General consensus on what Bigfoot is

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, BugMaster said:

I have always been in the camp of hominoid.........

 

I haven't been. It has been a slow realization for me. Even before the PG film I accepted the "bipedal ape" moniker. The slow "evolution" of my belief started with the Ostman story of chattering speech used by the family of sasquatches, which has been supported by the Sierra Sounds story as well as other stories even going back to the 1955 William Roe story of the sasquatch chattering at him as she walked off. If their verbalizations can be considered "speech", then they are hominids.

[BugMaster]

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I haven't been. It has been a slow realization for me. Even before the PG film I accepted the "bipedal ape" moniker. The slow "evolution" of my belief started with the Ostman story of chattering speech used by the family of sasquatches, which has been supported by the Sierra Sounds story as well as other stories even going back to the 1955 William Roe story of the sasquatch chattering at him as she walked off. If their verbalizations can be considered "speech", then they are hominids.

Coincidentally, or not, Mononga Hela (as he goes by) is working on developing a Sasquatch language system. He's a military cryptolinguist. He looks for phonemes among chattering and sounds to assess patterns across the country. Pretty interesting stuff. He classifies Sasquatch vocals as speech, but this notion is not fully accepted by the Squatching community, obviously.

[ArmChairScience]

I think the only way a creature like bigfoot could stand even the smallest chance of staying hidden for this long in the areas it's sighted in is if it was close to human, for one simple reason; they would have to have human range intelligence. This part really is non-negotiable to me. The intelligence of a gorilla, chimp or orangutan simply wouldn't cut it. They were all discovered by science before the 20th century in areas that are/were more remote than even the most remote areas that bigfoot allegedly inhabits today.

 

But how close to human intelligence would they have to be? Halfway between apes and humans? 75% as intelligent? 90%? exactly equal? My opinion is that this might not actually be the most useful metric for comparing mental capabilities between different human species. There would probably be many mental tasks that a sasquatch would perform far more poorly than us. But the opposite could simultaneously be true. They could, at the exact same time, also have many mental abilities that are superior to our species. In fact, if anything, they require certain mental abilities that would be superior to ours to have stayed undetected by science this long.

 

This has been touched a little bit in this thread, but I see Sasquatch's potential evolutionary history as defined by finding a completely different ecological niche to use their high intelligence in than the niche we've been using ours to occupy. What really defines everything our branch of the human tree of life does with our large brains is manipulating the environment to fit our needs. We make tools, clothing, art, and complex settlements out of natural materials that become barely recognizable once the end product is finished. We alter landscapes to fit our needs. We process our food with many steps. We exterminate certain animals that are mortal threats to us. Everything we do that makes us successful involves us carving out our own personalized world from the natural environment. And we are the species that have completely and utterly doubled down on this principle on a scale unlike any other species of humans before us.

 

A survival strategy like this requires certain mental skills. It requires us to be adaptable. To have the ability to learn any skill that you could conceive of, with enough training i.e a jack of all trades.  It requires language on a level that is sophisticated enough to communicate highly abstract ideas. It requires an active imagination. But most importantly, it requires the ability to socially network, to keep track of dozens upon dozens of complex relationships, so that innovation can spread.

 

Sasquatch, on the other hand, would appear to occupy an ecological niche that isn't based in any way whatsoever on manipulating their environment. Tool use is extremely minimal. What we're only capable of doing so long as we have tools, they can accomplish through brute strength alone. They don't need clothing when they have fur. They don't carve out their environment to suite their needs. They carve themselves to fit their environment like a lock in a key. This appears to be a strange way for a creature with near human intelligence to make use of it. After all, manipulating your surroundings is the most straightforward way of utilizing such a unique trait among the animal kingdom. But if they tried to use their intelligence the same way we use ours, they'd be competing evolutionarily directly against us, and we would beat them at it every time. In the same way that we beat homo erectus, and the neanderthals, and the denisovans, heidelbergensis and florensiensis and any other human that tried competing with us on our playing field. It's only when that niche has been already filled that you should expect the evolution of intelligence to go in a different direction.

