The Sasquatch Mind.....and Body

[hiflier]

Interesting articles but the Wild Woman of Navidad isn't a Sasquatch and doesn't exhibit Sasquatch behavior. On the book regarding tool use the reference to an ax isn't the same kind of ax that we Humans think of. It doesn't take large brains to use these kinds of rock tools. Hammering with rocks and rocks with sharp edges have been in use for at least 2.5 million years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldowan and Chimpanzees have been seen using rocks to break bones to get at the marrow. Similarly, but seemingly a bit more refined perhaps, is the somewhat controversial find outside of San Diego that dates back to around 130,000 years ago. 

 

The technology of rock tools is ancient and passed from generation to generation in our ancestor hominids with primate Human-like bodies but BEFORE large-brain development. At some point after Gorillas the line to modern Humans branched off. Then it branched again leaving all monkeys and apes. I have no way of knowing at which point Sasquatches came into being/branched off/were left behind, or what lineage they came from. All I know is that rocks still get used to break bones to get at the marrow. Sticks are still used as primitive tools. And that these activities are implemented by primates that are not Human and have been for nearly 3 million years.   

Edited November 13, 2017 by hiflier

[hiflier]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hominids/genes.htm

 

"A gene that separates humans from the apes and all other animals seems to have disappeared from humans up to three million years ago, just before they first stood upright, researchers said on Monday.

Most animals have the gene but people do not -- and it may be somehow involved in the expansion of the brain, the international team of researchers said. The gene controls production of a sialic acid -- a kind of sugar -- called Neu5Gc, the researchers write in an advance online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"This mutation occurred after our last common ancestor with bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) and chimpanzees, and before the origin of present-day humans," they wrote. Neanderthal skeletons, the oldest early humans from who DNA has been obtained, also lack the sugar.

"It happens to be first known genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees where there is a major outcome," Ajit Varki of the University of California San Diego, who led the research, said in a telephone interview. "We are exploring the consequences of this." Varki said the role of the gene is not fully understood.

"The gene itself is involved in changing the surfaces of all cells in the body," he said. "The surface of all cells in the body is covered with sugars. This one is missing only in humans." "

 

So, I think that even though this gene is missing in Humans it is present in Sasquatch and that's why, like the great apes, it has not really progressed beyond its primitive brain. But at the same time it's not really an ape! Again, my opinion gleaned from my research. In the evolutionary sense, it got its Human-like primate body but that's about it. It just didn't make it far enough up the ladder of evolution to lose the Neu5Gc sugar from its cell surfaces. So no brain growth. Ape/bear mind in an large, advanced, fully covered in hair, primate body.

Edited November 13, 2017 by hiflier

[georgerm]

22 minutes ago, hiflier said:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hominids/genes.htm

 

So, I think that even though this gene is missing in Humans it is present in Sasquatch and that's why, like the great apes, it has not really progressed beyond its primitive brain. But at the same time it's not really an ape! Again, my opinion gleaned from my research. In the evolutionary sense, it got its Human-like primate body but that's about it. It just didn't make it far enough up the ladder of evolution to lose the Neu5Gc sugar from its cell surfaces. So no brain growth. Ape/bear mind in an large, advanced, fully covered in hair, primate body.

 

Quite interesting theories.  At this point, I don't see any conclusions but more theories in regards to bigfoot. Bigfoot seems to be a riddle that is here to make humans look foolish.  Just a theory of course.

 

The sugar molecule on the surface of cells will add another reason to search for Bigfoot cell samples. 

 

So, I think that even though this gene is missing in Humans it is present in Sasquatch and that's why, like the great apes, it has not really progressed beyond its primitive brain. 

 

Interesting theory.  We don't know if bigfoot's cell surfaces lack the sugar molecule. This can be tested with a good Bigfoot body part sample. 

 

 If I were to make the perfect 'forest human' it would come out like bigfoot. It would have physical characteristics so is could handle  extreme climates, would have no use for clunky tools to drag around, and would be smart enough to illude humans. I suppose it would not have the sugar molecule like humans. Now of course, this could be all wrong and put us back to square one ......................................  typical when figuring out bigfoot. 

 

Ape/bear mind in an large, advanced, fully covered in hair, primate body.

 

This is an interesting theory. If this was the case, wouldn't we be able to capture one or two a year?

 

My knowledge of bigfoot is a thin bigfoot book with a few bigfoot facts and a tons of theories.

 

This creature is befuddling. Your science approach is stellar, but we still need to test your theories. 

[hiflier]

OK, to wrap this up. I always have a point. Sometimes, if not most times, I present an idea to lay the groundwork which is what this thread's subject is doing. So then just what is the point? It's this: nearly ALL monkeys and apes are protected. Nearly all primates to include Humans have laws in place to help insure their survival and habitat........except Sasquatch. I've worked to show that Patty in the PGF is real, I'm working at showing what I think is the nature of the Sasquatch mind vs. its body. This has been no small road. But the end result is that there NEEDS to be protections placed specifically for the Sasquatch. Laws that call the creature by it's name- Sasquatch so it can go officially on the list.

