Jump to content
norseman

What if the PGF did not exist?

Recommended Posts

norseman
10 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Careful, there, my friend, yer starting to sound like me ;) You know I've been pushing the bear side of Sasquatch for a long time now. It's the old "bear ina primate's body" thing, remember that? Sure, I was off base in the genetics category but other than that yeah, acts jut like a bear but has the advantage of hands, feet, and bipedalism. So, is it an ape? Not really. Is it a bear? Not really. Is it a Human? Not really. It's a species that has the mannerisms of all three in which the only drawback is its reduced capacity for technological advancement. So there is a brain development problem. I would think that for our Human history? It's a good thing Sasquatches couldn't and still cannot advance or we as a species would have been gone off this planet a long time ago. So, shaped like us, walks like us, but behaves like a bear. It was kind hard to get my mind around that a couple of years ago. Had a hard time describing such a thing. Now though it's pretty danged easy. Sasquatch: an ancient brand of Human/animal that never got smarter than a bear.

 

Its an ape. IMO.

 

I was speaking in terms of morality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Its an ape. IMO.

 

I was speaking in terms of morality. 

 

Norse, don’t deny it, your slowly turning into Hiflier.   Just let it happen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
3 hours ago, norseman said:

Its an ape. IMO

 

As in we are apes too? I say that in the general sense that all are under the heading of primate whether Great ape, Homo Sapiens Sapiens or........Sasquatch. I do not look at BF as Pan or Pongo. But I don't look it as Homo either. Taking all BF's attributes together, it has to be a species all on its own. Calling it an ape is psychologically convenient for harvesting one for science but in essence all one has to really has to say is that it isn't Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What it actually is is something only science can determine. It's a technicality but it is an important one IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
23 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

As in we are apes too? I say that in the general sense that all are under the heading of primate whether Great ape, Homo Sapiens Sapiens or........Sasquatch. I do not look at BF as Pan or Pongo. But I don't look it as Homo either. Taking all BF's attributes together, it has to be a species all on its own. Calling it an ape is psychologically convenient for harvesting one for science but in essence all one has to really has to say is that it isn't Homo Sapiens Sapiens. What it actually is is something only science can determine. It's a technicality but it is an important one IMHO.

 

Yes. As in we are apes too. It may even be an archaic Homo species. Or it may not be. We just do not know.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
40 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........... I say that in the general sense that all are under the heading of primate whether Great ape, Homo Sapiens Sapiens or........Sasquatch. I do not look at BF as Pan or Pongo. But I don't look it as Homo either. Taking all BF's attributes together, it has to be a species all on its own...........

 

How do paleo-anthropologists determine genus in such species as Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo luzonensis, Homo naledi, and Homo neanderthalensis? How do they differ from Australopithecines? Often all these guys have to go on are a few bone fragments.

 

Any of the Homo species are human, by definition of the word. Australopithecines are hominins, which includes Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) but excludes gorillas.

 

Are we at a crossroads where genus will be determined by lawyers and courts, not biologists or anthropologists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
Posted (edited)

Good question, Hunster. I just wrote in another thread that WE Humans may not eveb be the last branch to come out of Africa. Who's to say what Nature has in store for the future? Sasquatch may be a branch of archaic Human as Norseman said and so like all the other branches that have died out Sasquatch, sad to say, may die out as well. I wonder how many ancient hominins watched others die out in their presence. I'm sure Cro-Magnon watched a few Neanderthals go by the wayside on their way to being absorbed into the genetic soup of Modern Humans.

 

I can hear it now, "Hey, where did are all those Neanderthals go? Seems like only a minute ago they were everywhere, and now I ain't seen hid nor hair of one in the last thirty years or so."

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

..........I can hear it now, "Hey, where did are all those Neanderthals go? Seems like only a minute ago they were everywhere, and now I ain't seen hid nor hair of one in the last thirty years or so."

 

Odds are that if they did see them, they'd kill them..........except maybe the females.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On 5/14/2019 at 10:51 AM, Huntster said:

 

How do paleo-anthropologists determine genus in such species as Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo luzonensis, Homo naledi, and Homo neanderthalensis? How do they differ from Australopithecines? Often all these guys have to go on are a few bone fragments.

 

Any of the Homo species are human, by definition of the word. Australopithecines are hominins, which includes Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) but excludes gorillas.

 

Are we at a crossroads where genus will be determined by lawyers and courts, not biologists or anthropologists?