 

So where would that intelligence that a Bigfoot has go into if it's not going into manipulating the environment? It goes into blending into the environment. It goes into stealth, it goes into highly expansive visual-spatial awareness and memory so that they can memorize every single inch of their habitat. It goes into Pattern recognition. It goes to superior motor control and coordination. It goes toward superior perceptual awareness. They have would have a type of intelligence that is highly specialized for their environment. Take them out of that environment and homo sapiens may out-perform them on any metric you can think of with our highly generalized form of intelligence and our ability to learn any skill that we put our minds to. But no matter how hard we train, no person will ever be able to move around the wilderness with the pinpoint efficiency and expert evasiveness that they can, because that is where they spent their evolution tokens on.

 

As for what their actual lineage is. There are so many things we don't understand about our evolutionary history, and each new find only seems to bring up more questions than answers. The hominin family branch may not so much be a tree as it is a web. With different lineages splitting off from each other and recombining at different times. Sasquatch seems to have traits from all over the spectrum, from australopithecines to homo sapiens itself. If I was forced to speculate, I might say they have their origins in extremely early species of homo, like homo habilis, that travelled to Asia and got multiple injections of new genetic material from later arrivals like homo erectus, heidelbergensis, neanderthals/densiovans while simultaneously splitting off to follow the different evolutionary roads that I've been going on about. Eventually doing some interbreeding with our own species. I have to stop myself here before I speculate too much. But all I'm saying is.....there's still more than enough vacant room on the human family tree to leave some leaves to a species like the Sasquatch, the yeti, yowie, yeren, or alma.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by ArmChairScience
better wording

[cmknight]

12 hours ago, BugMaster said:

Coincidentally, or not, Mononga Hela (as he goes by) is working on developing a Sasquatch language system. He's a military cryptolinguist. He looks for phonemes among chattering and sounds to assess patterns across the country. Pretty interesting stuff. He classifies Sasquatch vocals as speech, but this notion is not fully accepted by the Squatching community, obviously.

I thought it was R Scott Nelson who was doing this. I wasn't aware of Mononga Hela doing any linguist work. Scott Nelson has already "invented" a Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (although I have absolutely no idea why, because every phoneme he has charted is already mapped out in the IPA, including clicks and pops).

[BugMaster]

5 hours ago, cmknight said:

I thought it was R Scott Nelson who was doing this. I wasn't aware of Mononga Hela doing any linguist work. Scott Nelson has already "invented" a Sasquatch Phonetic Alphabet (although I have absolutely no idea why, because every phoneme he has charted is already mapped out in the IPA, including clicks and pops).

I haven't heard R Scott Nelson's name before, but I'm still fairly new to the Bigfoot world!

To my knowledge, Mononga Hela knows/understands the range of Sasquatch vocals and what patterns to look for when analyzing audio. Maybe he based his work off of Nelson's?

[cmknight]

3 hours ago, BugMaster said:

I haven't heard R Scott Nelson's name before, but I'm still fairly new to the Bigfoot world!

To my knowledge, Mononga Hela knows/understands the range of Sasquatch vocals and what patterns to look for when analyzing audio. Maybe he based his work off of Nelson's?

As far as I understand it, Mononga Hela only does Audio recording analysis (using Audacity). He's the goto guy for figuring out if you recorded a barred owl, a wolf/coyote, or a Sasquatch. R. Scott Nelson is actively pursuing the language aspect. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of these two gentlemen's work could chime in.

[BugMaster]

15 minutes ago, cmknight said:

As far as I understand it, Mononga Hela only does Audio recording analysis (using Audacity). He's the goto guy for figuring out if you recorded a barred owl, a wolf/coyote, or a Sasquatch. R. Scott Nelson is actively pursuing the language aspect. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of these two gentlemen's work could chime in.

Ah ok, that explains it more. I've spoken with him once or twice, but he kept his analyses pretty crytpic (sorry, had to). I believe you are correct in your statement

[Backdoc]

The Q here What is Bigfoot obviously assumes Bigfoot is a real 'something'.   Let's assume Bigfoot is real for the sake of the Q.   

