Sasquatch Adaptability and Survival

[Guest Waggles]

Yea the fossile record is maybe 5% in any given epoch. But BF might be annoyed when sighted, as it happens so often, with NO negative consequences. Its also postulated they sometimes"like" to run out in front of cars and give the humans a show. Probably a range from "dont care" it's night time to " let's see what they do" ha ha.

[BigTreeWalker]

I've often thought that the reasons they do what the do at times is to see our reaction. 

[guyzonthropus]

Or perhaps to demonstrate a higher mastery or prowess

 

"We're as fast as your car(by a few reports) invisible to your trailcams, you only see when we choose, your dog's fear us most,  we know where you sleep for we have seen you, we can throw boulders that weigh more than you across your campground, if we choose so, you will never hear us surrounding you, or we will bring terror with the sound of our approach...oh yeah, we see in the dark, don't feel cold, and kill deer with our bare hands, and by the way I just saw that one of your headlights was out, I was gonna tell you, but you didn't pull over or stop when I  ran in front of your car a moment ago

 

Then again, depending on the car involved, maybe it triggers a memory from its infancy...you know the sound of the engine combined with  headlights takes them back to the night  its mother was growling at a bear while flashing the ole eyeshine...

[MIB]

9 hours ago, Mendoza said:

K-strategists are most susceptible of all to the types of environmental pressures we are looking at.  They require stable environments and their populations tend to be close to the carrying capacity of their habitat.

 

True and not.   It overlooks the impact of consciousness, of willful adaptation of behavior to address changes in environment.  15 seconds of thinking can do a lot more than 10K years of biological adaptation or rewiring of instinct.     I would say, however, that the more recently we shared a common ancestor, the more extreme the conditions must have been that taxed both biological adaptation and conscious planning.    It's an interesting puzzle .. interesting array of puzzles.

 

8 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

I've often thought that the reasons they do what the do at times is to see our reaction. 

 

Absolutely.   I've been the rat in the maze.   It's a little unsettling for someone used to thinking my species was the pinnacle of development, automatically in charge.  (At least 'til decomposition sets in.)

 

MIB

Edited December 13, 2016 by MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

10 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

Rather than compare them to the coyotes living in closer proximity to people, in terms of their versatility at resource acquisition, BF's might  be better likened to giant raccoons...mask or no...

 

Also, there is considerable fossil evidence of a diverse number of primates developing in Europe throughout the age of mammals...I'm not so certain I'd rely on Wikipedia for confirmation of such...I went with a more reliable source when  first learned of these fossil records....yup..saw it on TV....

I'm only aware of Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, perhaps a Homo Erectus or two, in Europe, for all time.

Not sure I would call that diverse.

 

Primates is an overly broad category including monkeys, lemurs, great apes.

 

Great Apes might be a better category but not that diverse unless you go back many millions of years in which case there are no fossils in Europe.

 

Indonesia and Southeastern Asia are more promising, perhaps central Asia.

 

And then we have the Americas where we may have two species of Great Ape that can hoot howl and whistle and moan.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[JDL]

Ok, Mendoza.

 

First, they are smart.  As smart as we are, just applied differently.  And there's no question that they have complete mastery of whatever environment they choose to occupy.  If you're thinking of them as simple animals, or applying models to them that are designed for simple animals, I would re-think your approach.

 

Second, a data point for you:  I have seen a family group of four with two pre-adolescent juveniles (shorter than waist high on the adults).

[hiflier]

Smart in any animal species is limited to body type and what a particular body type needs to survive.. Smart is also limited to brain development which again needs to be sufficient for a body type to survive.. Brain development is not open ended whereby a raccoon say, can figure out a complex math problem. A raccoon will be smart enough to solve complex issues relating to survival though. Sasquatch IMO is no different. Its body type will allow it to solve a different set of survival issues relating to its size and needs. So far it hasn't seemed to rise above that basic level. If Humans weren't around it would function at a limited level which is smart enough to do the things its body type allows.

 

But it will not arrive at a point beyond that so in spite of what we project onto it in an anthropomorphic sense it is primitive and all indications are that it has stayed and will stay primitive. Bears do some amazing things. Sasquatch does some amazing things as well. The two different body types will dictate what each is capable of doing. Sasquatch can do more Human like things because of body type. Brain wise though its a different story. There is no doubt that it is animal and its brain will limit it to animal even though it's body type will allow it to do so much more than any other animal. Its diminished right brain capacity will insure that it never rises above that level.

 

Could a Sasquatch become another KOKO? Perhaps. It would certainly appear to have that capacity. But like KOKO it cannot and will not think for itself when it comes to Human cognitive skill levels. It's not in its nature to go beyond its brain/body type abilities on its own. It can be taught things because it is smart but it won't conceive Human ideas and capabilities without outside influence. The current Sasquatch condition says that this is true. It is adaptable but cannot go beyond the minimum of what an animal needs to survive.

