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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

4. bipedal primate :bf:

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.

I vote for really big monkey.

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

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.

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

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?

Homonid.
They sound a lot more human than monkey.

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.

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.

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.....

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:

#1.

More specificly, Homo Sap XXX

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

I'll see your and raise you a

The strange thing about the mimic of the voices is this..what is said a lot of the time..seems to fit the occasion. It seems they have some understanding of what the words mean.

Like I posted on creekfreaks discussion. When your out there and you have a reflector dish set up and game ears and night vision and heat finders and you hear something that says "get your junk and leave" and then you hear "him and (wifes name) hunting us"..now this shows me that they have a little understanding of what is going on and understand the meaning of "some" of these words..even if they are spoken in a mimic voice.

One night one of the fellow researchers had a bull dog that thinks its a child in the car. I kept watching the dog and he knew something was out there in the woods. When I listened to the recordings made that night..I hear "there's big-ole dog in-that car". The reason I put the dashes in the words..because it was said in a way that the words ran together. If you notice the other things said..5 words .. this was said as if it was 5 words also.

Call me crazy if you like..first time I heard it..I thought I was. I have heard this too many times. There are a few times that what we heard did not make any sense to us. Those times that they do fit what is going on..is spooky.

Mike (watch1)

The point is unless you see a bigfoot actually speaking the words it's proof of nothing. You may have stumbled across someone who's hiding in the woods for one reason or another. Or if you want to stretch your imagination you may have picked up EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomena) recording, often associated with paranormal activity. If the conversation has nothing to do with what's going on, the possibility exists you may be recording some sort of audio broadcasts, ie radio, tv, shortwave.

I have no idea what they were saying, because I don't speak or understand "bigfoot".
I woke to a loud scream & raised the window & heard a deep, low-pitched mumbling not more than 200 feet from the house. If it was people, they must have had cajones that wouldn't fit in a bushel basket, to be standing there, calmly talking, just after hearing that blood-curdling scream right beside them.
I didn't just hear random mumbling, & immediately determine that it was bigfoot. I have been hearing roars, screams, howls, dog mimicing, cattle terrorizing, etc. for more than a year, & have seen a track, limb twists where they cross the fence, & a pair of huge red eyes. Several other people in this area have heard & seen relevant things, too.
It's no wonder that more isn't known about these creatures, when somebody that has many legitimate encounters, gets nothing but ridicule, when trying to share some of their experiences.

The thing about all this that is so puzzling is ..when I look at the number of times we have been out doing research and the number of different locations we have been to and the differences in the time of night, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt..we are not hearing someone playing jokes on us. Some nights we changed our mind to go to another place while on the way. No one could plan to be out there ahead of us.

Seeing one of these creatures in the dark is the hard part. They hide behind the trees and bushes even at night. Even with nightvision..you are still looking for something thats hiding from you.

Hearing..now hear is something they can't hide from. They make noise..it might be small at times but they still make it. They can be loud also. I jumped up one night and snatched my game ears off, grabbed my light and started looking for what sounded like a bull running across the field in my direction. The problem is..there are no bulls, cows, horses in the field. It is just a hay field and has been that way for several years. Something BIG ran up close to us and stopped just out in the thick brush and set there watching us. My game finder (heat detector) showed something warm there. I could not see it with the nightvision. No doubt something was there..I just could not see it.

Mike (watch1)

That reminds me of my encounter I had in the early morning of fall 2005. Loud, and distinct footsteps. Its on the 16th page of the MN sasquatch activity thread. The seem to stay JUST out of sight of us when they are spying on us.

I personally think, based on my information gathered so far, and with my personal religious beliefs, think bfs are a highly adapted primate. There is no doubt that the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax, it just hasn't been debunked out of all the attempts. If we look at that female, we can see from the phenotype that it resembles a gorilla...The head and all. But that is my assumption, cant be sure until someone is dumb enough to kill one, or someone is keen enough to capture it. I don't think it's a hominid, for reasons I won't preach about now. And because I think it has more ape features than human features. Plus the behavior is more ape/wild animal than human. But then, they can possibly use tools, they throw rocks and build huts out of big logs, and they obviously communicate in distinct ways. It's mind boggling.

Sasquatch I suspect is a reasonably intelligent bipedal Great Ape. I strongly doubt that they have language but I wouldn't dissmiss some sort of tool use. It is worth remembering that creatures such a Lucy were fully bipedal and walked almost the same as we do yet they were little smarter than Chimps. So Sasquatch can walk much as we do and maybe dig with sticks and rocks but I don't think he can make a tool. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in Native American stories about "talking" with Sasquatch since the Native Americans were "talking" with all the animals in pre whiteman times. But communication is another thing altogether and I've little doubt that the Native Americans and Sasquatch understood each other.

As for believing Sasquatch exists I'm 50.3% certain he does and 49.7% he dosen't.

I've always thought it was some type of ape & a descendant of Giganto. But recently, since there seem to be some type of Bigfoot in many different parts of the world & because of it's human characteristics, I'm starting to wonder if it's some primative form of human dating all the way back to the days of the super continent Pangea.

