Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

[norseman]

It's silly. Night Walker is NOT going to admit there is any sort of shared physical attributes between Bigfoot and Gigantopethicus......

 

Why?

 

Because he does not want to lend any sort of credibility to the subject of Bigfoot.

 

It's intellectual dishonesty of course. But I can assure him that debating about the existence of Bigfoot on the internet proves NOTHING.

[hiflier]

15 hours ago, hiflier said:

I don't know what you use for internal gauges when it comes to certain things but hopefully it's scientific like myself and couched in some fairly solid logic. If a member on this Forum says that they have experienced a Sasquatch or what has been described as a Sasquatch-like form then are you yourself likely to believe them? If your go to is misidentification then at what point or under what point of description of the animal do you think would be adequate enough as a minimum for someone to know that whatever they saw wasn't a misidentified bear?

 

Not addressing this says a lot anyway you look at it. To answer the final question will require at the very least getting off the fence. Of course it will be another circular dialogue imitating dodge ball if this thread slips into existence vs. non-existence. I'll do my best to not allow that to happen  

Edited January 9, 2017 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

Night Walker, I stated that I look at things a bit differently than others may do.  One consistency I look to is patterns.  Everything - man or animal - has patterns.  Some are occasional patterns, some are frequently repetitive.  But you look long enough, review observations, and it may take weeks, or months, or years - but if you do your homework, you'll eventually find patterns.

 

Patterns, once determined, will demonstrate clearly some capabilities you never considered before - but now they're right in your face, and cannot be ignored.  Patterns, once determined, will enable you to anticipate the actions, behaviors, and even the timing of your "prey."

 

Some assume that animals or even men - behave irrationally, and are non-predictive.  Think about it.  You tend to go to the same stores, go to work the same routes, arise on certain days of the week at a certain time, you have your favorite foods, you have a lot of habits you follow without thinking.

 

Even if one tries to intentionally alter their patterns to throw off someone, and be unpredictable, there will be a pattern soon enough to your randomness.  Because you're a creature of habit.

 

Apparently, from your stated position, you discount the many tracks that have been found, photographed, and even cast.  Proves nothing, right?

 

I've tracked men for a living.  Nothing but tracks - and often, they'd take steps to cover their tracks.  Yet I've been able to not only track, but to anticipate their destination after a while, and even get ahead of them - and was waiting on them when they arrived.

 

On one occasion, I was tracking four men, and with other signs as we went along, discovered an enemy camp, well hidden, some 900 men strong - and they were effectively decimated.  Keep in mind - I had nothing to go on, but tracks.  But the tracks were very real, and led to a very real group, who suffered very real results.

 

Tracks.  And a topography map.

 

While you may see narratives and discount them, I see narratives, read them, pick out the nuggets, and set them aside to be examined along with other narratives - and the nuggets I've pulled out of those.  Of course there are a handful of commonalities - but within a lot of these narratives are some nuggets that would be normally discarded.  Nuggets that suggest a very real experience or observation.

 

Get enough nuggets, you start to see patterns.  Footprints, if you wish.  Enough footprints, and you have your patterns.  And that, my friend, is how you manhunt.  It take time, it takes a lot of effort, a lot of attention to detail, and one hell of a lot of patience.  Which is why I don't just go hunt these things.  To do so properly would take a great deal of effort and investment in time and money.

 

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by FarArcher

[SWWASAS]

I agree that each individual, human or BF has routine behaviors.     But that does not mean those behaviors are universal and can be applied to every member of any species.    We see a lot of bigfoot researchers making that mistake.     Those that have a public podium,  seem to speak in absolutes about BF behavior.    I guess it is because they feel obligated to wear the hat of expert.         Some of those absolutes I strongly dispute.   BF is primarily nocturnal is one of them.   I think BF nocturnal behavior is conditional based on human presence.    That is not a guess but something I have observed.   .Even that may vary from individual BF to BF or region to region.      An elderly BF may have cataracts and be virtually blind at night.    Older people I know avoid driving at night for the same reason.     BF demeanor seems to vary by region.      Some places they are shy and reclusive.    Other places they seem to enjoy chasing people out of the woods.    It might not make sense but that behavior is the kind that has the most promise to have contact and get video.   At least you know they are around when they are trying to chase you away.       

