical function. Even if that ISN'T the case here I am of the opinion that in thinking that it is true it will get us closer to the knowledge of exactly how that creature thinks.   

[MagniAesir]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

FarArcher, of course one would not think bear. Because it didn't look like a bear. As you say- it looked more Human in shape. What I'm getting at is that though it looked more Human the "Humaness" was only because of its shape. Under that shape is the mentality, intelligence, and cunning of a bear that cannot create a wheel or fire- but one that is more enhanced because that Human shape has allowed it to be more versatile, more dexterous, A bipedal bear with hands. Now, it may not BE a bear but it has all the things a bear has and more, and does all the things a bear does and more. I have had misgivings about Sasquatch hair samples and other physical evidence that come back bear.

 

It stands to reason that though hunters take down bears a bears physicality has limited it on both movement and thought, Its body only necessitates a certain level of activity so it will only learn what its body allows it to in order survive. In other words the body dictates the functionality as well as how smart it is in what it can and needs to learn. Throw that bear into a Human shape and things escalate. Give it size, give it hands, give it bipedalism, and one has a bear that is off the scale in what it can now do and learn.

 

It may have Black Bear hair and some "unknowns" in its DNA. If this creature is a bear then its DNA could very well match up with that of another bear. It's just that this particular bear has a primate's body. Couldn.t begin to tell you how such a thing could come into existence. But since we don't how Sasquatch came to be anyway the playing field might be pretty level for "guesses" and speculations.

For the difference in physical appearance from a normal bear that you are talking about, there would be a major difference in DNA

3% or more would be my guess solely based on the difference between man and chimp

You are talking major differences in body structure as well as parallel evolution 

 

You are talking physical changes to all long bones, skull, pelvis just to name a few, that requires a lot of genetic changes

 

Your theory does not hold water once you get into the genetic sequence 

1 hour ago, FarArcher said:

hiflier, you are absolutely correct.  I have a mental stumbling block.

 

Just my personal opinion of course, and I haven't done a lot of soul-searching as maybe you have, but I think we'll find these things to be somewhere biologically between a man and an ape.  

 

Advanced species of higher ape, or primitive species of man.  

 

I think maybe they don't use fire nor come up with a wheel because they have no need for either one.  Most places and terrains these things spend their time - a wheel would be of no benefit.  Fire?  Maybe they don't need that, either.

 

One thing humans can't do is consume cellulose.  Cows can.  Termites can.  Deer can. Other animals can consume cellulose and break it down to glucose because they have the enzymes that can do that, but we humans don't have the required enzymes to break cellulose down into glucose.  Maybe BF has these enzymes - and can find nutrition in plants we can't.  Enabling them to eat anywhere and everywhere.  Maybe their digestion system is different from ours, and thus they don't have the same need for fire we do.

 

They have longer body hair than we do, and maybe they have a different insulation layer in their bodies that we don't have - ensuring they are better able to conserve body temperature without the need for fire.  Maybe they hole up in hand-built wikiups or caves, and that's sufficient to protect them from temperature extremes.

 

I don't know any of this stuff - pure speculation on my part.

G. Blacki seems to have had a diet similar to a giant panda

perhaps you are looking for one of its decedent's 

[FarArcher]

That G. Blacki?

 

I know anthropologists and paleobiologists have portrayed this G. Blacki - and they've gone so far as to create a reconstruction of one.  And I also am aware that there are numerous folks who think the BF is pretty much related to the G.Blacki, or Gigantopithicus.  

 

That to me, is quite a feat.  Considering they only have a few teeth in a small chunk of jawbone.  I mean, they'll ignore 100% of physical sightings, they'll ignore 100% of footprints, but they have no problem creating a beast from a little chunk of jawbone.  Something's wrong here.

 

I saw a statement today from an anthropologist - "We have thousands of sightings, but no hard evidence.  Either this creature doesn't exist, or it's elusive."

 

I hope he didn't pay good money for that Ph.D.

[MagniAesir]

Most anthropologist now think that G. Blacki was a quadraped similar to a gorilla

very few agree with Grover Krantz's reconstruction 

 

And you are right, they are basing this on teeth and some jaw fragments

 

As I stated earlier in this thread, I do not believe that sasquatch exist, however scientific curiosity makes me try and explain how a sasquatch would come into being if I am wrong and they do exist.

I neither hope a sasquatch exists, or does not exist I just want to know the answer

 

IMHO some theories are more likely than others

[FarArcher]

13 hours ago, MagniAesir said:

Most anthropologist now think that G. Blacki was a quadraped similar to a gorilla

very few agree with Grover Krantz's reconstruction 

 

And you are right, they are basing this on teeth and some jaw fragments

 

As I stated earlier in this thread, I do not believe that sasquatch exist, however scientific curiosity makes me try and explain how a sasquatch would come into being if I am wrong and they do exist.

I neither hope a sasquatch exists, or does not exist I just want to know the answer

 

IMHO some theories are more likely than others

 

 

I like the cut of your jib.  I like the way you think.  

 

I don't blame you - I didn't believe in those things either.  Never thought about them.  In my previous business all my life, I've been in some of the most remote areas on earth, and while I've been surprised when running into lots of animals I'd never thought much about - at least they were all known critters.

 

But, I got shocked.  You have a very healthy attitude, and I commend it.

 

My respects.

[MIB]

Well, yeah, but behind that simple question lie so many more..   If the answer you find is "yes" then if you're an inherently curious person, you start wondering what they are, how the evade us, WHY they evade us ... and you start doubting the pat answers people who think they know offer as easy "outs".   It can lead to doubting some of the other things you thought you knew.   If the answer you find is "no", then you either go the scoftic / dismissive route or you want to look into how and why so many people can be wrong so very very very many times ... in a very serious way. 

