Bigfoot Classification Poll, What do you think Bigfoot is? Options

[Drew]

There are so many arguments as to the whether the evidence of bigfoot is good enough to make a classification. I thought we should open it up and let the Forum Decide what bigfoot is. The results are final and once the poll is complete, we will all know exactly what bigfoot is.

I screwed up the poll

But here are the options

1. Homonid
2. Not of this earth
3. Interdimensional Being
4. Other (Of this earth)
5. Non Existent
6. Cannot Answer

This post has been edited by Drew: Sep 20 2006, 11:19 AM

[LAL]

We will still argue. These things aren't decided by majority vote.

The Sasquatch, to borrow Dr. Daris Swindler's phrase, is an unidentified North American hominid primate.

[BobZenor]

It is almost certainly a primate. What else, a bear or dog that became upright? I don't even like the theory that it is gigantopithicus if giganto is more closely related to orangs. It matches the apparent structure of a hominid and only a hominid, as far as we know, because it is upright. I don't get why a scientist would seriously suppose the coevolution of different branch being more likely than a hominid that simply got larger. The best ancestor candidate is one of the early erectus that experienced adaptive radiation after reaching Asia 2 million years ago.

hominid: (as I mean it) Upright ape in the chimp human lineage closer to a human.

[LAL]

See? We can even argue about what kind of hominid.

I don't have a problem with a very large bipedal Orangutan relative. Schwartz once thought Orangutans would be found to be our closest relative before DNA testing proved him wrong. Giganto was once thought (by Weidenreich anyway) to be a human ancestor.

With no foramen magnum to go by, the clue to Giganto's bipedalism is the wide jaw. Orangs walk bipedally at times and have a rather generalized way of going. "Toumai" was a biped, and it's now thought knuckle-walking evolved independently three times in the Great Ape lines, sometime after bipedalism.

The location is right for Giganto and there's at least one subspecies known. Swindler agreed with Krantz on Gigantopithecus and thought 500,000 years was ample time for it to develop the adaptations we seem to see in Sasquatch.

Sure would be nice if some fossil feet could be found.

[Carey]

Hello,

When considered globally, is it possible that there maybe more than one species evolved from different early primates?

Cheers.

[LAL]

Hello,

When considered globally, is it possible that there maybe more than one species evolved from different early primates?

Cheers.

Why not? The Orang Pendek may be an upright Orangutan relative. Yeti prints are different from Sasquatch prints. The Russian Kaptar seems to be Sasquatch, but the Almasty may have been remnant paleolithic hunters. Then there's the Nguoi Rung (Vietnamese villagers pointed out pictures of the MIM as most like what their "wildman" looked like).

Whatever the Yowie is, how did they get to Australia?

[Snow Kitty]

Whatever the Yowie is, how did they get to Australia?

How did Aboriginal Australians get there? I would assume the same way....

So went and found this:


"There
is little doubt that they arrived through New Guinea (which has, on
occasion been connected to Australia during the period concerned) from
south east asia. It is also thought probable that further groups entered
Australia from the north during the following tens of millenia"

This is the web site: http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/AboriginesOrigin.htm

I found this very interesting: "New Zealand, however, only appears to have been populated by humans for
about 700 years. The Maori's who are Polynesians, arrived around 1300AD."

And it raised the question for me, at least, Do we have any Yowie reports for New Zealand? Don't know much about BF, and less about Yowies....

SK

[twinkletoes]

I would say number 4. It's an unidentified bipedal primate..

[scotto]

Hello,

When considered globally, is it possible that there maybe more than one species evolved from different early primates?

Cheers.

Why not? The Orang Pendek may be an upright Orangutan relative. Yeti prints are different from Sasquatch prints. The Russian Kaptar seems to be Sasquatch, but the Almasty may have been remnant paleolithic hunters. Then there's the Nguoi Rung (Vietnamese villagers pointed out pictures of the MIM as most like what their "wildman" looked like).

