musings on bigfoot's elusiveness

originally posted by: reject
a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

It is why, on the fence, I lean towards Bigfoot existing.

Speaking for myself I've always just thought "they are their own thing".
Not us, but not ape either.

I think it's mostly "the otherness" that we perceive an too many people try to fit them into being something more relatable or understandable. But ultimately it doesn't work because bigfoot thinks, lives, perceives our world much differently than we are currently.

All I can do is keeping gathering information hoping I'll make that lightbulb moment when their patterns finally point to a "Aha!". Or until we get a slab monkey and the Max Planck institute can "place" them one way or the other.

For me it's OK that "they are just their own thing"
This bears some interest cause right now I'm reading some old Science Fiction "At Winters End" by Robert Silverberg where after 700,000 years people finally emerge to live on the surface of earth. The twist is that once they get to what's left of civilization they discover they aren't human, never were human , but are just evolved Monkeys.

(No Spoilers! I'm still reading it) But whooo-baby they don't take the news well!!!
Oh, an they are also pissed that normal monkeys do incursions an act like monkeys.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

...and that, of course, is not taking into account that there are, very likely, other cave systems all over the world that are, as yet, undiscovered.

I don't share your enthusiasm for the notion of the use of caves other than as incidental shelter by bigfoot...but, then again, I would definitely use caves as shelter if I were living permanently in the wilds.

a reply to: seagull

I don't know really... but I've heard some pretty freaky stories/reports/anecdotal stuff that kind of leans towards the cave systems being used to (perhaps) stealthy get from one spot to another. Their eyesight would be perfect in there and the strength to climb explore and find exits would far exceed what any human could do (this whole last sentence is pure conjecture on my part).

I think their use of mines/caves & whatever else is underground is used by them... or in the least 'known' to them. I have to include that simply because whats left would be the Woo factor.

But as I state all the time... it's all my bit of conjecture because I've not a clue.. I got thoughts and ideas, thats pretty much the jest of a lot of my research, projects and experiments. I just keep trying to amass as much information no matter how silly it is to some, if there's a report on it then I put it in my "Huh?" file and move forward till another "Huh" like report happens.

I think I just invented a new Slogan:

"HUH" HAPPENS!

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

"huh" happens!

I like it.

It wouldn't overly surprise me if there were something to your hypothesis...God knows, I've been wrong before, and will be again.

I'm open minded enough, I think, to disagree with it, but allow for the facts to change.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Yes mate plenty of global reports of them driving strange cars - even said cars being involved in UFO reports.

Not just Stan Gordon but have you looked into the Bigfoot / UFO connection ?

originally posted by: karl 12
Not just Stan Gordon but have you looked into the Bigfoot / UFO connection ?

Hi Karl, I am sure ET abducts the Biggies just like they do humans and cattle. Sightings of UFO's and Biggies together are probably just drop offs after testing.

A predominant number of our ancestors lived with Neanderthals in a time from our period that is a geologic blink of an eye, yet we have few if any examples of “the other humans” in our cultural memory/myth/oral tradition, etc. We know for certain that they existed, predated us, were a dominant species longer than we have been, etc.

We also have Denisovans, Floresiensis and probably at least two or three species that have been mislabeled based on physical evidence. Fossils, etc.

Why don’t we have more memories of “the others” that we (as much as we can) KNOW FOR CERTAIN lived alongside us.

Yet, in terms of cultural memories (and actual oral traditions) we have multiple and very similar descriptions from around the world for Sasquatch ... and giants/woodmen/green men and very little (at least that is recognized) evidence from the fossil record.

I guess I’m stating the obvious as I’m working through this idea trying to formulate it in words, but ... we have between 300-400 fossils that we’ve IDed as Neanderthal. Considerably less for the other species but still SOME.

Yet, for Sasquatch, an entity that some of us here know by direct experience exists ... we have nothing.

If they are “gathering their remains” and doing something with them, as far as we know, they are 100% efficient at it.

The lack of the fossil record and the tremendous difference in stature are two of my biggest questions.

Anyway, hope that’s not off-topic.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

IIRC aren't there stories of Yowies using the caves thru the blue mountains in NSW to travel thru?
Seem's to me it was taken from Aboriginal sources, on the old Dean Harrison Forum.