[JKH]

1 hour ago, JDL said:

First, they are smart.  As smart as we are, just applied differently.  And there's no question that they have complete mastery of whatever environment they choose to occupy.  If you're thinking of them as simple animals, or applying models to them that are designed for simple animals, I would re-think your approach.

 

Second, a data point for you:  I have seen a family group of four with two pre-adolescent juveniles (shorter than waist high on the adults).

 

Thank goodness you and others with experience are still here to bring daylight into the murky swamp of speculation.

[MIB]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Smart in any animal species is limited to body type and what a particular body type needs to survive.. Smart is also limited to brain development which again needs to be sufficient for a body type to survive.. Brain development is not open ended whereby a raccoon say, can figure out a complex math problem. A raccoon will be smart enough to solve complex issues relating to survival though. Sasquatch IMO is no different. Its body type will allow it to solve a different set of survival issues relating to its size and needs. So far it hasn't seemed to rise above that basic level. If Humans weren't around it would function at a limited level which is smart enough to do the things its body type allows.

 

But it will not arrive at a point beyond that so in spite of what we project onto it in an anthropomorphic sense it is primitive and all indications are that it has stayed and will stay primitive. Bears do some amazing things. Sasquatch does some amazing things as well. The two different body types will dictate what each is capable of doing. Sasquatch can do more Human like things because of body type. Brain wise though its a different story. There is no doubt that it is animal and its brain will limit it to animal even though it's body type will allow it to do so much more than any other animal. Its diminished right brain capacity will insure that it never rises above that level.

 

Could a Sasquatch become another KOKO? Perhaps. It would certainly appear to have that capacity. But like KOKO it cannot and will not think for itself when it comes to Human cognitive skill levels. It's not in its nature to go beyond its brain/body type abilities on its own. It can be taught things because it is smart but it won't conceive Human ideas and capabilities without outside influence. The current Sasquatch condition says that this is true. It is adaptable but cannot go beyond the minimum of what an animal needs to survive.

 

Remind me again .. how much experience do you have with them, first hand, face to face?   Anything at all to suggest you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about instead of just yanking stuff out of your butt telling people who DO have the experience they didn't see what they saw because if they had it would inconveniently invalidate your foregone conclusion?

 

Just checking ...

 

MIB

 

[zman1967]

“Change is essential for survival. All life forms must adapt to their fluctuating circumstances. All form of life result from the process of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance. The universe is in a constant state of chaos. We each have chaos implanted into our bones. Nature wires all of us for change.”
― Kilroy J. Oldster, Dead Toad Scrolls

[hiflier]

People see what they see. And interpret it accordingly. Historically the pile of reports by far favors the animal argument. Exceptions to the rule? Yes, just like anything else there will be exceptions. But in the large picture these creatures exhibit nothing that says they are exceptional beyond what their body type allows them to do. Gorillas do not step over 4 ft. fences as far as I know. Nor do they create "x" pattern tree structures. Nor do they hide from cameras. Sasquatch has been reported to do these things. But they will never drive a cr, operate an ATV, go to a movie theater and pay for a ticket. They will not type on a computer, launch a rocket, use a calculator, load a rifle, or do anything else even close to those things. You know it and so does everyone else.

 

Singling me out as being some kind of jerk isn't working MIB. But you try to do just that all the time. Historically the reports say that Sasquatch is and acts like an animal. Its body lets it do advanced things but not so advanced that it will lift itself beyond primitive. Period. I see zero issues with that statement. What make you think that if I had a sighting out in the forests here in Maine that it would somehow miraculously alter what the record shows? You want them to be extra special and more Human-like? Fine go for it. It won't change what they really are one bit.

[guyzonthropus]

Ok, first off, Hiflier, I must say I enjoy and appreciate your input and ideas, at times out  the box thinking, and willingness to explore and consider various pathways of inquiry and interpretation . Kudos.

However, some of the things you stated five posts up are quite rather "sapiens-centric" and somewhat display the high handed self-impressed assumptions and conclusions our species is so well known for ("I know! they always do that! like they're some 'chosen monkey' or something! like who died(or they drove to extinction) and made them the pinnacle of evolution? they don't even have fur!")

 

Body configuration does not dictate intelligence as long as there are biologic processes that support firstly, self awareness(so like most every organism that interacts with an environment) and secondly awareness of the external reality. With these two, intelligence may expand and cognition progress.

 

"Brain development is not open ended whereby a raccoon say, can figure out a complex math problem"

  Any more advanced species observing us could well say the same thing....

     "these things are so limited, they haven't the capacity to progress past rudimentary string theory or quantum mechanics! it's a dead end..."

 

We as humans have virtually no means to perceive, much less determine, the levels of abstraction within the communications and minds of other living organisms. To dismiss even the possibility of such is an act of arrogance that blinds us to potentials we've yet to conceive or realize.

 

. "There is no doubt that it is animal and its brain will limit it to animal even though it's body type will allow it to do so much more than any other animal. Its diminished right brain capacity will insure that it never rises above that level"

  once again,  this could just as easily apply to our species, all a matter of perspective and self-image.

