What do you think Bigfoot is?

[JKH]

I remain unsure about this topic, which is not a problem for me. Did you know that orcas are the most widely distributed mammal in the sea and without predators besides humans? It occurs to me that the BFs fill a similar niche in nature, as contrary to what some think, they are found in nearly every habitat. I remember an old forum member describing activity in an urban area in central Oklahoma, for one example. I later visited there myself and found some interesting evidence. That's just one place where BF activity is underestimated, but dedicated investigators know differently. They're often present in close proximity to human populations.

 

Back on the topic, I sort of agree with something I heard elsewhere, what they are not. Not apes, not monkeys, not human, yet a kind of people. That's all I've got.

[hiflier]

10 minutes ago, JKH said:

.....That's all I've got.

 

No worries, JKH  No one else has all that much of anything either.

[Shelly]

Some sort of large, largely bipedal, ape. Perhaps related to Gigantopithicus.  I see zero evidence of any sort of "humanity" in what I consider to be honest and legitimate sightings and descriptions of Sasquatch.  His behavior is very, very, very much like what you see in the modern great apes. His physical attributes are also very apelike and not very humanlike when you look at all of our known ancestors.  Modern man and Cro Magnon man were the larger than most or all of the other human ancestors.  Neanderthal man was robust but not overly tall. Even some of the "tall" ancestors like Heidelberg man were under 6 feet tall, which is nothing compared to an 8 foot plus Sasquatch.  Also, we know many of our human ancestors not only used tools but made tools. And, for half a million years, made fire. There is no evidence of Sasquatch actually making anything resembling what our ancestors made, and they don't make or use fire.  I believe Sasquatch is capable of making animalistic sounds but does not have an actual language in the way that some people think. Most higher animals make noises to communicate.  But animal sounds do not meet the actual defining elements of a language.  As to intelligence, that is interesting to me.  If you take a person and put them out in the woods, most people are at a disadvantage compared to even a marmot. It would not be hard for something with the intelligence of a chimpanzee, gorilla or 10 year old boy to hide or elude capture in his own territory. He is going to see you coming and from that point on you are at a disadvantage.  

 

 

[hiflier]

34 minutes ago, Shelly said:

It would not be hard for something with the intelligence of a chimpanzee, gorilla or 10 year old boy to hide or elude capture in his own territory. He is going to see you coming and from that point on you are at a disadvantage.  

 

That's why I think e-DNA is the best approach. It gives us a peripheral advantage that we've never had for determining the creature's existence. It's our best chance for discovery and that's where our focus and energy should be focused. I think there are citizen science programs linked into universities and F&W agencies that would allow the general public to be involved. Need to look into that aspect to be sure though.

[NatFoot]

2 hours ago, Shelly said:

Some sort of large, largely bipedal, ape. Perhaps related to Gigantopithicus.  I see zero evidence of any sort of "humanity" in what I consider to be honest and legitimate sightings and descriptions of Sasquatch.  His behavior is very, very, very much like what you see in the modern great apes. His physical attributes are also very apelike and not very humanlike when you look at all of our known ancestors.  Modern man and Cro Magnon man were the larger than most or all of the other human ancestors.  Neanderthal man was robust but not overly tall. Even some of the "tall" ancestors like Heidelberg man were under 6 feet tall, which is nothing compared to an 8 foot plus Sasquatch.  Also, we know many of our human ancestors not only used tools but made tools. And, for half a million years, made fire. There is no evidence of Sasquatch actually making anything resembling what our ancestors made, and they don't make or use fire.  I believe Sasquatch is capable of making animalistic sounds but does not have an actual language in the way that some people think. Most higher animals make noises to communicate.  But animal sounds do not meet the actual defining elements of a language.  As to intelligence, that is interesting to me.  If you take a person and put them out in the woods, most people are at a disadvantage compared to even a marmot. It would not be hard for something with the intelligence of a chimpanzee, gorilla or 10 year old boy to hide or elude capture in his own territory. He is going to see you coming and from that point on you are at a disadvantage.  

 

 

 

When you refer to "him" it reminds me of the backwoods guy/gal or even city slicker who saw "him" on TV and thinks there's one Bigfoot running around.

 

I should have just said, you come across as completely uneducated on the subject at all.

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by NatFoot

[Huntster]

25 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

.... you come across as completely uneducated on the subject at all.

 

I didn't think so. I was going to plus her, but I'm out of plussing ammo. 😐

[NatFoot]

16 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I didn't think so. I was going to plus her, but I'm out of plussing ammo. 😐

 

So BF is "a" he or she?

[Huntster]

Even if she used a singular pronoun to describe "bigfeet", the implications of her beliefs/theories strongly indicate her recognition of them in the plural. I don't even agree with all of her beliefs/theories, but I think she's close enough to my own to appreciate her position.

[SWWASAS]

On 9/20/2019 at 2:17 PM, JKH said:

I remain unsure about this topic, which is not a problem for me. Did you know that orcas are the most widely distributed mammal in the sea and without predators besides humans? It occurs to me that the BFs fill a similar niche in nature, as contrary to what some think, they are found in nearly every habitat. I remember an old forum member describing activity in an urban area in central Oklahoma, for one example. I later visited there myself and found some interesting evidence. That's just one place where BF activity is underestimated, but dedicated investigators know differently. They're often present in close proximity to human populations.

