Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NatFoot

To Anthropomorphize

Recommended Posts

NatFoot
BFF Donor

You read so many different accounts on the behavior exhibited by this creature. Sometimes they seem almost human, strategic, etc.

 

However, they most likely are just another animal. It makes you wonder if some of the reports where they seem to have human emotion/behavior is just the witness assigning those traits to an animal, ie to anthropomorphize.

 

Anyways...just a thought. Was watching the FLIR footage in the other thread and the behavior seemed very human to me and I began to question myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

If they do in fact exist then they are most likely are man apes. So of course they would exhibit human characteristics and emotions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter

I suspect they are more ape-like than most want to believe.  We anthropomorphize our dogs and cats for pity sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
8 minutes ago, Old Time Lifter said:

I suspect they are more ape-like than most want to believe.  We anthropomorphize our dogs and cats for pity sake.

 

Homo Erectus was creating hand axes over 2 million years ago.

 

From my perspective there are some giant holes in the behavior of Bigfoot that excludes them from the genus Homo.

 

Koko can sign to you that she is crushed that her cat died. And that is impressive. But she will never pick up two rocks and strike one into a weapon to hunt and butcher game with. She doesnt even eat red meat to begin with.

 

So either somehow Bigfoot lost its ability and will to create stone tools and weapons? Or more likely? It never possessed those abilities to begin with. Because its a bipedal great ape that is not in the genus Homo.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
19 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Homo Erectus was creating hand axes over 2 million years ago.

 

From my perspective there are some giant holes in the behavior of Bigfoot that excludes them from the genus Homo.

 

Koko can sign to you that she is crushed that her cat died. And that is impressive. But she will never pick up two rocks and strike one into a weapon to hunt and butcher game with. She doesnt even eat red meat to begin with.

 

So either somehow Bigfoot lost its ability and will to create stone tools and weapons? Or more likely? It never possessed those abilities to begin with. Because its a bipedal great ape that is not in the genus Homo.

 

Another point where it appears we agree.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor

Great points @norseman.

 

Something really doesn't add up. Then you have the folks saying their DNA matches as human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
52 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Homo Erectus was creating hand axes over 2 million years ago.

 

From my perspective there are some giant holes in the behavior of Bigfoot that excludes them from the genus Homo.

 

Koko can sign to you that she is crushed that her cat died. And that is impressive. But she will never pick up two rocks and strike one into a weapon to hunt and butcher game with. She doesnt even eat red meat to begin with.

 

So either somehow Bigfoot lost its ability and will to create stone tools and weapons? Or more likely? It never possessed those abilities to begin with. Because its a bipedal great ape that is not in the genus Homo.

 

That is a great post, my friend. Most remarkable about it was your mrntion of Koko learning sign language, yet she is a pongid. I will have to ponder that for a while.

 

Sasquatches do not fashion tools and do not use fire, but in my opinion (unlike what anthropaleontologists might say) thatvdoes not mean that they aren't of the genus Homo. First of all, their foot structure is clearly more human than other primates. Secondly, there is reason to believe that their language is very humanlike. Thirdly, the rest of their physical build is more human than other primates. 

 

I believe that the only human criteria that does not fit sasquatches are (1) a lack of spiritualism, and (2) a lack of technology, and I believe that both of those attributes are not necessary for a "human" to live successfully in the temperate latitudes and thus simply not evolve into dependence on them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
9 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

That is a great post, my friend. Most remarkable about it was your mrntion of Koko learning sign language, yet she is a pongid. I will have to ponder that for a while.

 

Sasquatches do not fashion tools and do not use fire, but in my opinion (unlike what anthropaleontologists might say) thatvdoes not mean that they aren't of the genus Homo. First of all, their foot structure is clearly more human than other primates. Secondly, there is reason to believe that their language is very humanlike. Thirdly, the rest of their physical build is more human than other primates. 

 

I believe that the only human criteria that does not fit sasquatches are (1) a lack of spiritualism, and (2) a lack of technology, and I believe that both of those attributes are not necessary for a "human" to live successfully in the temperate latitudes and thus simply not evolve into dependence on them.

 

 

I can say this because I'm a believer and not a knower, but imagine if this is all a farce. People dedicating large amounts of time, brain space and money to something completely made up?

 

Only reason I quoted you hunster is because your comment about their foot structure was made as a fact.

 

It's really fascinating.

 

Same could be said for the UFO phenomenon as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
25 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

That is a great post, my friend. Most remarkable about it was your mrntion of Koko learning sign language, yet she is a pongid. I will have to ponder that for a while.

 

Sasquatches do not fashion tools and do not use fire, but in my opinion (unlike what anthropaleontologists might say) thatvdoes not mean that they aren't of the genus Homo. First of all, their foot structure is clearly more human than other primates. Secondly, there is reason to believe that their language is very humanlike. Thirdly, the rest of their physical build is more human than other primates. 

 

I believe that the only human criteria that does not fit sasquatches are (1) a lack of spiritualism, and (2) a lack of technology, and I believe that both of those attributes are not necessary for a "human" to live successfully in the temperate latitudes and thus simply not evolve into dependence on them.

 

 

Remember that the Australopethicenes have modern esque feet. (No divergent big toe) And walked upright. But are not in the genus Homo.