Whatever the Yowie is, how did they get to Australia?

Good points. I cannot believe they would all be the same species, scattered all over the globe.
There are many differences in the descriptions of the PNW sasquatch VS the Skunk ape of the South alone.

[LAL]

I've noticed that. I was struck by the similarity in the description from an 1885 incident (from a Cherokee woman via her granddaughter) and the recent Alabama sighting, but neither sound much like PNW Sasquatches. Subspecies with adaptations for heat? Or?

[LAL]

Whatever the Yowie is, how did they get to Australia?

How did Aboriginal Australians get there? I would assume the same way....

So went and found this:


"There
is little doubt that they arrived through New Guinea (which has, on
occasion been connected to Australia during the period concerned) from
south east asia. It is also thought probable that further groups entered
Australia from the north during the following tens of millenia"

This is the web site: http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/AboriginesOrigin.htm

I found this very interesting: "New Zealand, however, only appears to have been populated by humans for
about 700 years. The Maori's who are Polynesians, arrived around 1300AD."

And it raised the question for me, at least, Do we have any Yowie reports for New Zealand? Don't know much about BF, and less about Yowies....

SK

According to this NZ had "Doolagarl":

http://www.theaustralianyowieresearchcenter.com/

(Anatomically modern humans have existed for 195,000 years.)

Australia-New Guinea has been pretty well isolated. That's why things are so different there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_(continent)

[RogerKni]

According to this NZ had "Doolagarl":
http://www.theaustralianyowieresearchcenter.com/

I went to that link and searched for that word, but what I found was a description of a creature found in NSW Australia, near Victoria. This sentence was under a heading describing an Under Construction section on NZ, and which had a picture of a giant and a large Bigfoot-type creature, also with a caption relating it to NZ. So probably there were BF reports from there, but the name used in NZ was something different.

[LAL]

Good catch. I read that wrong. Thanks for the correction.

[scotto]

I've noticed that. I was struck by the similarity in the description from an 1885 incident (from a Cherokee woman via her granddaughter) and the recent Alabama sighting, but neither sound much like PNW Sasquatches. Subspecies with adaptations for heat? Or?

Yup, could be quite a few different variables thrown in there, when you think of the geographical differences.

I remember the deer in Florida being very small in comparison to the the deer in Arkansas, I.E.

This post has been edited by scotto: Sep 21 2006, 11:16 AM

[Snow Kitty]

How 'bout the whites/greys which seem more prevalent in Ohio?
SK

This might make an interesting study if someone knew how to start to "crunch" this data.... anybody really good with spreadsheets? Could make a searcheable datatbase, if we could figure what data we may want to search....

Scotto or anyone, I too have noticed the difference in the size of deer, regionally, I believeitis because of the food supply, does anyone know how prey size affects predator size?

This post has been edited by Snow Kitty: Sep 21 2006, 12:52 PM

[GuyInIndiana]

How 'bout the whites/greys which seem more prevalent in Ohio?
SK

This might make an interesting study if someone knew how to start to "crunch" this data.... anybody really good with spreadsheets? Could make a searcheable datatbase, if we could figure what data we may want to search....

Scotto or anyone, I too have noticed the difference in the size of deer, regionally, I believeitis because of the food supply, does anyone know how prey size affects predator size?

Several sightings in southern Indiana as well, of a white squatch... not all in the same location.

Also noticed as well, the deer we have here in northern Indiana are huge, compared to the deer I see up in southern Michigan, which is less agricultural from what I've seen, but once I get up further into Michigan, the deer seem more akin in size to what I see here.

[ThisIsJack]

I think "primate". Does that fall under #1 Hominid or #4 Other ? Anyway, primate. I think that's #1.

edit to add: man oh man, if I don't know if primate falls under hominid then I need to seriously catch up on my reading!

This post has been edited by ThisIsJack: Oct 14 2006, 11:15 PM

[bigfoot: i belie...]