 

Back on the topic, I sort of agree with something I heard elsewhere, what they are not. Not apes, not monkeys, not human, yet a kind of people. That's all I've got.

 Your assessment does not set off alarm bells with me.    Then again our actual observations are pretty limited.    My experience with them indicate some level of intelligence above chimpanzee:    Indicators of possible language or perhaps some understanding of ours.   We know that dogs around humans know a lot of our language.   That has been demonstrated with experiments so should not be too surprising for BF who spend a lot of time near humans.   I just thought about the rock and stick glyph left for me on a stump.   While I do not really understand the meaning,   it displays symmetry not seen in ape constructs.   They also seem to have some special meaning for 3.    My research area was full of stumps with three rocks sitting on them.    Some stacked and some in disarray but most stumps in the area had three rocks which seemed to define a trail.     

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

That has been demonstrated with experiments so should not be too surprising for BF who spend a lot of time near humans.

 

Learning the meanings of words takes time and in most cases teaching in a fairly close and consistent state of interaction. One can teach a dog to sit and a Human to hold a spoon. But unless there is at least some intimate close relationship over time during the process there is a chance that nothing will be learned. imitating motion is one thing and can be done at a distance. Putting words to those motions in order to link a word with an act requires patience, repetition, and time. Like saying the word throw when one is throwing something. I don't think a Human and a BF have the kind of connection in which the creature will sit when a Human says the word sit, or pick up something when asked to. Actions for wild or feral beings are one thing, putting words to those actions? quite another.

 

Let me put it another way: I can read a page of Latin and even memorize it to recite later without knowing what the words are actually saying. Singers do this all the time. Someone who only speaks Italian can learn to sing a song in English without knowing what the words actually mean. Reading/reciting and comprehension are two completely different things.   

Edited September 22, 2019 by hiflier

[Wolfjewel]

On 9/20/2019 at 4:17 PM, JKH said:

Not apes, not monkeys, not human, yet a kind of people.

 

On 9/20/2019 at 6:34 PM, Shelly said:

Some sort of large, largely bipedal, ape. Perhaps related to Gigantopithicus.  I see zero evidence of any sort of "humanity" in what I consider to be honest and legitimate sightings

These 2 points of view are part of the crux of the problem in categorizing Sasquatch. The majority of Eyewitness reports are consistent with Shelly’s view, but knowers and some researchers may see JKH’s point of view because of their experiences. While I’m in synch with JKH, I’m totally glad that Shelly gives her view. We’ve seen scientists like Meldrum let their theories evolve in similar ways, from Giganto to “something else.” Details of Sasquatch behavior — that’s where we’ll learn to fine tune our answer.

[hiflier]

All we have are the details we read in reports and what knowers have experienced. Is it good enough to draw a conclusion? I think it is but in order to do so one must be well versed in what the reports are telling us. There is little else to go on. Most of the Bigfoot books that are written haven't really furthered what the reports have already told us. As a result though there is a picture of this creature that we keep repainting perhaps hoping for some kind of new insight but we are basically left with a very primitive hominid-type creature that may or may not be Homo depending on one's personal view point.

 

I read a remarkable article a few days ago where science is coming around to the thinking that Humans aren't the only living things that possesses consciousness. The article pointed to Western science coming around to the concept that everything living has consciousness to a degree. in other words, self awareness of their own physical makeup simply by being with members of their own kind. An example? A crow that had a pink spot painted on its throat by a scientist. When the bird was placed in front of a mirror it focused on the pink spot in its reflection as if it knew that the pink spot was something not normal. It's what science calls the "mirror test". Crows are highly intelligent but the mirror test showed that the bird was also self aware that it was now different than other crows. I found the article very interesting. and have been considering the ramifications it implies to all living species to include insects because similar studies have been done with things like bees.

 

It goes to the Bigfoot subject in a big way if the implications are that Sasquatch is as self aware as we are. It could be a clue for getting into the mind of the creature beyond just it's animal nature and might answer some questions that some may have been struggling with?    

[Huntster]

14 minutes ago, Wolfjewel said:

These 2 points of view are part of the crux of the problem in categorizing Sasquatch. The majority of Eyewitness reports are consistent with Shelly’s view, but knowers and some researchers may see JKH’s point of view because of their experiences........

 

It was first the repeated return of "human" in DNA tests that got me wondering about the bipedal ape theory (of course, humans are bipedal apes of the tribe Hominini).

 

Then the Denisova and Hobbit finds, both of the genus Homo, brought me closer to accepting sasquatches as human.

 

Then the Sasquatch Genome Project and the Sykes Zana study both appear to have isolated a mystery marker indicating at least one more human species out there, and perhaps two.

 

If it is true that these creatures can hybridize with homo sapiens, it is 100% conclusive that they are of the genus Homo, and thus "fully human", as Sykes put it. Further, if human and they have so completely spurned the manufacture and use of tools, their discovery will likely force a re-examination of the role of tools in human taxonomy.

 

[Incorrigible1]

Humans are apes, just saying. Great apes, in fact.

[Oonjerah]

Huntster, "If it is true that these creatures can hybridize with homo sapiens, it is 100% conclusive that they are of the genus Homo,

and thus 'fully human', as Sykes put it."

 

Patrick ... I thought Patrick was believed to be a Bigfoot-Human hybrid.  My take on it was that Patrick was quite sociable, but no one

could ever fool him.  As if he could easily read the rest of us.