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

IIRC aren't there stories of Yowies using the caves thru the blue mountains in NSW to travel thru?
Seem's to me it was taken from Aboriginal sources, on the old Dean Harrison Forum.

I'm a member over there and I believe that is correct, Dean has amassed some really good reports and information too. I think that Seagull (here on ATS) also mentioned the point (regarding cave systems), that there are still probably many more that we don't know about.

Speaking of the Aussie's... Something that I've always marveled at is the fact that Australia (about the size of the US) is still 40% unexplored. As of this posting, the population of Australia is ~23.2 million people versus 303.4 million people living in United States.

** Gryphon66 said **
"The lack of the fossil record and the tremendous difference in stature are two of my biggest questions. "

And I have to admit that I've wondered about that myself (cue woo factor music)


Johnny

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

Dean Harrison, uh-huh now we're digging up the oldies!
Went back a few weeks ago to find some reference info and it seems to have had a overhaul? There used to be some great information from Aboriginal sources about not only the regular yowies but two other kinds, one being small. Name began with a "D"?
The Aboriginal stories put one kind as being able to kinda morph into tree trunks. Like portals I guess you'd have to say.
What stayed with me is that they considered the smaller kind to be the most dangerous.

a reply to: Caver78

".....it seems to have had a overhaul?"

Just like all websites, they evolve, sometimes better, sometimes not so much.

**sidenote**
There's a decent Yowie historical -to- today map located here for anyone interested
Google's YOWIE Historical map

**and**
I just watched a Youtube video on the Man that got charged with murdering his mates in the bush, all the while the man stood by his claim of some small bipedal did the deed. Wish I could remember whose YT channel had it on, I tried over at Dean's place too but to no avail, (my Ninja Search Skills are not what they once were..)

So until then, I've got one from Paul Mcleod's Global Monster that has some decent info.





***Edit To Add***
Just found this searching through their Australian Yowie Research (AYR) FaceBook Page from Jan 28th of this year;

"The Hairy Man & the Little People: One of the AYR team has started a project to collect and record the many Indigenous stories relating to The Hairy Man and Little People, beings that appear to be identical in many respects to the Yowie. There are dozens of such stories across many language groups in almost every state of Australia. Our team member, who is himself a descendant of the Walbanga and Wadi Wadi people, would love to speak - confidentially, of course - to any of our members who know, and are happy to share, these fascinating and important cultural stories."


That will probably have some very interesting stories/reports when finished.

Johnny

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

No need for the full lengthy quote, and I will say you do have some amazing Google skills, yes indeed!

plot twist - i am not googling this - this is one of my areas of expertise

Again (redux) do I think that cave systems were or could be used by animal and man, "I sort of subscribe to that train of thought, it makes logical sense to me too."

no one denies that caves were and are used by animals and men - we have mountains < pun > of evidence from pre history to present day

what we do not have is any cave evidence of big foot

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

please explain how // why this alledged " big foot " would have " perfect eyesight " [ in a cave environment ]

bats have " quite normal " eyesite - and in daylight - can function without thier " sonar "

caves have an utter absence of light - eyesight simply does not work [ unless you bring an external light with you ]

yes - SOME caves feature bio luminescent colonies - but they are rare - and documented

the strength to climb explore and find exits would far exceed what any human could do

hmm - did you forget the size // weight of almost all claimed bigfoots ??????????

being 12 foot tall and 750 kg - is not a good body type for cave exploration

narrow constrictions " squeezes " - are often a defining point of cave exploation - a classic example is mammoth cave - a system you cite - a major discovery was enabled by a woman who was able to pass a point non of her aquaintances cold

yes - a proposed hominid with superior strenght - would have a advantage climbing [ free climbing ] - look that up - it has a specific context to my argument

but we mere mortals - have technology - we use set protection , aids climbing - and anchorst - to proceed by brute force - up sheer faces if required [ set by cordless or hand drills ]

and guess what - when we reach the tops of avens - we find zero big foot evidence

i CBA replying individual to more posts - appologies

so hear is my " bottom line "

i am not here to tell you that " big foot does not // cannot exist "

but as i hopefully demonstrate with my replies hear - the claim of " big foot in caves "

is utterly assanine .

yes - there are an unknown ammount of cave still undiscovered -

but we have zero edidence of big foot in any known cave - yet we find human - proto human , animals , evidence of climate change , geological events etc etc - in abundance

so - its a " caves of the gaps " argument . we are discovering new systems - and extensions to known ones every year - but this has caveats

almost alll new finds in the US - are being dug - there are no discovers of large entrances any more [ remember folks - big foot is big ]

all your arguments for big foot in caves - use such flawed logic - its getting tiresome

thats it for now

any sensible questions // comments

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Ok a sensible response.