[FarArcher]

22 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

I agree that each individual, human or BF has routine behaviors.     But that does not mean those behaviors are universal and can be applied to every member of any species.    We see a lot of bigfoot researchers making that mistake.     Those that have a public podium,  seem to speak in absolutes about BF behavior.    I guess it is because they feel obligated to wear the hat of expert.         Some of those absolutes I strongly dispute.   BF is primarily nocturnal is one of them.   I think BF nocturnal behavior is conditional based on human presence.    That is not a guess but something I have observed.   .Even that may vary from individual BF to BF or region to region.      An elderly BF may have cataracts and be virtually blind at night.    Older people I know avoid driving at night for the same reason.     BF demeanor seems to vary by region.      Some places they are shy and reclusive.    Other places they seem to enjoy chasing people out of the woods.    It might not make sense but that behavior is the kind that has the most promise to have contact and get video.   At least you know they are around when they are trying to chase you away.       

 

I'm certainly not saying that specific behaviors are universal - I don't go to the same hamburger joint when I want a hamburger - but I do eat hamburgers as a frequent part of my diet due to preference and convenience.  To anticipate which I may visit next, it's a very high probability it will be one of the three closest to me.  If you know which I ate the last time, that narrows it significantly to just two.  Depending on traffic at meal time on a particular day, you can often figure out which of the two I'll visit.

 

I've heard you say you think nocturnal behavior is conditional based on human presence - that's certainly very likely.  Could it also be that these critters in the past have been hunted by humans, or conflicted with humans, and adapted dark hours for a better chance at survival?  Could it be that since their eyes (at least on one species) are twice the size of ours - their superior night vision - dictates more night operations?  Especially around humans?

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Two things about that. One is regarding eye shine and the assumption therefore that there is a tapetum lucidum. If that's is the case and they do have the membrane it will take science to determine whether or not the pupil closes down sufficiently in bright sunlight.. It may be that shadowed environments to include night time is preferred over being somewhat blinded in bright daylight conditions.

 

The second is hair as in a full thick body full of it. Hot in the summer sun when most people are camping and generally out and about. being hair covered and having a tapetum lucidum may go hand in hand except for Great Apes or any primate beyond a Lemur. Just some food for thought.

[Guest ABSMs]

Do you feel that the socio-biology of these creatures has to some extent had an impact on their behavioral ecology? Behavioral ecology in this instance attempts to identify a set of variables that have a qualitative effect on the behavior of a living thing. The inherent traits of humans has been altered over time so our physical development, our socialization with other humans (hominids), and our behaviors have changed over time. Could this be the case for bigfoot as well? are their behavior patterns driven by the same inherent motivators (reproduction, food, habitat, stimulation) as ours? 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

2 hours ago, ABSMs said:

The inherent traits of humans has been altered over time so our physical development, our socialization with other humans (hominids), and our behaviors have changed over time. Could this be the case for bigfoot as well? are their behavior patterns driven by the same inherent motivators (reproduction, food, habitat, stimulation) as ours? 

Yea, except they have smaller brains, no modern human speech center in the brain, less developed frontal cortex.

So not socialized at as high a level.

 

All animals have the basic drives, including humans, including  individuals sharing our genus and species.

Smaller brain means hairy as we lost hair to cool our bigger brains, the trade off conferred a superior advantage of brain size relative to hairiness.

 

So no weaving of clothes and no weaving of advanced abstract conceptualizations although weaving of nests.

So the level of complexity but not the type.