 

https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/21/8460657/judge-gives-chimpanzees-human-rights-first-time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

From your reference:

 

For the first time in US history, a judge has decreed that a pair of chimpanzees held at a university research facility are covered by the same laws that govern the detention of humans, effectively rendering the animals as legal "people" in the eyes of the law. New York Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe said that the apes, held at Stony Brook University for research purposes, are covered by a writ of habeas corpus — a basic legal principle that lets people challenge the validity of their detention.



However, hours later, Jaffe amended her court order to remove the habeas corpus language, essentially reversing the earlier decision.......

 

It is wise that she reversed her ruling, because it would be certainly reversed for her by a higher court. Chimpanzees are clearly not Homo or human. But then:

 

........But Natalie Prosin, the Nonhuman Rights Project's executive director, said after the original decision that

regardless of whether Hercules and Leo are afforded legal personhood after the hearing, the group intends to use the judge's ruling in future cases. "We have scientific evidence to prove in a court of law that elephants, great apes, and whales and dolphins are autonomous beings and deserve the right to bodily liberty," she said. "[This ruling] strengthens our argument that these nonhuman animals are not property."

 

Ironically, the United States is rapidly closing in on civil war on the abortion front with pro-life forces taking advantage of fetus personhood rather than women's rights. Extending personhood and human rights to other species while continuing to reject human rights toward human fetuses cannot stand together.

 

Dumping a sasquatch carcass on the legal table at this time could complicate ideologies and legalities a bit, couldn't it?

 

Share this post


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

From your reference:

 

 

 

 

It is wise that she reversed her ruling, because it would be certainly reversed for her by a higher court. Chimpanzees are clearly not Homo or human. But then:

 

 

 

 

Ironically, the United States is rapidly closing in on civil war on the abortion front with pro-life forces taking advantage of fetus personhood rather than women's rights. Extending personhood and human rights to other species while continuing to reject human rights toward human fetuses cannot stand together.

 

Dumping a sasquatch carcass on the legal table at this time could complicate ideologies and legalities a bit, couldn't it?

 

 

I have little doubt that many would want to extend personhood to a Bigfoot. Just the blowback I receive for wanting to shoot one to definitely prove they exist tells me that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

 

 

I feel like I have walked into the wrong hotel room on this thread from the last few posts 🙂 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celtic Raider
On 5/3/2019 at 11:51 PM, norseman said:

How would it affect how you look at the field in general? 

 

Would it change your position a little, a lot, or none at all?

 

For me it helps envision what the creature looks like, but would not change my position much. Which is I think it’s out there, I’ve seen proof of something out there but I cannot be sure unless I see one living or dead. 

 

Great question!

 

To preface; The creature in the PGF just looks real to me, my partner volunteers in an ape and monkey sanctuary and I've seen hundreds of different apes and monkeys all up close and been gorilla trecking a few times and though that obviously doesn't make me any kind of expert and I'm not claiming to be one the animal in the film looks very real to me and I find I just can't explain it away as a simple hoax like so many other pieces of film - that doesn't necessarily make it a real Bigfoot, just that I can't explain it with my skeptical mind 🙂

 

i)  The Bigfoot field to me would be interesting without the film but an awful lot less persuasive to me, I'd still probably watch the odd programme and maybe do the odd search online but I probably wouldn't be commenting on a forum as it would be in the category of Loch Ness - in that I would like to believe the creature exists but think it doesn't as there's little good evidence.

 

ii)  For me it is the best single piece of evidence there is for the existence of the creature, especially with Bill Munns work on the subject too, which is very persuasive. I am of the position that I think the creature could very well exist but there just isn't quite the evidence yet to tip me to certainty (if that makes sense, kind of a skeptical want to believer!). Without the best piece of evidence, the case for the creature for me falls well short at this moment in time so my position would change a lot. 

 

I always wonder why, when the creature was filmed in broad daylight decades ago by amateurs people haven't managed to use similar techniques by using horses etc. to recreate the expedition and get similar results. I look at the night time squatchin' on TV and just think how little chance there is to actually find or film something and even less chance that what is recorded would provide any real tangible evidence, it clearly is just 'made for tv' entertainment. Maybe there has been trips done on horseback similar to Patterson and Gimlin without results but it seems to me that the logical thing to do would be to copy and adapt something that has already 'apparently' worked?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Norseman could be your new best friend, Celtic Raider :) I cannot imagine how difficult it has been for him to wait out recovery from his recent health issues. If not for his unfortunate setbacks he would be out there right now doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Great question!