 

When we consider just how 'human' an ape in the zoo might be it wouldn't take much to make a true ape in the zoo more bigfoot-like.  Take Coco the Gorilla who can do sign language.   Clearly Coco seems eerily almost human and no one disputes Coco is a gorilla/ Ape.   Even nudging Bigfoot on a spectrum beyond Coco would still be a very long distance from being human-like.    For these reasons, I would make a quick pass at the idea Bigfoot is likely a higher level ape-like creature vs any thought of it being a ape like human.  For my small opinion, I would put Bigfoot nowhere near the idea of being human.

 

Agan assuming Bigfoot is real in a Patterson Gimlin type of way, I see nothing in that film diff than the reaction I see with most animals in the wild I run across.  No super level of special powers are required by Patty to see people and walk away in a manner most animals do.  

 

We hear people say, "oh well Bigfoot has to be so ultra smart as to avoid detection."    Well, if real clearly Bigfoot is not avoiding detection at all.   There are reported sightings and even possibly Bigfoot was captured on film in 1967,   That's not avoiding detection.   That's just a small number of something easily hidden in a vast wilderness.  We attribute higher level of traits to an animal placing even our Golden Retriever pet dogs as human-like.

 

Take the wolverine which was finally filmed for the first time ever in Yellowstone.    Same thing.   It required no special powers.  Just a vast area and a small number of normal animals.  Nothing special needed.  

 

If Bigfoot is real, My 2 cent guess is Bigfoot is just a slightly higher ape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Huntster]

Not necessarily. One could answer the question with the theory that Bigfoot is an example of mass formation psychosis:

 

https://www.nepsy.com/articles/leading-stories/what-is-mass-formation-psychosis-is-it-like-mass-hysteria-or-mass-delusion/

 

This is similar to the possibility that Glickman mentioned:

 

http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptcol2.pdf

 

Quote

........The Bigfoot phenomenon may be the result of a combination of sociological origin, physical manifestation through willful manufacture, and the by-product of cataloged and uncataloged animals.........

 

 

[WSA]

Totality of the evidence says Hominoid.  WE have pretty much ALL the ape-like behaviors/capabilities. On the contrary, apes lack  many key human behaviors/capabilities.  Sasquatch overlap the ape behaviors/capabilities along with us, but share some of our human behavior/capabilities.  (We could enumerate all of these attributes here, but for the sake of brevity, I won't) For me, that clinches the taxonomy.

 

And what of the adaptive pressures that have forced specialization/differentiation between BF and humans?  I have long believed this was the deadly technology that humans developed and Sasquatch apparently (for the most part) did not. We have hunted them in deep history, successfully too, of that I'm sure.   

 

On this point also I have always pondered this: Why would a species that is very capable of inflicting death from a distance, choose to not do that when threatened?  The BF that launched a boulder into the water next to where I was standing could just have easily taken me out with that same rock, and nobody would have been the wiser. This story gets repeated hundreds of times, and my conclusion is that it just chooses not to. I hesitate to say this is a moral choice on their part, but it sure looks like that. Self-preservation imbedded by millennia of adaptive experience maybe? i.e., if we kill one of the small hairless ones the rest will come and slaughter us all?  

[Backdoc]

19 hours ago, WSA said:

Why would a species that is very capable of inflicting death from a distance, choose to not do that when threatened?  The BF that launched a boulder into the water next to where I was standing could just have easily taken me out with that same rock, and nobody would have been the wiser. 

 

Can I submit this idea:  Maybe the rock was hurled at you with the intent to hurt or kill you and it just missed. 

 

I hope you are correct.  It would give me hope and comfort such a "thing" was more human-like AND exhibits more merciful behavior toward us.   

 

As a city-slicker human that I am, I would think it would be pretty dumb for a Bigfoot to alert its presence with a warning shot or throw a rock.   If you we left unaware, it could have the advantage and study you and stay hidden/ protected.   For me that is what a smart higher-level thing would actually do if it was smarter than a typical ape/animal.

