Flesh and Blood Bigfoot...

[Lake County Bigfooot]

I am sure many of you have been or are currently part of this debate, whether or not this is a flesh and blood creature. I am here to argue the point that it is simply that. When it comes down to deciphering all the information to the contrary, I cannot come to the conclusion that a creature that poops, sleeps, eats, makes its bed at night, and otherwise exhibits behavior consistent to a flesh and blood creature could be anything else. Now for those who contend otherwise I suggest that you begin such lines of questioning with the fundamental question of what truly exists. If you argue that this world is simply a product of other material processes, and no supernatural or spiritual realm exists, then you have no worries. On the other hand if you come to the conclusion that such forces do exist, and therefore might be in play, well then you have to except that in even this subject of Bigfoot, one must discern where the source of such activity is found. When I hear of some of the Dr. Johnson experiences, my mind is drawn to account for them in terms of spiritual forces that I believe to exist, ones that might be interested in those who dabble in conjuring them up...as a former LSD using teenager I dabbled in such things, which lead me to a series of "experiences" which I would term not flesh and blood, and I am concerned that those who dabble in the same fashion with Bigfoot might be unknowingly calling the wrong number and getting answered by another party, a party interested in manipulating the mind and thoughts of those vulnerable.

[BobbyO]

Flesh and blood, simple as that and i'm with you all the way.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

While the admin might move this to the paranormal section, it really deserves a voice within the normal discussion on these threads. We have all had this thrust upon us and all of us are in some degree or another having to deal with questions that seem to permeate the landscape. If we simply duck our heads and do not speak out our community is likely to think it is because we cannot answer the questions being raised by those who contend this is not a flesh and blood creature, or that it is a hybrid. In as much as a human being might be influenced by forces outside of their flesh and blood existence, I can accept the same might be true of Sasquatch, but to what degree is questionable. If I admit to them having human characteristics and traits, then surely they to must possess an existential component, an essential capacity to search for meaning. If a creature similar to us in some fashions has such capacities, and if the response to such thoughts is similar to ours, well perhaps I could admit a spiritual component to both of our existences, but that component does not in any way change the fact we are flesh and blood creatures.

[hiflier]

My own opinion here so take is as you will. Intelligence by and large is a universal trait. Intelligence implying a CAPACITY to learn and absorb knowledge. The amount and type of knowledge depends on the requirements needed for survival of a species whether insect, Human, or anything in between. Those requirements depend on a number of factors of course but the primary factor is physical shape and the capabilities rendered and limited by that shape; i.e. nearly all birds can naturally fly, Humans unassisted naturally cannot as an example. So body shape determines what is needed to survive and how that survival gets conducted.

 

That said, body shape, while not determining intelligence, plays the largest role in individual species capability. So intelligence will afford a creature, of whatever variety, to learn what it take to stay alive and procreate- though some of the basic attributes will come naturally. Humans have the capacity for imagination and that coupled with body shape allows for advances far outside what is necessary for survival. And while other creatures possess something akin to imagination there are limits. Body shape is the primary limiting factor and any imagination present is by default also limited which is apparent by the lack of technology any creature displays beyond say, nest construction and their sometimes elaborate mating maneuvers.

 

Sasquatch it follows, by reason of body shape alone, SHOULD have at least some advanced technology. It does not. No fire, no wheel. Humans didn't even have a wheel until relatively recently compared to our hundreds of thousands of years of existence. Sasquatch again, does not. Does it have the intelligence capacity to create one? In my opinion it does. Does it possess the imagination and smarts to do so? I think not, even though if it exists, it has seen the wheel for centuries plus also how it is used. It begs the question: Why not? Because technically by Human standards it is not Human. It has all the equipment of a Human in spades but there's something missing. If Humans were to go extinct I dare that Sasquatch would still not advance. And the argument that it doesn't have one because it doesn't need one fails in that generally all species will naturally advance to higher technology given the capacity to do so. As an example Humans seem to have an overwhelming percentage of inventors.

