Sierra Shooting from A-Z

[norseman]

For clarification my personal opinion is that Sasquatch is not human. Although I did choose to explore the position of it being apart of the homo family with a hypothetical story above. To prove the point that no matter if it's ape or a new species of archaic human would make little difference.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

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.

1. Maybe not, but it would arouse a LOT of interest, especially if the tools didn't match anything made by residents of the area the tool was found. People would ask questions and look into where the tool came from.

2. I said tools were the only way when you couldn't directly observe something, and bigfoot using language can't be observed. There are audio recordings, but they are very suspect (I don't hear any language in them), and wouldn't mean anything without a direct link to bigfoot anyway. I also highly doubt the bigfoot ability for language. Even other apes that can use tools can't use language; they can be taught some rudiments, but cannot acquire full language, instead being stuck at basically toddler level (and especially struggle with abstraction and duality of patterning). There's actually a huge debate as to when humans acquired language, especially full and completely verbal language. I personally think that H. habilis probably had some language (it would be hard to make tools without it) and H. erectus's ablity to strategize and trap animals demonstrates an even greater suggestion of language, but I don't think either had full language (probably mostly signs and very rudimentary communication). Complete vocal language requires a lot of brain specialization, and is a very recent thing, very probably developed entirely within H. sapiens. It may have even taken us a few tens of thousands of years to get right (the conservative estimates place language at 100-120 thousand years old, much younger than us as a species).

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.

If the purpose is unkown, the purpose is unknown. If no one can think of why something was made, there is no reason to grasp at straws and think of a reason why - it's okay to admit that you don't know something. I certainly can't think of a reason why anything like that was made, other than someone doing it "just because" because he could, or to show off. After all, peope make giant versions of normal things all the time, there was even a TV show dedicated to it a while ago.

As far as the "career suicide" comment from the article goes: there's no reason to read too much into that, because it's speculation on behelf of an interviewer. As for why no one suggest giants made them: Why would anyone officially suggest that a giant made them when there's no evidence that giants even existed? It would be like saying fairies made them. You can't just pull a scientific explanation out of nowhere. No one would have any reason to take such a claim seriously (unless giants were found). That's only compunded by the fact that those tools are just bigger versions of "normal" tools in the areas that they were found. If a different (giant) species of human made them, you would expect their tools to look different; think of how Mousterian (Neanderthal) and Solutrian (early European H. sapiens) tools differ. Even different cultures within H. sapiens make tools that look incredibly different, so it only makes sense to think that a different species's tools would differ, too. If someone finds a giant tool that doesn't differ in appearance from other local tools (besides in size), the reasonable conclusion is the the locals made it, too.

It's also interesting to note that similar tools are not found in areas that are supposed to be inhabited by bigfoot today.

That situation actually reminds me a lot of the mysterious "Bloop" sound. No one knows what it is. It's fun to say that Cthulu made the noise, but no one is going to come out and (officially) say that it is Cthulu, because there's nothing to say that it actually is; after all, Cthulu is a fictional character (right?... well, not according to the believers). Even though there's a lack of explanation, the experts involved have no problem saying "we don't know."

Edited June 12, 2012 by BlurryMonster

[Guest BFSleuth]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start a thread regarding the giant stone tools to not derail this thread too far. But I'll respond to a few points:

1. Maybe not, but it would arouse a LOT of interest, especially of the tools didn't match anything made by residents of the area the tool was found. People would ask questions and look into where the tool came from.

My read on the situation is that because these giant tools aren't able to be categorized in any way as a tool used by homo of normal stature they may not be recognized as homo tools, or ignored. The quote regarding career suicide is illustrating the concept that for mainstream scientists to consider the possibility of a larger (or giant) species making these tools is beyond the range of acceptable questions for investigation.

I said tools were the only way when you couldn't directly observe something, and bigfoot using language can't be observed. There are audio recordings, but they are very suspect (I don't hear any language in them), and wouldn't mean anything without a direct link to bigfoot anyway. I also highly doubt the bigfoot ability for language. Even other apes that can use tools can't use language; they can be taught some rudiments, but cannot acquire full language, instead being stuck at basically toddler level (and especially struggle with abstraction and duality of patterning). There's actually a huge debate as to when humans acquired language, especially full and completely verbal language. I personally think that H. habilis probably had some language (it would be hard to make tools without it) and H. erectus's ablity to strategize and trap animals demonstrates an even greater suggestion of language, but I don't think either had full language (probably mostly signs and very rudimentary communication). Complete vocal language requires a lot of brain specialization, and is a very recent thing, very probably developed entirely within H. sapiens. It may have even taken us a few tens of thousands of years to get right (the conservative estimates place language at 100-120 thousand years old, much younger than us as a species).

Your comparison of a great apes ability to learn human language doesn't necessarily relate to their ability to learn their own language. It may be that human understanding of animal language is limited. We are really just scratching the surface of how intelligent animals interact.