 

Now it is very possible this is a territory thing.  Bigfoot could be marking territory or warning you to stay out.   That throw could be telling you, "go away"    I'm fine with that.

 

I see on Youtube where people get near apes.  The ape charges them to give them a warning.    The ape could just as easy kill the people in seconds.     If  Apes- being apes- tend to do this, then Bigfoot could as well being just ape-like.   A person is very unlikely to throw a rock in that situation.  Based on my projected guess, I am going with Bigfoot is near ape-like.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Backdoc

[WSA]

Backdoc…I have read too many accounts of BF throwing objects with unerring precision to consistently miss what they could just as easily hit. A creature with the capability of missing that consistently is doing it on purpose. In fact I have heard of only one instance,  in FL, where and individual was struck, and that was after it rolled into him on a bounce. No, in my case I was not the direct target. Remember too, on occasion, bluff charges turn out to be real. And humans make them just like apes do…one of our shared behaviors I was referring to. 

[Backdoc]

On 5/26/2022 at 3:02 AM, ArmChairScience said:

I think the only way a creature like bigfoot could stand even the smallest chance of staying hidden for this long in the areas it's sighted in is if it was close to human, for one simple reason; they would have to have human range intelligence. This part really is non-negotiable to me. The intelligence of a gorilla, chimp or orangutan simply wouldn't cut it. They were all discovered by science before the 20th century in areas that are/were more remote than even the most remote areas that bigfoot allegedly inhabits today.

 

 

 

 

 

ArmChair,

 

I'll say it this way.  You might be 100% right.  But, it is highly likely these 'suddenly discovered' animals only remined hidden because they  1) live in an area hard to explore 2) the numbers of the potential animals was at or near extinct.     Remote + Few in number = hidden.

 

It is just a matter of the needle and the haystack.   None of them required higher level of intelligence.   

 

Good to read you thoughts on this.

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Backdoc

[Backdoc]

59 minutes ago, WSA said:

Backdoc…I have read too many accounts of BF throwing objects with unerring precision to consistently miss what they could just as easily hit. A creature with the capability of missing that consistently is doing it on purpose. In fact I have heard of only one instance,  in FL, where and individual was struck, and that was after it rolled into him on a bounce. No, in my case I was not the direct target. Remember too, on occasion, bluff charges turn out to be real. And humans make them just like apes do…one of our shared behaviors I was referring to. 

 

I will confess the first I followed any of this rock throwing thing attributed to bigfoot was on TV where Meldrum and other were staying in a very remote cabin and had rocks thrown their way.   

 

My area of interest over the years has been the Patterson Gimlin Film.   I am a weak contributor to any of the concepts on the rock throwing.  It's above my pay grade on that issue. 

 

At my level of understanding I have to ask:

 

What is to be gained by throwing rocks? 

 

The only thing I might guess is just a warning to protect their territory. 

 

What does an assumed intelligent animal/humanoid gain by throwing these rocks at people? 

 

Maybe such an animal might believe spooking People is an effective way  to get people away from them.   Heck it might work for other Bigfoot, bears, and so on to keep them away when they throw rocks at them.  Why not throw them at these 'people'.  They might not understand how threatening humans are (guns, capture, and so on).  if they did, they would choose to remain hidden and not throw rocks.

 

Now obviously if someone is in an remote area and there are no people to throw the rocks then something sure as heck- for reasons of their own- are throwing these rocks.   I don't pretend to explain it.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Backdoc

[WSA]

Backdoc...throwing a rock at or near a human really only has one message, right? It is: "I know you are there and I don't like that. Go away".  Why there are no (?) reports of that escalating to injury or death of a human I guess you could attribute to either the human always retreating (and often they don't. I didn't) or the thrower decides not to escalate. My original point is that this seems to be a moral choice by the BF, because they clearly have the capability of taking out a human with a rock, but don't. Clearly too, they have evolved their throwing capabilities as a likely defense and hunting technique. That they would not understand the lethality of a thrown rock is not really worth considering. They have to know, because it wouldn't be considered a threat by them if they didn't. It is just a very peculiar aspect of their behavior. Not that there are any lack of those!