 

Sasquatch's intelligence linked to its body shape says it should be much further technologically advanced but it is not. By every criteria then it is strictly animal. An animal that can probably be trained to do things like a Chimpanzee can be trained but thinking on it own to do those same maneuvers without being trained isn't going to happen. I choose to take that lack of imagination to the spiritual aspect and therefore add that without the ability to show conceptual thinking it more than likely simply leads an animal's existence without regard to anything close to being esoteric. It may seem an oxymoron to see a Human shape lacking in higher thought but it is obvious that the Sasquatch condition is one of basic survival and procreation. Therefore animal- with little or nothing of what we would call a right brain.

 

This is why I've argued that Sasquatch is little more that a bear's mind inside a better, Human-like body. It is why I call it a different kind of bear- a bear in a primates body and that where any similarity to Humans ends. 

Edited November 29, 2016 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

What I saw was definitely flesh and blood.

 

It was physically superior in every way to a human.

 

It's not a homo sapiens sapiens - but it's not an animal either - in my personal definition.

 

I think it's a homo sapiens something-or-another.  Some kind of primitive cave man.  Who has adapted to becoming primarily nocturnal - and by taking to difficult terrain (for us) - is exercising a risk avoidance lifestyle to avoid humans overall.

 

They're uniquely adapted to the life they live, and thus don't need, require, or even prefer those things we find "convenient" or even "necessary."  And like us, they too, live in family groups, and likely have a rudimentary language, which has enabled tactical excellence.

 

 

[hiflier]

 

51 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

They're uniquely adapted to the life they live, and thus don't need, require, or even prefer those things we find "convenient" or even "necessary."  And like us, they too, live in family groups, and likely have a rudimentary language, which has enabled tactical excellence.

 

But the Great Apes possess all of these characteristics as well.....except that they get caught....and studied. Some Gorillas can be in caves also. Now some may call Great Apes a type of "people" except for the DNA thing but they are not people. Sasquatch aren't either. And pretty much everything on this planet has adapted to the life they life. If not they are either no longer here or eventually no longer here..

Edited November 29, 2016 by hiflier

[Gotta Know]

I agree this thread might get more traction under the paranormal section. Simply, that there may be more leeway to talk about what it "might be" over there, and not just what it's not. Apologies if i wade into taboo areas.

 

Personally, I don't know why BF can't be Flesh and Blood, while still having abilities that we don't yet understand with our own flesh and blood limitations. Really, our Human prejudice is what's holding most research back. For example, they have an incredible ability to hide and elude us. That's hardly up for argument. Some have put forward theories of "cloaking," but such notions are typically dismissed out of hand. Why? Because it makes us uncomfortable due to the fact that we (as Human flesh and blood) can't understand it. And that always cracks me up. We're talking about a completely unclassified animal, and yet we focus on what it CAN'T be for our own sense of security.

 

Admittedly a weak analogy, but not so long ago we had no idea how bats did their bat thing at night. People (I'm assuming here) likely thought bats could see (optically) at night to find their insect prey. Or in ancient times, that they might be "magical." It was only through the advancement of science and (open minds) that their sonar was discovered. Yet it's a physical ability that we do not possess.

 

This is all just a long-winded of saying that yes--I agree that the Big Fella is flesh and blood. But there may be numerous abilities they possess that we do not share. That does not mean those abilities are beyond the realm of possibility. I think this whole field is paralyzed by Human prejudice.

 

To Hiflier, I think you nicely illustrate the Human prejudice I am referring to (not intended to be a barb, btw). You suggest that because their shape resembles ours, that they are somehow lesser because they don't exhibit technology. Last I checked, our technology is polluting the very air and water and total environment we depend on. No, I suspect their intelligence is extremely high. But in ways that we do not appreciate, or care to.

 

Good topic! I just feel handcuffed trying to talk about it here. We're trying to put a very big Bigfoot into a very small box. Not gonna work...

