To Anthropomorphize

[norseman]

25 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.

 

Neither do Gorillas, Chimps and Orangutans. Neither do Grizzly bears, Wolves or Cougars.

 

But the point is? They are also not human. Humans make tools and use them. They do not.

 

And Humans are not specialists. We are generalists..... that is our strength. Bigfoot does not live in the Congo, nor the Arctic, nor the Sahara. We live and THRIVE in all 3. Plus we crossed the land bridge and live in the PacNW. We essentially are everywhere.

Edited February 24, 2019 by norseman

[PBeaton]

Hunster,

 

The sasquatch lackin' a divergent big toe doesn't necessarily mean it is more human like in my opinion, simply shares a characteristic associated with bipedalism. A gorilla may spend more time on the ground, but it is still a quadruped.

 

My opinion, they share more characteristics with the other great apes than man.  

 

Pat... 

[Old Time Lifter]

47 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

Hunster,

 

The sasquatch lackin' a divergent big toe doesn't necessarily mean it is more human like in my opinion, simply shares a characteristic associated with bipedalism. A gorilla may spend more time on the ground, but it is still a quadruped.

 

My opinion, they share more characteristics with the other great apes than man.  

 

Pat... 

 

The fact that they may have (if they exist) evolved a foot nearly like ours isn't a big surprise if they are a primate.

 

Also, saying humans can't survive in the wild is disproven by the fact that for most of our time here on earth we did just that.

[MIB]

6 hours ago, NatFoot said:

However, they most likely are just another animal.

 

An assumption that may make sense to you but appears totally irrational to me. 

 

MIB 

[Trogluddite]

4 hours ago, NatFoot said:

Great points @norseman.

 

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

 

Doesn't chimp DNA "match" human DNA at some extremely high level?  I mean around the area of 98% or more being identical?  So sloppy testing or decomposed DNA might look like human DNA.  

 

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

....  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. ....

 

Great summary of where I'm almost at.  I've never had any type of encounter at all (unless the 6 million dollar man bigfoot and the Scooby Doo snow monster count).  About 10 years ago I was shocked to find out this was still even an issue.  But after a lot of research, drilling down in to details, and thought, I am guardedly certain that Bigfoot exists because that's the best hypothesis.  I'll leave a little room for uncertainty because I haven't had an encounter and no zoo/research lab has ever had (to the best we know) a body on a slab, but it sure looks like something is out there. 

[NatFoot]

6 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

An assumption that may make sense to you but appears totally irrational to me. 

 

MIB 

 

Making rational sense based on what I know of the world...doesn't make it a belief.

 

I'm still dumbfounded all around.

[MIB]

1 minute ago, Trogluddite said:

Doesn't chimp DNA "match" human DNA at some extremely high level?  I mean around the area of 98% or more being identical?  So sloppy testing or decomposed DNA might look like human DNA.

 

Yeah, I've seen 98.5% cited a few times.   

 

However, no.  Because there are no chimps that we know of loose in the Pac NW or most parts of the United States and Canada where this DNA is coming from.    And no because it would be very odd for this DNA, if it were actually human, to so-consistently decompose in such a consistent way each time that the samples test the same.  

 

In other words, I have doubts about the doubts. 

 

MIB

 

 

[Trogluddite]

Right, but I can see a harried bureaucrat getting the test results that say "98.95%" likelihood human, think to him or herself, heck my brother in law is only about 66% human, and rubber stamp the file, "HUMAN REMAINS." 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, PBeaton said:

Hunster,

 

The sasquatch lackin' a divergent big toe doesn't necessarily mean it is more human like in my opinion, simply shares a characteristic associated with bipedalism. A gorilla may spend more time on the ground, but it is still a quadruped.

 

My opinion, they share more characteristics with the other great apes than man.  

 

Pat... 

 

I have to degree except for one key area.

 

They seem to be hunters. And living in a colder climate they must have to be eating meat to survive.

 

That behavior is much more human like. And definitely not a gorilla.

 

But the fact that they are hunting with their bare hands is NOT human like. 

 

Its not easy splitting hairs and teasing out very fine details that appear to seperate us from them.

 

In the animal kingdom? All great apes are in the top 1% in the smartness dept. So where does Bigfoot reside inside that 1%? 

 

Homo Erectus is the oldest species that we know of in the genus Homo. So they and their tools are the base line for what constitutes human behavior and tool construction. Every Homo species that comes after is more advanced.....

 

If Bigfoot is bipedal and hunting for meat with its bare hands? Thats human like. But is it on par with Homo Erectus? I have to say no.

 

Is that by choice? Or is it beyond them? 

[Incorrigible1]

We have a section for people that imagine they're in mental communication with bigfoot.

Anthropomorphism to the nnth degree.

Hey, whatever trips your trigger.

[PBeaton]

norseman,

 

Gorillas may not eat meat, but chimps hunt other animals barehanded an eat them. 

 

Pat...

Edited February 24, 2019 by PBeaton

[PBeaton]

Incorrigible1,

 

 

[Old Time Lifter]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

We have a section for people that imagine they're in mental communication with bigfoot.

Anthropomorphism to the nnth degree.

Hey, whatever trips your trigger.

 

Imagine would be the key word there...

[norseman]

29 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

norseman,

 

Gorillas may not eat meat, but chimps hunt other animals barehanded an eat them. 

 

Pat...

 

They do. But its pretty rare. Like 5% of their diet.

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, norseman said:

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

 

.........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........

 

I agree with those points, but I believe that paleoanthropologists separated the Australopithecines and Homo genuses based upon an evolutionary branching off that is not clear or strong in my view, especially since this branching is supposed to have occurred so long ago, and the australopithecines supposedly died out.

 

Tool use and brain size are considered to be required factors in the Homo genus development. But sasquatches are believed to use sticks to bang trees as a signal. They throw stones, which is a basic tool use. There's no fire use or tool making that we know of, but that is likely a matter of need.......or the lack thereof. Evolutionary species identity is primarily biology, not behavioral.

 

Emotion really isn't a factor. Many species demonstrate emotions, especially canids, elephantidae, and cetaceans. 

 

But speech? We see very basic speech in cetaceans and even birds, but not chimps, orangs, or gorillas. If sasquatches use a structured speech to go along with their bipedalism, hand and foot structure, and potential (and reported) ability to hybridize with humans, science would need to go back to their drawing board and adjust their flow charts.