 

To preface; The creature in the PGF just looks real to me, my partner volunteers in an ape and monkey sanctuary and I've seen hundreds of different apes and monkeys all up close and been gorilla trecking a few times and though that obviously doesn't make me any kind of expert and I'm not claiming to be one the animal in the film looks very real to me

 

 

Welcome Celt,

 

To your average city slicker the PGF might look fake or real.  I am always impressed by wildlife experts opinions and people who are around such animals on a regular basis.  Often, they don't just dismiss the PGF outright.  Some even think Patty is real.  Ian Redman (a Jane Goodall- type) is a man who has been around apes and monkeys in the bush.  He stated everything about Patty has the look and feel of a real animal.   Last time I as at the St. Louis zoo, the great ape sure looked Patty-like to me.

 

This is illustrated by Patty's walk.  For many people watching the PGF, there is nothing special about Patty's walk. Yet, as soon as the film is viewed by Biomechanical experts and others from highly educated backgrounds they 'notice' the walk.  The average viewer doesn't even notice it.  Yet, those experts notice right away all the quirks to that walk.  Might be real, might not be.  However, the walk is either by accident or effort to appear non-human by making a Patty walk OR it is in fact the walk of a non-human.  I don't consider the walk to be the basis of determining anything real or fake about Patty but an additional consideration to the overall picture.

 

One expert on TV said she thought Bigfoot could not exist largely based on the food supply.  She stated such a creature would have a large brain and require a lot of calories daily.   She then went on to describe the PNW as a wasteland.  For her, it was the life support that made Bigfoot unlikely and I can sympathize with the point.   At the end of the show they showed her the PGF (and I got the impression she had not seen it before).  She stated right away the walk of Patty was not human and not ape and it as quite odd.  This didn't mean Patty was real but I could as the viewer detect a bit of a shift in her.  If nothing else, she noticed the walk where other people wouldn't.

 

I can see why those around apes a lot might be more inclined to think Patty looks real.  The more I see of apes the more impressed I am with Patty.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

Great question!

 

To preface; The creature in the PGF just looks real to me, my partner volunteers in an ape and monkey sanctuary and I've seen hundreds of different apes and monkeys all up close and been gorilla trecking a few times and though that obviously doesn't make me any kind of expert and I'm not claiming to be one the animal in the film looks very real to me and I find I just can't explain it away as a simple hoax like so many other pieces of film - that doesn't necessarily make it a real Bigfoot, just that I can't explain it with my skeptical mind 🙂

 

i)  The Bigfoot field to me would be interesting without the film but an awful lot less persuasive to me, I'd still probably watch the odd programme and maybe do the odd search online but I probably wouldn't be commenting on a forum as it would be in the category of Loch Ness - in that I would like to believe the creature exists but think it doesn't as there's little good evidence.

 

ii)  For me it is the best single piece of evidence there is for the existence of the creature, especially with Bill Munns work on the subject too, which is very persuasive. I am of the position that I think the creature could very well exist but there just isn't quite the evidence yet to tip me to certainty (if that makes sense, kind of a skeptical want to believer!). Without the best piece of evidence, the case for the creature for me falls well short at this moment in time so my position would change a lot. 

 

I always wonder why, when the creature was filmed in broad daylight decades ago by amateurs people haven't managed to use similar techniques by using horses etc. to recreate the expedition and get similar results. I look at the night time squatchin' on TV and just think how little chance there is to actually find or film something and even less chance that what is recorded would provide any real tangible evidence, it clearly is just 'made for tv' entertainment. Maybe there has been trips done on horseback similar to Patterson and Gimlin without results but it seems to me that the logical thing to do would be to copy and adapt something that has already 'apparently' worked?

 

 

I’m a member of the BCHA Ferry county chapter. Back country horsemen.

 

Ive been packing in the wilderness since I was about 19. No luck yet. I did see tracks in winter as a kid with my father on our own ranch.

 

We are packed into the Frank Church wilderness about 30 miles to a place called Club meadows. Shot a 5x5 bull outta there. I was 26 years old. 2nd from left.

 

Its possible that I just do not go into the right areas. I’m mostly a Rocky Mtn guy. I have spent just a small amount of time in the Cascades.

 

 

B53EFC91-C7D8-4907-BD9C-BF6450F91334.jpeg

Edited by norseman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...