Why would anyone officially suggest that a giant made them when there's no evidence that giants even existed? It would be like saying fairies made them. You can't just pull a scientific explanation out of nowhere. No one would have any reason to take such a claim seriously (unless giants were found).

It's also interesting to note that similar tools are not found in areas that are supposed to be inhabited by bigfoot today.

Large stature skeletons have been found. Ancient legends of many cultures also note large stature "men" in many areas of the world.

The concept of "bigfoot" or the "hairy wild man" in a broader sense is more than just the phenomenon in North America. The "wild hairy man" phenomenon is world wide, from the Yowie in Australia, the Yeti or Yeren or Almas in Asia, the Patagonia in South America, etc.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

I'm really not sure how to respond to the first part of your post. If I understand what you're meaning to say, I think I addressed your points in my previous post.

Animal capacity for language is not judged based on ability to learn human language. Multiple design feature of language have been identified and used to analyze communcation of all kinds.The last several in particular (dispacement and above) are the most important when distinguishing communication from actual language. Other animals can communicate, but humans are the only ones that have been demonstrated to use actual language. We also seem to be the only ones capable of it.

Where have large skeletons been found? There are lots of stories, but no has ever come up with anything concrete that I've seen. Keep in mind I don't really consider annecdotes, dubious old newpaper articles (newpapers frequently wrote tall tales to sell more issues back in the day), or unsubstatiates stories people have heard as concrete evidence. I'm aware of pictures floating around, but those are all either photoshopped or use perpective tricks (like the Locklock cave mandible picture). As far as I know, there have been no documented findings of giant bones.

As far as thewild man concept being everywhere: I'm aware of that, and I fully acknowledge it. I've actually talked about it at length in other threads, and to sum up my viewpoint on the matter, I think it's very good evidence that the phemonema is entirely within the realm of folklore. People everywhere seem to like telling stories of wild, primal almost-humans, and it makes perfect sense considering the context the stories are usually found in (boogeyman stories, forest spirits, dehumanization of enemies, etc.). A lot of people telling superficially similar stories doesn't make them real, and trying to shoehorn them into the label of "bigfoot" doesn't make them any less a part of folklore.

Edited June 13, 2012 by BlurryMonster

[Guest MikeG]

On the subject of giant stone tools.........don't forget that some stone tools were definitely a status symbol. There were some which were owned simply to display wealth or status. From that starting point, it is easy to see how they could fall into the same trap back then as we fall into now. That is, bigger=better, biggest =best.

Mike

[Guest BlurryMonster]

I disagree with that point.

Firstly, I've never seen that idea brought up before. In hunter gatherer societies that I've studied, the only status symbols were decorative items, usually jewelery, and never tools. Secondly, I don't think the idea even makes sense, since we're talking about stone tools and anyone can make them. There's nothing special about something everyone has or can have. I guess maybe a really big tool could be a sign of status in the "hey, mine's bigger" way, and some tools were probably made out of prettier stones, or were specialized to a point where they would have been a novelty, but as far as regular tools goes, I'm seriously doubtful of the idea that they were status symbols. That concept didn't come about until the copper age, when people could actually have tools that were special (ie, not everyone could have it). Stone tools are very egalitarian.

Edited June 13, 2012 by BlurryMonster

[Guest Transformer]

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

I thought Nakanis were a wild human that wore boots and clothes and used tools and actually shorter than average? When did they become a sasquatch like creature?

[Guest MikeG]

There is very little doubt that some stone tools were status symbols. Stone tools weren't restricted to hunter gatherers. Neolithic farmers had them too. It is also erroneous to say that anyone could make them. They were made in specialist centres, and traded.

Some are described as status symbols in the British Museum, and a couple of weeks ago I spent the day in the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen studying exactly the same phenomena.

Here is an extract from the Tyrolean Museum website. They hold Otzi (the Iceman) and his goods:

Tools, status symbols, precious objects

The stone implements of the European Neolithic period, which were much larger and heavier than the microliths used in the Mesolithic, were developed for agricultural use. Tools with a ground and polished surface were a technological innovation, which differed fundamentally from the toolmaking techniques used by Mesolithic hunters. Archaeologists suspect that the new polished objects also served as status symbols for individuals of high social rank. They also occur as offerings in deposit finds and as precious objects in hoard finds.

Mike

[Big Stinky]

With the recent release of the photo of the purported BF tissue/hair strip it would seem quite logical that a simply DNA screen of this tissue should speak volumes.

Couldn't a simple chrosomosome count be used to "screen" if this sample is or is not a known and indigenous animal. A coyote and bear chromosome count is 78 and 76 respectively. Primate would be 46 or 48.

If the count was 46 or 48 or if the mDNA tested as human this should raise some eyebrows as the hair is not of typical human physiology correct ?

I am off base with these assumptions ?

DR is the photograph an accurate dipiction of the sample that you are familiar with ?