 

Encroachment by Humans on the habitats of the Great Apes and other primate species along with Human predation on those species is now in check as much as laws and governance allow. That is not the case for Sasquatch. But like the other primate species, except for Man, it cannot protect itself or its habitat from us. And that's the point of trying to show what I've shown in this thread. Of course it's my opinion. But I think it is an opinion that is well grounded from what I have researched in the many aspects of animal behavior, primate function and ability, the biological sciences and their implications, evolution of species of primates, their characteristics, mannerisms, and habitat. As far as what Sasquatch is it all fits. They need our efforts at protection. Period. And since greed won't allow for that protection what is to be done?

 

15 minutes ago, georgerm said:

This creature is befuddling. Your science approach is stellar, but we still need to test your theories.

 

Indeed we do, G. and thank you for the kind words.  

[ShadowBorn]

Why should there be any laws to protect this creature. Since this creature has been doing very well all on it's own. It does not need no protection since no one and I mean no one has been able to bring in a body for study. This creature has done very well on protecting it self all on it's  with out no ones help. I see How Tod Standing has been going out on trying to set up laws to protect this creature. But yet this creature does not understand borders or laws but the natural laws of nature. Yet this creature breaks the natural laws of nature  in it's own right on it's right to live.

 

Sure we can say that this creature might well be a freak of nature but who are we to judge what It might be. This creature might be a creature that has been around since first human have first walked on this earth as far as we know. Who is to say that we might have evolved from them. Off course that this is just my opinion. But what if they have been around for the past 4.2 million years and have just evolved in living other then human . When we encounter them we seem come to a point in life that changes us in some way. As though we had a past with them in some way. Is it possible that they are prehistoric to us 

 

pre·his·tor·ic

ˌprē(h)iˈstôrik/  

adjective

adjective: prehistoric; adjective: pre-historic

1. relating to or denoting the period before written records

   
   My

   experience with this creature shows a creature that is intelligent and very cunning.  That is able to communicate  amongst them selves with out the witness knowing. That has an understanding of human behavior yet behaves as an animal in the wilderness. In my own opinion  I feel like this creature is connected with us in some way. Either in our ancestry through Human evolution which makes me a heretic which is heresy.

   her·e·tic                                                                                 

   ˈherəˌtik/  

   noun

   noun: heretic; plural noun: heretics

   1. a person believing in or practicing religious heresy                                                      

    

   her·e·sy

   ˈherəsē/  

   noun

   noun: heresy; plural noun: heresies

   1. belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine

       

      Thus the reason why DNA of this creature will never be resolved and will remain so. I hope I have not broken any rule.   

[Rockape]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

Interesting articles but the Wild Woman of Navidad isn't a Sasquatch and doesn't exhibit Sasquatch behavior

 

Leaftalker is correct about the stories though. Most tell of hairy creatures, and there was both a Wild woman AND Wild man of Navidad. Other stories tell of finding enough different sized footprints that there were most likely several of these "creatures".

 

I agree the story Leaftalker posted sounds more like a human doing the sneaking around, however I have seen some reports about Bigfoot that jibe with some of the story, like dogs not alerting to the person. I recall one in particular that claimed one was sneaking into a large mining camp during the night and taking things, mostly food. They would find very large footprints and were puzzled how it could roam about unnoticed with the number of dogs in the camp.

 

I don't recall that one returning anything however. That's what makes me think the Leaftalker story is about a person. They used the tools and "polished" them as a favor in return for the use. But there are stories about the Wild woman, and Wild man of Navidad that certainly describe a Bigfoot.

[hiflier]

9 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

Why should there be any laws to protect this creature. Since this creature has been doing very well all on it's own. It does not need no protection since no one and I mean no one has been able to bring in a body for study.

 

Many people have said this very thing. But there are not millions of these creatures as might be expected if they've been with living along side Humans for so long. Why not? So this-

 

18 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

This creature has done very well on protecting it self all on it's  with out no ones help

 

- is a relative question. A better question may be why NOT protect them- BY NAME? Why ASUME that current laws on the books are adequate? The actual name of Sasquatch needs to at least go on a list of watched species. That alone would fly in the faces of government, science, AND the resource extractors. And religion, and evolutionary studies, and anthropology, and comparative primate anatomists and, and, and........ 