Actually, I think it is some kind of advanced human with abilities beyond ours. It is the next level in "evolution" waiting to take over. That is why no one can ever kill or capture one, unless it wants to present itself (BFRO 9552). It does not need technology to function at a higher level than we can reach even with technology. Just kidding. Heh, heh. --ufo

Sure you are.

Just getting of the track a bit here, but does anyone know of one particular BF vocalisation where when it is played back slowly it sounds like it is saying "Your not welcome"
The reason I ask is that I had Don Munroe from USA BF researcher visited me in Oz last year and I was telling him about the call blasting success I had and he listened to the recording.
There was another recording on the disc that I copied (which I never broadcast) that he wanted to listen to, and it was this particular vocalisation that some guys in US believe is saying "your not welcome"
Anyone heard of this.

You bet, BIP. I was kidding about the "next step in evolution" part.--ufo

Yes I've heard of it. It was how Robert Morgan interpreted a vocalization captured by a gentleman whose name I can't recall at the moment. But he will be Robert Morgan's guest next Thursday night at 6:00pm eastern on the AARF Radio Show

There certainly were no 'primates' of any kind & certainly no 'primative form of humans' wandering around Pangea. There were at the end some small shrew like mammals, but no primates........ sorry!

http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/triassic_period.html
http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com/mesozoic_era.html

Just because no fossil evidence has been found, it doesn't definitively prove they weren't there. Look how long it took for fossil evidence of other great apes to be found.

I begain by saying that the following is just my opinion, not meant as a declairation of fact, just my
own opinion. What I think bigfoot is:
I believe that the creature that we(humans) collectively refer to as bigfoot are two distinct and different
"animals". I will label them Bigfoot Type A and Bigfoot Type B.
Type A: Primate. Related to the GIGANTOPITHECUS or is a surviving species of GIGANTOPITHECUS.
It is not human in the same way that a gorilla is not human. It is related to humans by being within
the same family order as the "great apes". I believe that there are at least 4 different species living
within the USA,and most of the Americas. Each species has its own specific characteristics in relation
to its habitat. The BF of the Pacific Northwest has its own specific characteristics that differ from the
BF that inhabits the Southeast. This may answer the question as to why the different describtions of
BF in each geographical areas of reported sightings (generally speaking). These different characteristics
may be linked to diet(which may be directed by location),general seperation by distance may alter
some basic characteristics(facual structure, with/without a snout, rounded ears(primate ears)or pointed
ears, body hair length,behavior toward humans- BF in a more remote location may react to humans
with shyness,avoidance or childlike curosity while a BF in the North East(New England) or southeast
may react aggressively,due to the encrouchment of human kind in its habitat)or vice versa. Lately
there seems to be more aggressive attitude toward humans from BF,especially in the southeast.
As with all unknown(or even known)animals, due caution is warranted. Also, I do believe that sooner
than later there will be a BF killed,either on purpose or by accident(hit by vehicle)then the real circus
will begin. And another creature will fall to the ongoing push by man.

Bigfoot Type B. [Insert theme from "the twilight zone" here]
Now for a large leap.
Type B. In no way,shape or form is this type related to humans. This type is a canifomia(dog like). It
is a canidae yet has some of the characteristics of the ursidae(bear) and the procyonidae(racoon). It
shares characteristics of the canine-wolf,dog,fox,etc. It exhibits basic "looks" of a canine, is capable
of standing on its hind legs(like the bear) possesses "hands"but without oppossing thumbs(like the
racoon)thus is able to grasp things(may be able to open doors by turning a door knob).It would possess
the skull shape belonging to the canidae,have large canine teeth,have the hearing,and scent(smelling)
of the canidae,due to the capability of either walking upright on its hind legs(although it would walk
stooped over)or on all fours,it would be very fast and agilie,quiet when stalking prey due to it being a
digitigrade(meaning that it walks on its toes not the sole of the foot) whereas a primate walks plantigrade(meaning foot flat on the ground).It would essentually walk "tip toe".This would make it
very hard to hear even with leaves and other ground litter. It would be able to climb trees(bear and
racoon-although some canine can also climb)swim very well (well, swim like a dog). It would(note I'm
taking a WAG here-WAG: engineering term for:wild ass guess)be without a doubt a meat eater. It would
also scavage when and where the opportunity arose. Its claws would be typical of the canidae-non
retractable, five digit front paws, four digit back paws. WAG: It would weigh maybe 300-400lbs, standing on its hind legs-about 6- 7 feet tall. Behavior: Not nice. Aggressive to the extreme-especially
if surprised or startled;may attack on sight;would stalk anything smaller than itself;would chase if the
"victim" ran;would be territorial;would not tolerate anything or one within its territory(wolf);as with all
canidae be very protective of its young;rouge males would be very dangerous and unpredictable.

Well.There you have it.For what its worth. My thought as to what Bigfoot is/are. Now if you all will
excuse me, I have to go fix a very relaxing drink. I hope I'm wrong;especially about type B.

Bigfoot -Primate

Subspecies reported canine like. Well what is a great big massive animal with a long canine like snout? SOunds like a bear to me.