Big Stinky

[southernyahoo]

For clarification my personal opinion is that Sasquatch is not human. Although I did choose to explore the position of it being apart of the homo family with a hypothetical story above. To prove the point that no matter if it's ape or a new species of archaic human would make little difference.

Well it does make a difference if you have a problem shooting members of the genus homo, and that will affect one's "hero" status if you ask me.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

From what I know of language being tied to higher culture, I doubt that sasquatch would have a language as we know it. They may be in the process of developing a more sophisticated system though. I was thinking last night about something, and I needed a spot to share it...

If the existence of sasquatch is accepted, then wouldn't it have to be accepted that they inhabited North America around 10,000 years ago? I would think so, since they probably crossed into the continent over ice...No matter what the population was at that time, let's consider that sasquatch as a population in North America had a reproduction average (let's say births per year minus deaths per year) of 2. If they average 2 more individuals, which is the shortest end of the spectrum that seems possible to me, then over 10,000 years wouldn't the population be at least 20,000?

I have a feeling I am missing something obvious here, but this all made sense to me last night when I first thought about it. If I'm right, isn't it more likely that the births minus deaths per year was greater than 2, so as to sustain their population? And wouldn't this number likely be much higher than 2? I suppose that this is really simplified, as the growth of a population is a relatively complex. I know the biological algebra necessary to calculate certain characteristics of their population, but I don't know what numbers to plug in.

It is obvious whether sasquatch would be an r or K type population or species, since instead of producing many offspring in the chance that a few will survive, they likely produce few offspring and nurture and teach them the necessary survival skills. This tells me that their population has very likely steadily increased over the thousands of years they have likely been in North America. Please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong though, as I am by all means an amateur on the subject of biology. I am more of a physics guy when it comes to the sciences...Now if sasquatch were on Mars, I would likely have all the answers...lol.

[Guest]

Transformer, The little info i can find says they are hairy and can be between 7 and 15 feet tall ( I know 15 feet seems like a bit much, thats what i read). im assuming ( I know that can get me in trouble) hairy means sasquach. You could be right it might be a totally diferent being Im still researching.

[Guest]

It would have to be much higher than 2 in order to sustain the population and maintain genetic diversity sufficient to ensure the health of the population . However, there may have been increases and decreases in the population over time which would lead to an inability to look at it in a linear manner .

[Guest BlurryMonster]

There is very little doubt that some stone tools were status symbols. Stone tools weren't restricted to hunter gatherers. Neolithic farmers had them too. It is also erroneous to say that anyone could make them. They were made in specialist centres, and traded.

Some are described as status symbols in the British Museum, and a couple of weeks ago I spent the day in the National Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen studying exactly the same phenomena.

Here is an extract from the Tyrolean Museum website. They hold Otzi (the Iceman) and his goods:

Tools, status symbols, precious objects

The stone implements of the European Neolithic period, which were much larger and heavier than the microliths used in the Mesolithic, were developed for agricultural use. Tools with a ground and polished surface were a technological innovation, which differed fundamentally from the toolmaking techniques used by Mesolithic hunters. Archaeologists suspect that the new polished objects also served as status symbols for individuals of high social rank. They also occur as offerings in deposit finds and as precious objects in hoard finds.

Mike

Aren't those part of the criteria that I made exceptions for? Things looking prettier and such. And trust me, I know that Neolithic people used stone tools, too; neolithic is still part of the stone age ("new stone").

It's far from erroneous to say that anyone can make stone tool. If you grow up in a society where they're needed, you learn how to make them. Yes, some are specialized and not quite everyone did, but it's a big jump from that to "I have this because I'm rich and that makes me better than you." Stone is a material that everyone has access to, and where it's needed, the ability to work into tools. Something like a copper axe is much different and actually does show status. Stone tools don't really compare to that.

This is all quite beside the point anyway, since status symbols are only seen in permanent or semi-permanent groups of people with at least a few dozen (usually a few hundred) people and usually labor specialization. Most bands of hunter-gatherers don't even have real status symbols, because you don't see it until at least the level of horticulturists. Does anyone seriously think bigfoot live in groups like that? It would be a lot easier to find them if they did. If it's just a few living in relative isolation from one another there's absolutely no need for status symbols and you wouldn't expect to see them.

Edited June 13, 2012 by BlurryMonster

[Guest MikeG]

You keep saying hunter-gatherer.........so I'll keep telling you that neolithic peoples weren't just hunter gatherers. They were farmers.

Stone is NOT found everywhere. At least, not stone suitable for tools. The stone for making stone tools (mainly flint) is found in very specific places, and as such, the stones were mined and traded. The tools were made in specialist centres (here is one very close to me) and traded across vast distances. Please, don't rely on me.........go and do some googling, or visit a museum, or even borrow a book or two from a library. I'm not making this stuff up.

I also didn't say for one second that all stone tools were status symbols. They weren't.

Mike