Even within the paradigm of body type determining limits of cognitive development, the anatomic similarity would indicate strong parallels of potentials between BF's and humans. So, consider the idea that our physically founded drive progressing us through our biologic then cognitive/social development resulted in our departure from strictly physiological guidance as our cognitive capacity allowed us to visualize then manifest new pathways to manage corporeal existence, as seen in our technology, realization and application of abstract conceptualization, social constructs, and the delivery of pizza. So, in light of the form parallels, this physically founded drive element must(for the sake of the discussion)exist within the BF in some perhaps slightly altered, but none the less potent,  presence and level, which could have focused and directed their attention and  intent, manifesting in development of awareness, abstraction, and environmental utilization, which while disparate from our own in content, is equal in extent.

 

Just a thought......

[MIB]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

People see what they see. And interpret it accordingly. Historically the pile of reports by far favors the animal argument.

 

Correct, correct, and naively wrong.    Correct - people see what they see.   Correct - they interpret it accordingly.   Wrong about the reports, though because

 

1) What the witness sees, interprets, and reports gets edited by the investigator so you're not getting the real report, only as much, and the interpretation, the investigator wants you to see.

2) Not every report gets published, especially the ones which have content the investigator does not want to be associated with.

3) You seem to be not just ignoring, but summarily dismissing, reports that contradict what you want to find.   (Oddly enough, just like the investigators.)

 

FWIW, I'm not trying to call you a jerk.  That's not where the problem lies.   Your mirror isn't working.

 

MIB

 

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by MIB

[hiflier]

It depends on your source for the reports. Everything you said about me contradicting reports that don't fit my picture is flawed. What you said about reports being screened for public consumption is correct. The two statements are counter to each other.

 

Since you've taken a route that ruffles no feathers you leave open one's interpretation regarding who is doing the report filtering. Why don't you just spell it out. Who is it that is behind the editing of the reports? Maybe you could even go so far as to clarify why the reports are being edited after you say who is doing the editing. It would save a lot of folks time that they might spend on reports that are incomplete.

 

And if reports are indeed edited then knowing which source cannot be trusted will go a long way in weeding out such chicanery. It helps no one if the culprits are not clearly defined.     

Edited December 14, 2016 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

12 hours ago, JDL said:

Ok, Mendoza.

 

First, they are smart.  As smart as we are, just applied differently.  And there's no question that they have complete mastery of whatever environment they choose to occupy.  If you're thinking of them as simple animals, or applying models to them that are designed for simple animals, I would re-think your approach.

 

Second, a data point for you:  I have seen a family group of four with two pre-adolescent juveniles (shorter than waist high on the adults).

 

Yes, they are.  Very clever.

 

Adaptability.  In a London museum, there's a display ostensibly showing evolution in action over a relatively short period of time.  Up top, and fading left to right, line after line, they've assembled moths that lived in London in the nineteenth century - top left being off-white moths - and this supposedly shows that as the Industrial Revolution used more coal, and as buildings and tree barks were gradually coated and darkened from the smoke, the moths adjusted and evolved darker and darker to match their environment.

 

That's total BS.

 

In reality, as the local environment gradually darkened, those moths who were off-white stood out more against the darker backgrounds and were picked off faster than those darker moths who blended more easily.  That's not evolution - that's natural selection to be sure - but the moths didn't evolve, those that fit the environment of the moment just did better than those whose color didn't fit the environment of the moment.

 

We - the scientific community I should say - assume we have a fairly complete fossil record of bipedals, and assume all bipedals came out of Africa - something I don't agree with.  They've found a few fossils here and there - ON THE SURFACE - and arbitrarily assigned the fossils a strata they belonged to - as they were not found in situ.

 

That makes my personal belief that the fossil record is significantly lacking, and what's portrayed is inaccurate and assumed.

 

In North America alone, a lot of big animals went extinct 2,000 - 12,000 years ago.  Big animals.  Saber-tooth was one big cat - 600 to 800 pounds.  The ancient Bison was 25% larger than current Bison.  North American Camels weighed some 1,800 pounds.  The Glyptodon - like a huge armadillo - got almost 11 feet long and weighed up to two tons. Short faced bear was HUGE - about 11-12 feet long and weighing 2,100 pounds.  North American Jaguar weighed about 210 pounds.  Giant Ground Sloth reached almost 10 feet long and weighed almost a ton.

 

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

 

Just because there are scrawny little fellows found in Africa, doesn't mean in North America or even other continents - that very primitive man wouldn't be much larger - as just about everything else was.  The Woodwose in Europe was also reported to be a very large, hairy man.  Like a primitive man.  A primitive caveman, so to speak.

 

And I think that's what this thing is.  It's not an ape - but a very clever, very adaptable form of primitive man.  Not human to be sure - but it's not ape, either.

 

Adaptability is often a function of an ability to THINK and adapt - not be the white moths that get picked off the darker buildings and bark.