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by Cryptic Megafauna

[hiflier]

Hi ABSMs and welcome to the BFF. Good question and CMF addressed it pretty well. Yes, I do indeed think that eco-behavioral patterns get altered. I also think it can happen quite quickly as we Humans alter those environments during resource extraction which can take several years for the area to recover from. Careless Humans can cause forest fires as well with some far reaching long term effects as we all know. Quick changes in the ecosystems such as those send animals of all types initially into the stress situation where populations get shoved together during the escape/emigration process. Stress from such environmental upheavals have to have an effect on the social interactions of both similar and dissimilar species until things settle down and new territorial dominances are established.

 

Once an equilibrium is established that everyone can work with occurs then it's probably back to business as usual. I do think what you and Cryptic-Megafauna are touching on- as in the long term- also holds as true where periods of glacial encroachment and conversely rising sea levels bring about more gradual eco changes that may not affect socio-biological changes as much as eco-biological changes. Less hair on Humans for instance as CMF mentioned. One factor to consider is the tendency for creatures of the same species to be different in size between warm vs. colder regions say, northern latitudes vs. southern ones. Thanks, good questions to think about.

Edited January 14, 2017 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

On 1/13/2017 at 6:27 PM, ABSMs said:

Do you feel that the socio-biology of these creatures has to some extent had an impact on their behavioral ecology? Behavioral ecology in this instance attempts to identify a set of variables that have a qualitative effect on the behavior of a living thing. The inherent traits of humans has been altered over time so our physical development, our socialization with other humans (hominids), and our behaviors have changed over time. Could this be the case for bigfoot as well? are their behavior patterns driven by the same inherent motivators (reproduction, food, habitat, stimulation) as ours? 

 

No reason they'd not respond to external stimuli as do humans.

 

Some of them have much larger heads than us - so brain size should not be drastically different - they've just adapted to a wilder existence.  Some appear (from multiple narratives) to have a type of language, but in their environment would not require the same vocabulary as we do.

 

Then, there appears to be multiple species of these critters.  China has their variant, Indonesia seems to have theirs, the Caucasus seem to have theirs, Siberia seems to have theirs, the Pacific NW version seems to be different from the Easter Yahoo, and the Louisiana three-toed, web-footed critter seems have its own characteristics, and then you have some reports of six-toe, six-finger variants in East Texas.  And that doesn't include a couple variants along the coast of Alaska and into the interior of Alaska.  And smaller version of something - in the deep South - called the Skunk Ape.

 

They're apparently not all the same thing - so outside the general characteristics that would lend a better survival in remote area - I'd be reluctant to suggest any that may be considered "general" characteristics. 

[Guest ABSMs]

FA: the brain size seems interesting here. by all accounts, the larger head/skull would suggest larger brains, thus a broader capacity for thought (and all the traits that come with it like self-consciousness and language). CMF suggests the species have smaller brains. In comparison, a chimpanzee, the closest living relative to humans according to the Smithsonian has the same size brain as some of the earliest humans (possibly Au. sediba). In contrast, gorillas and orangutans have a similar body size to humans but their brains are about one third of the size of the human brain. Over time, the human brain has developed "more rapidly forming more white matter in the temporal cortex, reflecting more connections between nerve cells and a greater ability to process information." With the change in brain size humans have experienced over time, our need for the energy to fuel these brains has also increased. This physiological evolution certainly has influenced our behaviors, motivators, socialization, and environment. Would it be fair to suppose that a bigfoot may in fact require less energy (calories) to support it's brain than an average sized human and more to support its larger body? Are changes to their behaviors more like that of early man or even chimpanzees coming slowly (not suggesting the species is "slow" here) if at all? If reports of a large body size are accurate, no reason to think they are not, then the way bigfoot expends energy will differ from the way humans do and so will their survival instincts. There are limitations to how we both use energy and it seems large brain size and large body size would require large energy sources, something not consistent with the environment bigfoot and the like live in today. (now my brain hurts so I better go watch real bigfooters searching in Hawaii.)

