The Sasquatch Mind.....and Body

[SWWASAS]

I am surprised that some insiders have not leaked their government knowledge.     The only thing I can figure is that they like me,  feel BF is better off being a myth than a real endangered creature so they keep the lid on it.    The history of the Native American is proof enough for me that BF is better off not being managed by the government.    

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

The only thing I can figure is that they like me,  feel BF is better off being a myth than a real endangered creature so they keep the lid on it.

 

Again, that's a easy thing to say, but I have to ask, do you really believe that? I mean, why keep the lid on something that doesn't exist?  A question that goes right to the heart of the matter.

[MIB]

SWWASAS -

 

Yeah, definitely a conundrum.   Some should be silenced by threats to their pension, etc, but not all.   There should be "whistle-blowers".  I don't think threats impress zealots and crusaders all that much.  Whatever incentive they have to remain silent, it must come in the form of something they truly believe in, not something they're threatened with.   I don't know what else it could be.   It must be pretty unambiguous, pretty decisive, to have apparent total agreement.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

hiflier:   "I mean, why keep the lid on something that doesn't exist?"   Probably for the same reason they do not run around professing their belief in unicorns and mermaids if they don't think BF exists either.  .        So if they have knowledge of BF they have to have some reason to keep the lid on .    

 

There are subjects that people in the know do not run around blabbing about because the penalty is 30 years in a military prison doing hard labor.    That prevents people like me or anyone with common sense from blabbing about what they know that is classifed.  .       But if that applies to BF there are aspects of BF that have to be classified Top Secret by the military.      I cannot imagine why BF would be classified at that level unless BF is extra terrestrial.      There are those among us who make that claim (not me).    But that is not inconceivable if ETs commonly visit earth.  Maybe earth is like an animal preserve for BF because its planet is not longer habitable?   .    Certainly that might explain some of the woo woo aspects reported about BF.     I think some people have done freedom of information requests about BF but I am not aware of any evidence of cover up with the results.     One would think if there was an official cover up there would be some sort of paper trail of that with blanked out information.    But the FOIA requests pretty much require you know what documents specifically to ask for.     The government does not help you find what to ask for.     

Edited January 22, 2018 by SWWASAS

[southernyahoo]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 0:38 AM, norseman said:

 

 What could a discovery like this teach us about human evolution?

 

I'll do a minor mention of the fact that it could be more than some religious beliefs could handle. The real trouble would be in where to draw the line in assigning human rights and what should be done about an upright walking animal with uncanny intelligence or the unruly Wildman that can't assimilate with society.

[hiflier]

I will answer the question directly. What this will teach us about Human evolution is who we are is significant beyond all reason. That we and we alone developed to such a level of thinking and imaginative capacity that it allowed us to master this planet like no other creature since the dawn of our species. And Sasquatch is a blatant example of what happens when the evolutionary processes that got us here do not continue or develop within other hominid species like it did with us. That in understanding the limitations evolution produced in a species like Sasquatch it may, or SHOULD, create a new respect and awe for Human existence. Would this result in a new philosophy regarding how we treat our own kind? I think that can only be determined with the securing of a specimen for proof.

 

Our respect for each other didn't change much with the gradual discovery of the great apes or the fossils of out ancestors so whether or not a Sasquatch disclosure has any impact remains to be seen. One could hope that it's discovery would result in Humans graduating to a new level of regard for their fellow man. In truth though, sadly enough, it probably won't happen until greed somehow gets programmed out of us. Not holding my breath on that ever happening even WITH Sasquatch.

[hiflier]

I will answer the question directly. What this will teach us about Human evolution is who we are is significant beyond all reason. That we and we alone developed to such a level of thinking and imaginative capacity that it allowed us to master this planet like no other creature since the dawn of our species. And Sasquatch is a blatant example of what happens when the evolutionary processes that got us here do not continue or develop within other hominid species like it did with us. That in understanding the limitations evolution produced in a species like Sasquatch it may, or SHOULD, create a new respect and awe for Human existence. Would this result in a new philosophy regarding how we treat our own kind? I think that can only be determined with the securing of a specimen for proof.

 

Our respect for each other didn't change much with the gradual discovery of the great apes or the fossils of out ancestors so whether or not a Sasquatch disclosure has any impact remains to be seen. One could hope that it's discovery would result in Humans graduating to a new level of regard for their fellow man. In truth though, sadly enough, it probably won't happen until greed somehow gets programmed out of us. Not holding my breath on that ever happening even WITH Sasquatch.

[ioyza]

3 hours ago, hiflier said:

That we and we alone developed to such a level of thinking and imaginative capacity that it allowed us to master this planet like no other creature since the dawn of our species. And Sasquatch is a blatant example of what happens when the evolutionary processes that got us here do not continue or develop within other hominid species like it did with us.

 

Have we mastered it? Can we survive and thrive naked and without tools, in almost any part of the world? They've mastered this planet. Most of the development you're talking about in humans isn't a result of evolutionary processes anyway, at least not in the sense you mean, biological evolution. We found another tier in evolutionary hierarchy, evolution of ideas through cultural transmission, but that doesn't have as much to do with our thinking abilities as you imagine. If we ever became isolated from that accumulation of knowledge, it wouldn't take long to erase all that progress.

 

Evolution is not a linear process that takes species from "primitive" to some degree of "evolved" and 'stops' and drops them off somewhere along the way. The division we perceive between 'man' and 'animal' is not a blurred line, it's an imaginary line. That's the realization that's going to bring about this change you hope for in humanity, but I'm afraid that realization will remain elusive even after sasquatch is proven and accepted.