[hiflier]

41 minutes ago, Gotta Know said:

To Hiflier, I think you nicely illustrate the Human prejudice I am referring to (not intended to be a barb, btw). You suggest that because their shape resembles ours, that they are somehow lesser because they don't exhibit technology. Last I checked, our technology is polluting the very air and water and total environment we depend on. No, I suspect their intelligence is extremely high. But in ways that we do not appreciate, or care to.

 

 

I can appreciate the viewpoint. In somewhat of a defense, Sasquatch are not lesser. No creature really is. And I agree our technology doesn't necessarily make is better. But they nonetheless are not us and we re not them. It's as simple as that. And as I iterated it isn't a matter of intelligence. It's more perhaps a case of aptitude. The separation of WHY we are advanced in technology and they are not is the point I think. So it's more about brain function. In that regard they are only better than bears because they have a primate body and so have a better physical skill set such as throwing pine cones and running on two legs.

 

It's the primate body thing that runs the woo up the flagpole. A kind of woo one would never give a bear. This isn't  some closed-minded prejudice believe me. It comes from quite a bit of research in characteristics and mannerisms of apes, bears, AND Humans. I cannot conclude that Sasquatch has the capacity for higher conceptual thinking. It just doesn't. If I thought it did believe me I would be singing a different tune here. I see nothing beyond a flesh and blood animal. I've said it before: I think its right side/creative brain has NOT developed much past that of a two or three year old Human's although its left side/logical brain is working just fine. It is the superior left brain in its habitat connected to a primates physical shape that has given Sasquatch its power over our perception of it. Nothing cosmic but everything honed to a highly refined creature ability. Again, all just my opinion based on research.  

Edited November 30, 2016 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

Ooh Taboo! Flesh and blood with an ability to read us like a book. We place cameras and they find them, we shoot at them and they some how disappear on us. We try to track them and the make us look like a fool. But off course they are flesh and blood or they would not be leaving some type of evidence behind  to let us know that they were there. So there is some high strangeness about them but off course non of us will agree on this. I say this since we all have had different encounters and the encounters we did have does not agree with what others have encountered. So what does this say, it says that we will always be in disagreement no matter what the out come will be.

 

If we go to the paranormal section we still will not be in total agreement. For the same reason I stated before " THAT WE  ALL HAVE HAD DIFFERENT ENCOUNTERS". So surely this must say some thing about this creature. The only one thing that is in common is that we all have encountered some thing that is flesh and blood and breaths our air. That is the only one factor that we all can agree on. To those who have not seen these creatures they are just a myth to them. For us who have well, we have to live with the thought that there is some thing that is alive  living in our back yards. That there is nothing we can do but deal with this issue on our own and come to grips that when we go camping or roam in our forest. We now have to deal with a living flesh and blood creature living amongst us within our forest. The only way that I can put it is that we some how have to except that they are real in the flesh. How much room do the skeptics really do have on arguing this that they are flesh and blood and alive and well. There cannot be a hoaxer everywhere in every state all waiting to put the hoax on unsuspecting witnesses. The data just does not show this and the data shows that of a living entity. 

[FarArcher]

53 minutes ago, Gotta Know said:

I agree this thread might get more traction under the paranormal section. Simply, that there may be more leeway to talk about what it "might be" over there, and not just what it's not. Apologies if i wade into taboo areas.

 

Personally, I don't know why BF can't be Flesh and Blood, while still having abilities that we don't yet understand with our own flesh and blood limitations. Really, our Human prejudice is what's holding most research back. For example, they have an incredible ability to hide and elude us. That's hardly up for argument. Some have put forward theories of "cloaking," but such notions are typically dismissed out of hand. Why? Because it makes us uncomfortable due to the fact that we (as Human flesh and blood) can't understand it. And that always cracks me up. We're talking about a completely unclassified animal, and yet we focus on what it CAN'T be for our own sense of security.

 

Admittedly a weak analogy, but not so long ago we had no idea how bats did their bat thing at night. People (I'm assuming here) likely thought bats could see (optically) at night to find their insect prey. Or in ancient times, that they might be "magical." It was only through the advancement of science and (open minds) that their sonar was discovered. Yet it's a physical ability that we do not possess.