4. bipedal primate :bf:

Attached image(s)

 

[dpcdvr]

While I tend to follow the traditional idea that Sasquatch is an unidentified hominid, I also feel that when something is unknown, then we simply dont know what it is, meaning that it could be anything.

[Chewy]

I vote for really big monkey.

[sassfoot]

speculation at its best.there is not enough to prove it exists must less to classify.

This post has been edited by sassfoot: Oct 23 2006, 05:04 PM

[magikern]

Hominid without any doubt

Latin name would be Homo Sasquatchus or maybe even Homo Sapiens Sasquatchus.


Heuvelmans gave the MIM a latin name so I could suggest one for BF to.

[Smitty]

Scotto or anyone, I too have noticed the difference in the size of deer, regionally, I believeitis because of the food supply, does anyone know how prey size affects predator size?

HAH! Finally, a question I can answer.

Deer in both Florida and parts of Texas are much smaller than those found in surrounding states. It has more to do with farming than predation. Deer were believed to carry a number of bovine diseases, and were 'culled' nearly to extinction, in both Florida and Texas between 1890 and 1924. Once there was an understanding that the deer were no threat to cattle, and that they were dwindling in number, game laws were passed, and the populations rebounded. The individual animal size, however, did not.

It would be tempting to say that in Florida, at least, interbreeding with the diminutive Key Deer might be the reason, but there appears to be no link between the two.

This is a subject I researched while working with my dad on a book he was writing when he died. Someday, I may have to finish that book.

Smitty

[InMichAgain]

Also noticed as well, the deer we have here in northern Indiana are huge, compared to the deer I see up in southern Michigan, which is less agricultural from what I've seen, but once I get up further into Michigan, the deer seem more akin in size to what I see here.

The biggest deer taken here, almost every year, come from the southern part of the state where there is still a lot of farmland...although it is not uncommon to see smaller deer near more populated southern areas. It's like they're one extreme or another in the southern parts and up north they're all medium sized. In Maryland, it's easy to confuse the deer with rabbits.

I have to go with #6 on this poll, but if held to the fire for a real answer, I'd go with #1.
Won't the results get skewed since it's a manual poll?

[CountryCousin]

Homonid.
They sound a lot more human than monkey.

This post has been edited by CountryCousin: Dec 16 2006, 08:53 PM

[Kucta-qa]

Personally, the reports indicate that a sasquatch's brain level is definently sub human, far below our standards. I go for the idea that sasquatches are simply another great ape, but have evolved the ability to walk bipedaly, which causes people to think that they're a close human relative.

[CountryCousin]

If they were simply some kind of ape, would they be able to have a "spoken language"?
I have heard them talking, within 200 feet of my house. No doubt about it being them, & no doubt that they were talking.

[Pywacket]

Cousin,

Doubt they have a spoken language. Probably just mimicking sounds/voices they have heard.

[CountryCousin]

Cousin,

Doubt they have a spoken language. Probably just mimicking sounds/voices they have heard.

I guess that is a possibility, but I heard two distinctively different "voices", talking.
It had never occured to me that they might be mimicing people like they do dogs, etc.
Something to think about.....

[moregon]

Personally, the reports indicate that a sasquatch's brain level is definently sub human, far below our standards. I go for the idea that sasquatches are simply another great ape, but have evolved the ability to walk bipedaly, which causes people to think that they're a close human relative.

What do you base the assumption, that they are sub-human, on? That's scarey considering they've easily outwitted us at every turn to collect more definitive evidence of their existence.

[cryptidon]

What do you base the assumption, that they are sub-human, on? That's scarey considering they've easily outwitted us at every turn to collect more definitive evidence of their existence.

:yeahthat:

[Noodle]

#1.

More specificly, Homo Sap XXX

[JayleeD]

If they were simply some kind of ape, would they be able to have a "spoken language"?
I have heard them talking, within 200 feet of my house. No doubt about it being them, & no doubt that they were talking.

You heard "them" talking? No doubt about it being "them"? What did they have to say?