 

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

 

This video shows the evolution of tool making. Our big muscular thumb and strong grip is a result of this practice. Hand and eye coordination is unmatched in the animal kingdom too. And of course the ultimate prize? Giant slabs of bloody red meat that is high in protien and gave us bigger and bigger brains. 

 

Our hands were in a arms race with our brains. Creating better and better weapons that eventually lead to our mastery of the planet.

 

 

Bigfoot either checked out early in this human story? Or was never apart of it.

 

Again, great Apes show human emotions. And are obviously distant cousins. Because tool making is at the core of being Human. And they do not seem to possess anything but the most rudimentary of skills. 

 

Despite chimps being much stronger than humans? Their thumbs and the muscle attached is rather pathetic when compared to a Human. Holding and flaking stone tools or gripping a spear shaft is not what their hands are designed for. Their hands are besigned to swing from branches and knuckle walk. Their thumb is there for grasping but not to the level of sophistication ours is.

IMG_1507.JPG

Edited by norseman
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
33 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

I can say this because I'm a believer and not a knower, but imagine if this is all a farce. People dedicating large amounts of time, brain space and money to something completely made up?........

 

I'm well beyond that. I "believe" in the existence like I believe in God and Jesus Christ. I had a "maybe" experience (footprint/trackway find) that I felt then and now was pretty strong evidence, I've looked into the phenomenon extensively, I've reasoned it out, and I now believe based upon what I've experienced, learned, and reasoned. The same is true with my belief in the God of Abraham; I've experienced, educated myself, and reasoned it out. In short, it's belief in a phenomenon that cannot or has yet to be proven, but that is supported with evidence. 

 

........Only reason I quoted you hunster is because your comment about their foot structure was made as a fact......

 

It is as much fact as we can glean at this time; the toes are aligned in front without an opposed big toe that is built for grasping. Even gorillas, mostly ground dwellers, have such a big toe. No other living primate other than man has such a foot structure as what is leaving these tracks.

 

........Same could be said for the UFO phenomenon as well.

 

That is not true at all. We know that hominins have lived on Earth in the past. It is undisputed. We now know (since just 2006] that 3' tall hominins lived on the island of Flores in Indonesia as recently as 12,000 years ago, and that area has a history of reports of 3' tall biped apes (Orang Pendek, or Ebu Gogo). We also know (since 2010) that Denisovans lived in Siberia as recently as 40,000 years ago, that they were "robust", and there have been legends of yeti and almas in the region up to this day.

 

But there is no such knowledge of extra terrestrial life capable of space travel. In fact, science tells us that it is impossible for biologic entities to travel through time, which would be required to travel to the nearest solar system. It is science fiction, or misidentification with secret military aircraft. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Correct. 

 

We have zero proof of ANY alien life. Although it seems incredulous that we would be alone in the vastness of space.

 

We have alot of evidence of Bigfoot like creatures existing on Earth and even very recently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor

Fair enough points by both of you!

 

I will say that, I stand adjusted? Does that make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

Fair enough points by both of you!

 

I will say that, I stand adjusted? Does that make sense?

 

No worries.

 

In my mind at least? Bigfoot has been proven to exist in the old world.

 

So the question becomes?

 

Does it exist TODAY in North America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

What use would Bigfoot have for tools when it's strength and stealth serve instead? It does not need those things to survive and thrive.

 

We homo sapiens cannot exist without our tools. From another prospective, perhaps that makes us weak and unable to survive in the wild world. We are handicapped and must improvise to survive. Plus we are fouling our own nests. Really, not too smart. We are clever monkeys, but we are not wise. Who might have the best chance at !ong term survival? Who knows. Bigfoots are perfectly matched to their habitats. We are not. Just a few thoughts I've had. If we are looking at successful species, it's not going to be us in the long term.

 

I went out today in the woods and would have been dead within hours with clothing, boots and gear. I was thinking - in their world, we are losers. 

 

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry if I'm off topic. I'm trying to read and type and my kid won't stop talking and demand my attention. I give up. I'll be back later, lol. Ugh.

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
9 minutes ago, Madison5716 said:

What use would Bigfoot have for tools when it's strength and stealth serve instead? It does not need those things to survive and thrive.

 

We homo sapiens cannot exist without our tools. From another prospective, perhaps that makes us weak and unable to survive in the wild world. We are handicapped and must improvise to survive. Plus we are fouling our own nests. Really, not too smart. We are clever monkeys, but we are not wise. Who might have the best chance at !ong term survival? Who knows. Bigfoots are perfectly matched to their habitats. We are not. Just a few thoughts I've had. If we are looking at successful species, it's not going to be us in the long term.

 

I went out today in the woods and would have been dead within hours with clothing, boots and gear. I was thinking - in their world, we are losers. 

 

I haven't read the whole thread, sorry if I'm off topic. I'm trying to read and type and my kid won't stop talking and demand my attention. I give up. I'll be back later, lol. Ugh.

 

That's a fair point however I believe it to be inaccurate. BF may be better suited to live in the wild but the fact that we have the ability to think and create technology makes us superior. In fact, unless BF are aliens, they will never be able to live anywhere but here. We MIGHT be able to figure that out at some point.

 

Even then, with our technology, our lives must be considerably easier than that of BFs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×