 

So they are doing well on their own? Compared to what? I'm sure their range was much, much greater and their numbers much, much higher until their habitat shrank and their natural tendency to avoid detection caused them to shrink with it. Sure, there's no proof of this but why wouldn't it make sense? How many Americans lived in the U.S before Europeans arrived? Tough question but the estimates range from 2.1 million to as much as 18 million. How many Sasquatch were there if they were here before Americans. A few thousand like todays estimates? Tens of thousands, Hundreds of thousands? Millions? The fossil record would say few or none at all in comparison to Humans. And no that there are 300 million Humans in the U.S. why would a specific Sasquatch protection law be on the books. Especially since people are actively hunting them?

 

27 minutes ago, Rockape said:

Leaftalker is correct about the stories though. Most tell of hairy creatures, and there was both a Wild woman AND Wild man of Navidad. Other stories tell of finding enough different sized footprints that there were most likely several of these "creatures".

 

I agree the story Leaftalker posted sounds more like a human doing the sneaking around, however I have seen some reports about Bigfoot that jibe with some of the story, like dogs not alerting to the person. I recall one in particular that claimed one was sneaking into a large mining camp during the night and taking things, mostly food. They would find very large footprints and were puzzled how it could roam about unnoticed with the number of dogs in the camp.

 

I don't recall that one returning anything however. That's what makes me think the Leaftalker story is about a person. They used the tools and "polished" them as a favor in return for the use. But there are stories about the Wild woman, and Wild man of Navidad that certainly describe a Bigfoot.

 

And the descriptions tell me that people used the same names for two different entities. The mining camp story simply does not jive with the cutting of a block of butter inside a house in half. As much as folks try to make the Sasquatch 'Human' it just isn't. As far as its nature goes the mining camp story is closer to the mark. Polishing axes is not. The two beings are so far away from being alike in so many ways. The iconic Sasquatch chases cars, horses in corrals, hops or steps over four foot fences, howls, and has been reported to kill dogs. It can be harmless but in general it isn't an all sweetness and light, warm, fuzzy creature.

 

Find the dead body or find the skeleton and all will be known. And it will go on an official list for government, science and us- BY NAME and not as some incidental,  previously unknown, collateral animal that to date no one wants to admit to.

[NCBFr]

On 11/12/2017 at 1:48 PM, georgerm said:

We don't really know if bigfoot uses its body and skills to hunt. Is it a peaceful vegetarian like some species of monkeys?   

 

 

They clearly are omnivorous.  They would have to be of that size and energy level.  Plus there are ample credible reports of them killing deer and hogs.  There is also a great report from out west (Colorado I think) from years ago of two of them operating as a team where one was a beater pushing deer or elk to a BF waiting in ambush.  

On 11/12/2017 at 2:32 PM, hiflier said:

 

The point being made is that when a Human mind goes into a Sasquatch body with the Sasquatch brain, it my contention, (and speculation!) that the Human will lose it's ability to create and imagine situational outcomes before they happen.

 

I would think if you out a human mind in a BF body as a minimum there would be significant evidence of tools or use of fire other than the occasional rock.  

 

Speaking of tools.  I have a walkway stone that was irregularly shaped but roughly 2ft square that was taken from my back yard over to an old playground beside my house that has been reclaimed by woods and  chipped down to a diamond with a real sharp end.  You can tell whoever did this took a block off of a retaining wall in the playground to work the stone in to what would be a tremendous weapon in the hands of someone about twice my size and weight.  I can hold it in my hand but it is a stretch to get my fingers around it and too heavy for me to use it effectively in a fight.  I have always wondered if this was done by a BF.  I live out in the country surrounded by wet lands and lakes and I know BFs come through on rare occasion on hunting expeditions.  One of these days I will post a picture of it in a separate post.

[LeafTalker]

1 hour ago, Rockape said:

 

Leaftalker is correct about the stories though. Most tell of hairy creatures, and there was both a Wild woman AND Wild man of Navidad. Other stories tell of finding enough different sized footprints that there were most likely several of these "creatures".

 

I agree the story Leaftalker posted sounds more like a human doing the sneaking around, however I have seen some reports about Bigfoot that jibe with some of the story, like dogs not alerting to the person. I recall one in particular that claimed one was sneaking into a large mining camp during the night and taking things, mostly food. They would find very large footprints and were puzzled how it could roam about unnoticed with the number of dogs in the camp.

 

I don't recall that one returning anything however. That's what makes me think the Leaftalker story is about a person. They used the tools and "polished" them as a favor in return for the use. But there are stories about the Wild woman, and Wild man of Navidad that certainly describe a Bigfoot.

You have a good eye, Rockape. Good catch. I was going to point out that the non-reaction of the dogs -- made much of, in the story -- was key, but I was too tired.....  

 

The Wild Woman of Navidad also removed a huge domestic hog from a pen and replaced it with a smaller feral hog. And again, there was the Dog Factor..... The dogs at the house with the hog (and the dogs' owners) were apparently on high alert because of a bear visitation a few nights before, and the dogs had made a big fuss about the bear, but never detected or responded to the "person" who removed the hog and replaced it with another. 