 

This is all just a long-winded of saying that yes--I agree that the Big Fella is flesh and blood. But there may be numerous abilities they possess that we do not share. That does not mean those abilities are beyond the realm of possibility. I think this whole field is paralyzed by Human prejudice.

 

To Hiflier, I think you nicely illustrate the Human prejudice I am referring to (not intended to be a barb, btw). You suggest that because their shape resembles ours, that they are somehow lesser because they don't exhibit technology. Last I checked, our technology is polluting the very air and water and total environment we depend on. No, I suspect their intelligence is extremely high. But in ways that we do not appreciate, or care to.

 

Good topic! I just feel handcuffed trying to talk about it here. We're trying to put a very big Bigfoot into a very small box. Not gonna work...

 

Gotta Know, good thinking.  I believe one reason "hunters" haven't found them is that they grossly underestimate their opponent - and for some unknown reason - assume too many erroneous beliefs.

 

The "cloaking" concept cracks me up.  They have a natural Ghillie suit, it's a flat, non-light-reflecting color, and they can low-crawl like a professional soldier.  Put a Ghillie suit on a man and let him drop motionless in knee high grass - and he just "cloaked" up.  Folks want to look for an eight foot critter, and because they don't see one somehow convinces them none were nearby.  And that effectiveness is multiplied in low light or darkness - when the bulk of their activities take place.

 

They do have some physical abilities we don't possess.  Aside from the obvious superior strengths - speed, strength, stamina, size, power, natural Ghillie suit, and size, they have a couple other abilities we certainly don't have.  Making them vastly superior to us in the field, except on occasions when one apparently gets a bit careless and has a chance meeting with a human.

 

I've seen literal geniuses - who can't, or won't try to use a set of jumper cables without a manual.  Oh, they're smart alright - but not so one would notice with any practicality.

 

You're right - that box everyone keeps trying to limit them to is not small.  It's mighty, mighty big.  Otherwise, they'd be just another dumb animal easily stalked, trapped, or dropped.  And that ain't happening.

[gigantor]

I feel sad that our failure to gather evidence of an extant BF species has come to this. We are witnessing the death of BF in the realm of plausibility.

 

A negative result from 50 years of effort by thousands to substantiate the BF hypothesis, is a result, we should face it head on.

[hiflier]

Alas, g., you may be right. But, from the record, the result may be due more to something we may not be at all quite ready to hear. That if they ever existed? They are now gone. Extinct. and we are simply too late. There will be some who will insist that that isn't true. That Sasquatch is still out there. If that is not the case then all the new reports coming in to the BFRO are fabrications meant to keep folks shelling out money to those who have been keeping the subject alive after the fact. And if THAT is true then is anyone going to publicly admit it?

Edited November 30, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

For current non-human primates, the inability to craft tools with precision is also due to a physical imitation, not just a mental one. In other words, being able to craft refined tools takes more than just intelligence; you need hands that can do it. From an evolutionary perspective, it wouldn't make sense for Sasquatch to be human or near-human and still not be able to create tools, yet they possess a great deal of intelligence and are able to speak in sentences (a human trait that developed just 100,000 years ago). Sasquatch don't seem to be possible from an evolutionary perspective, yet they exist and are biologically real. There've been legitimate samples of them collected numerous times and they always show modern human DNA. I believe this is key in understanding what's actually going on.

Edited November 30, 2016 by OntarioSquatch

[gigantor]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 That if they ever existed? They are now gone. Extinct. and we are simply too late.

 

That is the best explanation I've heard.

[hiflier]

O.S, The modern DNA element IMO only adds to the mystery. You are right however in that it makes no sense to be exposed to Human things and hang around Human manufactured items and structures without some of it rubbing off at whatever level. An opposable thumb placed further back on the wrist may be all that is necessary to keep them primitive? I noticed also in the map image you posted on the other thread that the letter "B" was overlayed on the three foot icons. I'm assuming it means evidence left but no visual sightings? i.e. not Class A encounters?

Edited November 30, 2016 by hiflier