 

The question of whether or not sasquatch exists may, in the long run, be less important than the questions that lurk beneath it, questions about ourselves.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Question for you FarArcher. even though relatively close, do you have any thoughts on why, number one, your creature came at you and number two, and then passed you by? You spoke of one in a clump of trees that you didn't see. Would that perhaps be a factor in the addressing the question? I guess speculating on the reason for the "bluff"? shall we say- if it was a "bluff charge at all (it doesn't seem the case) would be just that. Speculation. But is the presence of one that apparently did not show itself and a second that ran toward it as curious to you as it is to me? It does seem like things happened at that time once you yourself started moving.

Edited August 14, 2016 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

We cut across the mountain that at that point had about a 45-degree slope with a bulldozer, about 200 yards long in total.  (I just now checked the distances on Google Earth)  I dropped off my associate at one end, and I walked to the other end to give him privacy.  At the other end, we had some equipment and samples.  I bent down looking at the buckets of samples.  

 

I finally stood up and began walking slowly back as it was time to go. I walked 70-75 yards from the far end of the cut, where I was bent down, and on the uphill side of this 10-foot wide cut, the bulldozer had almost undercut a 7-foot wide cluster/bunch of trees.  The tight cluster of trees were right on the very edge of the cut.  

 

As I approached, I started getting growled at.  Glancing at the far end, my associate had his back turned and was unaware of a problem.  I had to get between what I though must be a sick, injured, or rabid cat, as he wasn't looking, and really wasn't paying attention to what was going on around him.

 

I had a ten-foot wide track to skirt the cluster of trees, and I used every bit of it, gliding slowly and smoothly - wanting to do nothing jerky or careless that may precipitate an attack.  I got just past it, and began walking backwards along the cut, keeping my 1911 in a two-hand hold, ready for an attack by this cat.  Sixty feet beyond the little growling cluster of trees, I risked a quick glance behind me to see if my associate had noticed something wrong yet.  He had, and had his pistol in one hand, phone in the other.

 

At the same time, I see this big guy running at me, sideways, and slightly (for him) down the mountain.  I shifted my point of aim, and my almost-full attention.  He kept running - but not like we run - more like cross-country skiing - which I did a lot of in the Arctic Rangers.  We had a good look at each other as he passed me, maybe 20, but no more than 30 feet away.  Only mountain flowers knee high.  I had watched him run at me in the clear for a good 60 yards.

 

Now.  Why?  They were headed for the water/creek, and one - either a juvenile or female - was ahead of the big male.  She didn't see me until we "met" with her in the tree cluster, and me walking back to the ATV.

 

It wasn't a bluff charge.  He was fogging it to get to the one growling at me.  If I hadn't seen him coming, we can assume he still would have run into the cluster of trees, or we could say there was a very small chance he would have been on top of me.  I believe the former.

 

I found the entire event "curious."  But in retrospect, I don't find any aspect curious.  The lead critter was headed toward the nearest water, we met, it was startled, growled to warn me to stay clear, and the big male hurried to be with it, and apparently "told" it to shut up - because when he got to the cluster, everything went quiet.

[hiflier]

Thank you. I had a gut feeling that might have been the case. Or at least speculated that it was the case. It had been on my mind to ask much earlier but other things kept me occupied  I had sort of seen the movie played out in my head  but your account of the event brought it home. Gotta hunch that you were in no danger UNLESS you opened up on that clump of trees. Good thing you didn't. Your focus and your gun shots would have masked the approach of the one coming at you. Your friend at the end of the cut would still be having nightmares of emptying his firearm. Yep, your hold was a good thing.

[FarArcher]

59 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Thank you. I had a gut feeling that might have been the case. Or at least speculated that it was the case. It had been on my mind to ask much earlier but other things kept me occupied  I had sort of seen the movie played out in my head  but your account of the event brought it home. Gotta hunch that you were in no danger UNLESS you opened up on that clump of trees. Good thing you didn't. Your focus and your gun shots would have masked the approach of the one coming at you. Your friend at the end of the cut would still be having nightmares of emptying his firearm. Yep, your hold was a good thing.

 

I've known some idiots who would have opened up on either one of them, just because they had a firearm.  I had to learn extreme fire discipline as a young man.

 

It does no good to shoot when I have no target - as in the trees.  And when I saw the sheer mass of big boy, that .45 would have just irritated him.  As I've stated - whether cat or Big Boy, my only hope was to hold my fire, and fire in the mouth area as we merged - and hope for a quick disconnect.  Even if I'd had a .308 - I wouldn't have had enough rifle, and wouldn't have fired that either.

 

D.... they're big!

[hiflier]

It could very well be that your future trip back to that area will be successful then because of your reserve. Some might even say your  return would even be welcomed or at least tolerated- or at least viewed perhaps as non-threatening. I recently read an interesting science article that talked about some studies in whether or not creatures like birds or even fish recognize Human faces. Ironically the Archer Fish was discovered to have that capacity as well as crows. Who is to say how far into the animal kingdom that ability reaches. Food for thought when thinking about your experience and how you handled it. Something to toss into your mental tool box during your planning?

Edited August 15, 2016 by hiflier

[salubrious]

If BF were a kind of bear, they would be turning up on occasion the way bears do- both alive and dead.  

 

But they don't.  

 

This simple fact blows the bear theory out of the water.