 

Also, not all BF return things (but many do).

 

And I agree, NCBFr; omnivores, fer shur.    

[Rockape]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

And the descriptions tell me that people used the same names for two different entities. The mining camp story simply does not jive with the cutting of a block of butter inside a house in half. As much as folks try to make the Sasquatch 'Human' it just isn't.

 

Yes, agreed, but I also believe Leaftalker could be correct that some of this Wild woman story is a conflagration of Bigfoot stories and a runaway slave. The newspaper report posted by Night Wing seems to be a case of it.

[hiflier]

20 minutes ago, LeafTalker said:

You have a good eye, Rockape. Good catch. I was going to point out that the non-reaction of the dogs -- made much of, in the story -- was key, but I was too tired.....  

 

The Wild Woman of Navidad also removed a huge domestic hog from a pen and replaced it with a smaller feral hog. And again, there was the Dog Factor..... The dogs at the house with the hog (and the dogs' owners) were apparently on high alert because of a bear visitation a few nights before, and the dogs had made a big fuss about the bear, but never detected or responded to the "person" who removed the hog and replaced it with another. 

 

Also, not all BF return things (but many do).

 

And I agree, NCBFr; omnivores, fer shur.    

 

Did the owner actually see the hog switch as in see the 'person' in action? Since there was no confrontation as I would think hog stealing would be a serious matter, and no apparent defense of livestock theft through gun play, especially at night, that the owner did not witness the exchange the of hogs. If that is true then I very respectfully submit that there could be a more Human element present and not a Sasquatch? 

Edited November 13, 2017 by hiflier

[Rockape]

19 minutes ago, LeafTalker said:

You have a good eye, Rockape. Good catch. I was going to point out that the non-reaction of the dogs -- made much of, in the story -- was key, but I was too tired.....  

 

 

Agreed, but the incident in the report you posted could also be a person who has befriended the dogs. I think that is something that could happen with people and Bigfoot. These are most likely dogs that were free to roam and encountered this person, or Bigfoot, knows the person/Bigfoot, their smell etc so they are no stranger and don't draw alarm.

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Find the dead body or find the skeleton and all will be known.

 

Agreed, but unless that happens all we can do is opine. Some things I just don't believe, but I hesitate to be dismissive of any/everything I see reported about them. Doesn't mean I believe it, but we can only take in all accounts and form our opinions. Somethings attributed to BF, which I find unlikely, can be explained by rational means.

[NCBFr]

20 hours ago, georgerm said:

Will there be a conscience?.

 

I believe so based on one of my absolute favorite reports:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/anderson.htm

 

 

[hiflier]

7 minutes ago, Rockape said:

Agreed, but unless that happens all we can do is opine. Some things I just don't believe, but I hesitate to be dismissive of any/everything I see reported about them. Doesn't mean I believe it, but we can only take in all accounts and form our opinions. Somethings attributed to BF, which I find unlikely, can be explained by rational means.

 

I wholly agree as well. The idea for the thread wasn't new when I posted it a couple of days ago as you know. But, if I was to place a figure on it, 99.99 percent of reports, both from John Green's database as well as the SSR/BFRO's support the idea that Sasquatch is not a Human. It is a hominid that is pretty much animal in nature and behavior. It's only advantage lies in what it has been able to amass in its skill set due to its body shape and that skill set works for the kind of environment it lives in. Just for the sake of discussion, if Gorillas or Chimpanzees grew up and lived here their skill set might be similar to Sasquatch's but they are not the same kind of animal. Sasquatch, just by being bipedal, is much further along in it's development. But, in the evolutionary sense, it's still millions of years behind Humans     

[SWWASAS]

I have encountered several things that make me believe Sasquatch are reasonably sentient.    They seem to have a sense of humor.    Throwing pine cones and rocks to pester but not injure.   Additionally I had the one glyph left for me to find.  Picture below.     That stylized glyph is hardly something you would expect from anything not sentient due to symmetry alone.    That glyph was placed behind my back when I was never out of visual range of the stump where it was placed.   I have never found anything similar since but others report finding similar things.       Those who feed them, report they are pretty fussy about what they will eat and what they will not eat.    Often eating nearly all of something but leaving some behind.   .  Also they do not make a big mess when eating like a bear or raccoon.     BF open packages, coolers,  etc, help themselves, and close things up without ripping the containers to shreds.    All signs of sentient behavior,    in some ways better than human campers.   I did find one scat pile that did not seem to be bear, in that it was well formed like human but much too large in diameter,    but at the same time was too large to be cougar and contained bits of fur that had been consumes with meat making it further unlikely to be human.   That was deposited on an old logging road, after I had gone past deeper into the forest,  and I found it on the way out.     Seemed to be some sort of marking behavior but certainly could have been an expression of humor too.   .