Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[southernyahoo]

I take it you are firmly of the opinion BF doesn't exist, but if it does, then my reasoning is valid on the issue of mistakes. You don't know BF doesn't leave trace. If it were'nt for the trace, tracks, broken trees, hairs , vocalizations, nests, stacked rocks, scat ,sightings etc. we would all be discussing unicorns wouldn't we?

Looks like you are agreeing with me that size and the need for tools are connected. Culture is a human concept and practice, but doesn't have to include tools and fire use.

Edited June 12, 2012 by MikeG
Please don't quote the preceding post

[Guest Peter O.]

Many animals that do not use tools have managed to pass the "mirror test" (http://en.wikipedia....iki/Mirror_test) of self-awareness, and I would bet that Sasquatch would, too. Although it may not be sufficient to label that something a "someone", it is strong evidence. The fact is that we know little to nothing about the cognitive contents of most animals. Those contents could be completely inscrutable to human beings, but that does not mean that they do not have value. Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk [in a human language], we would still not be able to understand it. That does not mean that such an animal does not share in consciousness to some degree.

IMO humans disregard the intelligence of animals for their own purposes. It's only recently that people have accepted the tool use of chimpanzees and gorillas. If you'd suggested this in 1898, scientists would probably laugh at you. (It's completely unethical to kill either of those, too.)

So, I agree with posters above who've stated that killing a Bigfoot for no reason would be unethical. It's questionable at best, given its behavior, and shouldn't one err on the side of caution?

edit: I'm going to go hug my cat now.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Peter O.

[Guest]

Peter O.

Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk [in a human language], we would still not be able to understand it. That does not mean that such an animal does not share in consciousness to some degree.

Fascinating perspective. Reminds me a little of the quote from the campy yet masterfully filmed Orca that their "Advanced communication skills makes human speech retarded by comparison"

Edited June 12, 2012 by Tautriadelta

[Incorrigible1]

It's a hominid. Maybe not Sapiens, but a hominid, nevertheless.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

I take it you are firmly of the opinion BF doesn't exist, but if it does, then my reasoning is valid on the issue of mistakes. You don't know BF doesn't leave trace. If it were'nt for the trace, tracks, broken trees, hairs , vocalizations, nests, stacked rocks, scat ,sightings etc. we would all be discussing unicorns wouldn't we?

Looks like you are agreeing with me that size and the need for tools are connected. Culture is a human concept and practice, but doesn't have to include tools and fire use.

I'm not firmly of the opinion that bigfoot doesn't exist, I just don't think the evidence shows that it does (I'd change my mind if I saw good evidence, I just haven't yet). That lack of evidence is what made me say that bigfoot doesn't leave traces. Some people think they do, but nothing can be directly or definitively tied to them, so it doesn't mean anything (at least until something can be proven). Because it can't be shown that bigfoot have left traces, there's no reason to say they have.

As far as the point you think we agree on: we don't. I think you misunderstood the point I was making. There is not a relationship between size/strength and tool use, and logically, there wouldn't be anyway. If you want to argue the point based on known evidence, you could say that since we had a huge height spike after gaining and refining tools (Australopithicines - 3.5ft. compared to H. Erectus - 6ft) that bigfoot's lack of tool use would make them tiny. But that's beside the point. I was stating the fact that once a species acquires culture and the use of tools, the amount of biological changes it goes through deminish greatly. Culture means that organisms can adapt without needing to evolve, and there is absolutely no reason to abandon that capability (not to mention that doing so would probably mean extiction in a harsh environment), and the fact that nothing has only confirms that notion.

While fire use doesn't need to be a part of culture, tool use kind of does. They are so linked, that in many cases, the word "culture" is used to refer to the kinds of tools present in a species, for example: Mousterian culture, Magdalenian culture, or chimp culture. That's because culture is needed for tools to exists. Culture is things that are learned and shared (like how to make tools), and when you can't directly observe or interpret how individuals interact, many times, tools are the only evidence that culture is/was present.

[Guest]

[Guest]

Where I live the word for Sasquach translates to bush man. Its not thought of as an animal at all. its a hairy person who is seen with stone clubs, sometimes wearing stolen clothes and even boots. They use fire and live underground during the winter. Just because you dont see sasquach texting on his iStone doesnt mean he doesnt have one.

[Guest Transformer]

^ Where I live the word sasquatch is a made up word invented by a Mr. Burns in the late 1920's.

[Guest]

^ Where I live the word sasquatch is a made up word invented by a Mr. Burns in the late 1920's.

He said the word FOR sasquatch

*n

[Guest]

Thanks Penski. That word is "Nakani" or a little more north its "Nuk luk" still meaning basicly the same thing.

[Guest Strick]

This would be the biggest event of human history minus alien first contact. We would still be alone in the universe.......but we would no longer be alone on the planet! How many are there? Do they need our assistance? Did we screw up with that giant timber sale? How bout that dam project? So forth and so forth.

I agree with Indiefoot. You make a good case for Sasquatch not possibly being human and then go and spoil it by describing the creature in classically anthropomorphic terms. After all, if Sasquatch turns out to be an undiscovered species of North American Great Ape, that tells us nothing about our position in the universe, nor provides us with any insights to want it means to be human.

[southernyahoo]

While fire use doesn't need to be a part of culture, tool use kind of does. They are so linked, that in many cases, the word "culture" is used to refer to the kinds of tools present in a species, for example: Mousterian culture, Magdalenian culture, or chimp culture. That's because culture is needed for tools to exists. Culture is things that are learned and shared (like how to make tools), and when you can't directly observe or interpret how individuals interact, many times, tools are the only evidence that culture is/was present.

Two things, 1. If we found recently manufactured tools, it would not likely be attributed to bigfoot, minus a footers perspective. 2. Tools wouldn't be the only evidence of culture on profer, language is also highly suspected, due to some vocal recordings. So the passing down of knowledge is also possible.

[Guest BFSleuth]

One of the earliest forms of rock tools or weapons is the simple hand axe. There have been some giant hand axes found throughout the world, including a 39 lb hand axe found in Ohio. These are simply too large for human use, yet I haven't seen any mainstream anthropologist or archeologist that has tackled this problem. Most of the comments coming from the scientific community simply note that "the purpose is unknown" or some such thing.

[southernyahoo]

You are correct BFsleuth, Here's a few from Africa and a mention from Australia as well. It seems it is speculated that they were "practice pieces". Also note the Oxford University affiliation.

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/axes_africa.htm

[Guest BFSleuth]

Interesting link... I was struck by the quote in the article:

" I did not ask if he had given some thoughts that "the big unknown" could be that the stone axes had been used by a race of prehistoric giants - because to answer positive to such a question would most probably be to commit career-suicide!"

Your link has another link here:

http://www.scienceda...90911134624.htm

"Researchers from the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford are surveying the now-dry basin of Lake Makgadikgadi in the Kalahari Desert, which at 66,000 square kilometres is about the same size of present day Lake Victoria.

Their research was prompted by the discovery of the first of what are believed to be the world’s largest stone tools on the bed of the lake. Although the first find was made in the 1990s, the discovery of four giant axes has not been scientifically reported until now. Four giant stone hand axes, measuring over 30 cm long and of uncertain age, were recovered from the lake basin.

Equally remarkable is that the dry lake floor where they were found is also littered with tens of thousands of other smaller stone-age tools and flakes, the researchers report."

So basically I think that it is possible that there have been a number of these large stone tools found, but not catalogued or reported... because how do you explain them?