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

11 hours ago, ABSMs said:

Are changes to their behaviors more like that of early man or even chimpanzees coming slowly (not suggesting the species is "slow" here) if at all?

Well, I think the species falls within the range of the Homo Habils - Homo Erectus boundary (if there winds up being one...)

To illustrate the idea that it is about 5-7 million years closer to us in evolution than the chimpanzee.

The brain being a third bigger than a chimp they would be half the way to modern man on that scale as far as brain size.

And 5/8 to 7/8 closer on a timeline.

 

What is odd is they should be more socially complex but do not seem to be.

Perhaps isolation as an outlier to suriving as a fugitive species being forces out of its ecosphere by the emergence of Homo Sapiens

is why it is adapted to small grouping or prehistoric large groupings were attacked and killed off by modern prehistoric man.

 

The biggest difference is language and technology but it probably thinks a lot like we do, just has less abstract symbols and less processing power to play with.

 

They may have more visual spatial intelligence though and you could theorize spiritual intelligence and start the slide towards woo woo.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Cryptic Megafauna

[FarArcher]

22 hours ago, ABSMs said:

FA: the brain size seems interesting here. by all accounts, the larger head/skull would suggest larger brains, thus a broader capacity for thought (and all the traits that come with it like self-consciousness and language). CMF suggests the species have smaller brains. In comparison, a chimpanzee, the closest living relative to humans according to the Smithsonian has the same size brain as some of the earliest humans (possibly Au. sediba). In contrast, gorillas and orangutans have a similar body size to humans but their brains are about one third of the size of the human brain. Over time, the human brain has developed "more rapidly forming more white matter in the temporal cortex, reflecting more connections between nerve cells and a greater ability to process information." With the change in brain size humans have experienced over time, our need for the energy to fuel these brains has also increased. This physiological evolution certainly has influenced our behaviors, motivators, socialization, and environment. Would it be fair to suppose that a bigfoot may in fact require less energy (calories) to support it's brain than an average sized human and more to support its larger body? Are changes to their behaviors more like that of early man or even chimpanzees coming slowly (not suggesting the species is "slow" here) if at all? If reports of a large body size are accurate, no reason to think they are not, then the way bigfoot expends energy will differ from the way humans do and so will their survival instincts. There are limitations to how we both use energy and it seems large brain size and large body size would require large energy sources, something not consistent with the environment bigfoot and the like live in today. (now my brain hurts so I better go watch real bigfooters searching in Hawaii.)

 

Well, if the head is almost twice the volume of a human, but the brain is 50% as large as a human - you still got the same sized squash.

 

Heidelberg Man could be the ancestor of Neanderthal, was particularly tall - six foot tall on the average long ago, much more robust than us, actually had a larger brain than humans, and probably had a rudimentary vocabulary/language - some 600,000 years ago - per the experts.  Used stone-tipped spears before we sapiens did - not simple stone, but obsidian - much harder to craft, and cut marks on elephants, rhinos, and horses indicate they killed animals regularly that weighed more than 1,500 pounds.  Other burned fossils indicate they were also cannibals within this species.  Kinda like BF has been accused of.

 

Java Man, discovered by Duboise, uncovered a skull cap, thigh bone, and and tooth.  He was later reclassified as an ancestor of Homo Erectus.

 

Homo Rudolfensis is kinda debated whether he should be classified within the Australopithicus or Homo genus.  In spite of his primitive appearance, his brain was significantly larger than two other species of Homo - Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus - with whom he may have coexisted with and competed with.  Reconstruction show one really odd appearance - a large cranium with a long, wide, flat face

 

Boskop Man was a partial skull found by two farmers in Boskop South Africa, with a cranium capacity (brain size) of 1980cc's where the average human is only 1400cc's.  Other specimens were added to the species which was called Homo capensis - (from front-on looks almost like an alien with the huge cranium), also known as Boskop Man - all which suggests that southern Africa was once populated with a somewhat mysterious race of big-brained, small faced people.  A book Big Brain (Lynch, Grainger about the origins of human intelligence is examined, and largely discusses the Boskop Man - as the head was 30% larger than ours, indicating a large forebrain, and a likely high IQ.