 

(Don't get me wrong, we of course have mastered the planet, in the way you mean. I just want to point out that they have too, in their way, and make the point that we are not at two different points on the same evolutionary path, but rather that we're on two divergent paths)

[norseman]

Ioyza,

 

I find your question silly. And your logic faulty. If little green aliens showed up on earth with big heads and tiny bodies and could not survive 10 seconds on Earth without a space suit? But they brought the Death Star, a star destroyer and hand held vaporizers and energy shields?

 

I think you would find that they would be masters of the planet pretty quick.

 

Killer whales can survive naked and without tools in almost any part of the planet. So what? Tool use is not a crutch. It’s the result of a big brain and a opposable thumb. 

[NatFoot]

I have to agree with Norse on this one.

 

Are they incredibly evolved? They must be. Masters of their environment? Yep.

 

But that doesn't mean they are tied to our evolution or are on some divergent path.

[SWWASAS]

The new Xfiles Wednesday on Fox had a short segment on Bigfoot last night.    Tongue in cheek humor that had me laughing out loud.   I wish I could have recorded the small segment somehow.   Many of us are way too serious and it would be good to laugh at our self now and then.  The segment starts with this BF walking in the dark then it walks into an apartment and Molder takes off the costume head he has is wearing.    Says something about he needed to get out in the woods and decompress and nothing does it better than pretending he is bigfoot.   .    Got me howling with laughter.     I feel that way very often.   

Edited January 25, 2018 by SWWASAS

[ioyza]

40 minutes ago, norseman said:

Ioyza,

 

I find your question silly. And your logic faulty. If little green aliens showed up on earth with big heads and tiny bodies and could not survive 10 seconds on Earth without a space suit? But they brought the Death Star, a star destroyer and hand held vaporizers and energy shields?

 

I think you would find that they would be masters of the planet pretty quick.

 

Killer whales can survive naked and without tools in almost any part of the planet. So what? Tool use is not a crutch. It’s the result of a big brain and a opposable thumb. 

 

They wouldn't have any better luck with bigfoot than us if those were the only tools they brought. What if little green aliens showed up on earth and they were non-corporeal interdimensional entities that could move effortlessly through time and space entirely without tools - could we say they also would be masters of the planet?

 

The point is that technological evolution is untethered from biological evolution, and also that biological evolution by natural selection is not a process that makes species "better" - it's simply a process of gradual change in the genetic makeup of a species by preferential propagation, which can often be due to environmental pressures, but don't have to be. Did we lose our hair because we started to wear clothes, and less hairy individuals were selected by sexual preference, with the environmental pressure that might balance out that factor removed? Are we "more evolved" because we learned to make clothes? For that matter, are we more evolved than our ancestors? I genuinely doubt that people today are any smarter, genetically speaking, than people of ancient civilizations. There just hasn't really been any pressure on us that would select for intelligence, or much of any genetic trait really outside of sexual selection, on the whole. Technological and cultural evolution are not tied to biological evolution. And there's little question of who, between us and bigfoot, is biologically "more evolved." I'd argue that extends to their intelligence. If they weren't smarter than us, you'd have shot one (or at least encountered one!) by now. That is a very real pressure on them, and it likely has selected for intelligence in them over an extremely long period of time.

 

There's nothing silly about what I'm saying, it's a literal interpretation of evolution as we understand it. You can take or leave the whole "master of the planet" dialogue, what I'm really saying here is: the notion of "more evolved" is a fallacy.

[norseman]

4 hours ago, ioyza said:

 

They wouldn't have any better luck with bigfoot than us if those were the only tools they brought. What if little green aliens showed up on earth and they were non-corporeal interdimensional entities that could move effortlessly through time and space entirely without tools - could we say they also would be masters of the planet?

 

The point is that technological evolution is untethered from biological evolution, and also that biological evolution by natural selection is not a process that makes species "better" - it's simply a process of gradual change in the genetic makeup of a species by preferential propagation, which can often be due to environmental pressures, but don't have to be. Did we lose our hair because we started to wear clothes, and less hairy individuals were selected by sexual preference, with the environmental pressure that might balance out that factor removed? Are we "more evolved" because we learned to make clothes? For that matter, are we more evolved than our ancestors? I genuinely doubt that people today are any smarter, genetically speaking, than people of ancient civilizations. There just hasn't really been any pressure on us that would select for intelligence, or much of any genetic trait really outside of sexual selection, on the whole. Technological and cultural evolution are not tied to biological evolution. And there's little question of who, between us and bigfoot, is biologically "more evolved." I'd argue that extends to their intelligence. If they weren't smarter than us, you'd have shot one (or at least encountered one!) by now. That is a very real pressure on them, and it likely has selected for intelligence in them over an extremely long period of time.

 

There's nothing silly about what I'm saying, it's a literal interpretation of evolution as we understand it. You can take or leave the whole "master of the planet" dialogue, what I'm really saying here is: the notion of "more evolved" is a fallacy.

 

And the fact you find that notion a fallacy............ I find silly. Absolutely nonsense. It’s even been quantified by a scale.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

 

And here are examples that technological evolution is NOT untethered from biological evolution....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as space faring “spirits” I doubt such a thing exists. If aliens are bending time or space they are using technology aka “tools” to do it.

[Airdale]

I am reminded of the quote from Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic."

[wiiawiwb]

I'm not sure who has mastered what but I would bet the farm on one thing. If you put that military guy out in the remote wilderness by himself, with AR-15 and exoskeleton included, I'd bet a sasquatch would take him in a nanosecond if it wanted to.