 

The Denisovans remains were found in 2008, and no one knows what they looked like, but the genome was accurately determined - which oddly - some has unusual snippets of DNA from an as-yet-unknown species of human.  It's believed they had brown skin, brown eyes, brown hair - unlike Neanderthals.  They were first believed to have gone extinct, unlike the Neanderthal that apparently engaged in interbreeding, but later determined that Tibetan people inherited their genes - enabling them to thrive in high-altitude conditions.

 

Dmanisi Man is a very controversial species of Homo based on fossil skulls and jaws found in Dmanisi, Georgia.  Now their brain was only a third the size of ours, but some argue they're the intermediate step between Homo habilis and Erectus.  Some say this indicates that man didn't come from Africa as seven species - but one - an Erectus with different appearances.  This also challenges the thought that one needs a large brain in order to use complex tools, hunt large prey, and migrate to distant continents.

 

Penghu Man was dredged up off Tiawan.  An archaic human mandible with an unusually thick jawbone with giant teeth have perplexed scientists.  It was determined to come from an ancient unknown species looking similar to Erectus, though more massive, and was named Homo tsaichangensis.  They can't date the jaw, but agree it does not resemble any human species that lived in the area.  The jawbone, although Homo, actually resembles Gigantopithicus blacki jaw fragments, the largest ape of all time.

 

Red deer Cave People bones, 14,000 years old were found in two caves in China.  The dating has perplexed scientists, as Neanderthal was thought to have gone extinct 40,000 years ago, and clearly, big deers were cooked in these caves.  They're not only the most recently living cave men discovered, but they also had a distinct appearance, and in no way resembles Homo sapiens.  They only explanation is an extinct population of humans that didn't contribute to the human gene pool.

 

Homo Naledi was discovered in south Africa in 2013 way back in a chamber of the Rising Star cave system.  Thousands of bones showing unique features as their skeletal features resemble australopithiciens, but with more modern hominid features.  While primitive, they also show enough features to be considered Homo, but they're as yet unable to date them, nor figure out how they got so far back in the cave.

 

1.  A lot of primitive homos had larger brains than our.

2.  Dmanisis Man shows a large brain is not necessary to construct and use complex tools, and he's located right between Habilis and Erectus.

 

 

 

It appears I can only contribute to existing Threads.

 

My BF threads end up in Campfire Talk where some real genius places them.  This is a strange place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by FarArcher

[MIB]

21 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

What is odd is they should be more socially complex but do not seem to be

 

I think that's a reflection of an assumption that's already in serious doubt.  (The shift of our assumptions as our culture changes is a topic in another thread .. quite relevant, I think.)  We assumed that because we saw few, there were few, and because we assume there are few, they must not have a complex social structure.   The alternate view is that there are many but precisely because of a complex social structure (including cooperation), they're able to mostly avoid us thus we see few.    I go back to habituators I've been connect with ... consider what they describe.   It's a whole lot more like tribal humans than merely a herd of animals.

 

MIB

[FarArcher]

6 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I think that's a reflection of an assumption that's already in serious doubt.  (The shift of our assumptions as our culture changes is a topic in another thread .. quite relevant, I think.)  We assumed that because we saw few, there were few, and because we assume there are few, they must not have a complex social structure.   The alternate view is that there are many but precisely because of a complex social structure (including cooperation), they're able to mostly avoid us thus we see few.    I go back to habituators I've been connect with ... consider what they describe.   It's a whole lot more like tribal humans than merely a herd of animals.

 

MIB

 

 

I have to go with you on this.

 

If nothing else, the sightings and narratives over hundreds of years on different continents, by numerous peoples - clearly demonstrate there has to be a fairly complex social structure for them to survive and cover so much territory.