How about you flip the coin an use your google-fu for good use? While it's easy to poke holes in presented theories, it's way more work to dig up credible information.

To explore this topic we have to start with credible data. Right now we have an overwhelming pile of anecdotal information but very little hard evidence. It's time to balance this out.

More hypothesis will be born if we work from "what is" instead of what we "think" we know.

Feel like helping out?
It'd be much appreciated!

a reply to: Caver78

i am using my abilities " for good " - unless you believe that ATS should allow all and any c;aim to stand un-opposed ?

i poke holes in presented theoties - because they are utter bollox

its not my job to dig up evidence for other peoples claims

the reason we have useless annecdote - is because - the people creating the anecdotes are useless

i am helping -

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You know I really want to say that I enjoy your debunking skills. But with that said, we all know that your not an Bigfoot, hairy bipedal enthusiast and thats ok.

When the platypus was first discovered, there had been many years of stories/myths of a duck-billed, webfooted, egg-laying mammal prior to it being accepted. And even then, it was many years of "Ignorant Ape" like thinking that it was all 'bollox'. Even still today many have a hard time believing in such a creature.

I think it's a pity that many (like yourself) say there's no proof... no evidence at all and will argue and stand behind that wall of bricks screaming it loudly, and yet you still refuse to look into the subject, read the reports and 'then' perhaps argue on those thoughts.

You said adamantly above that "its not my job to dig up evidence for other peoples claims". OK then, we'll continue to do that for folks like yourself. I think with stories dating back to the 1500's, and many documents from around the world about wild giant hairy men that's it's got to be difficult for many to accept such a concept. And that's ok too. You see, I've had my several 'real' accounts with some large hairy Bipedal, so I don't have that problem or any doubts about a hairy bipedal.

With regards to my Cave theory (which I said many times is conjecture on my part), so to answer your question about how do I know about their eyesight or how do I know that because of their weight they wouldn't be climbing around in a cave, I have to answer with (as I did earlier), it's conjecture. There are reports/stories dating back to the Aboriginals that Yowie, bunyip and the others used their cave systems to move around. I have no proof of that, just some internet O's and 1's making up a readable piece of text making such claims.

I could use your analogy/argument about you too. I have to assume that "you" are really a human... I have no proof of that... I just have some text that shows up in front of my screen with your meme associated with it. But I don't know you exist in real life or why you would choose a name like "ignorant Ape" and then expect us to believe that you are a human.

Stanton Friedman while in debates would let the others have their say. Then would ask "have you read my books and claims, with the associated documents"? They would answer "no". "Then how (he's continue's), can you debate me on information you've admitted that you've not read or researched?"

... and this last statement of yours: "the reason we have useless annecdote - is because - the people creating the anecdotes are useless, i am helping ". Well then my final thoughts for you are.. I have no proof/reports/documents/video or audio that will satisfy you. It truly is a Holiday miracle, we actually agree on that.



Johnny

I see the title here begins with “Musings ...”

Musings does not imply presentations of scientific fact, but rather, speculative, “what if” scenarios on a subject of mutual interest.

Appeals to one’s own authority that only result in negative statements are not logical, rational OR scientific.

I would like to suggest that we all move on with the fun-light-hearted approach that the majority if the discussion has taken on, and continue to enjoy ourselves. I am certainly enjoying the speculative nature of the discussion.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Caver78

i am using my abilities " for good " - unless you believe that ATS should allow all and any c;aim to stand un-opposed ?

i poke holes in presented theoties - because they are utter bollox

its not my job to dig up evidence for other peoples claims

the reason we have useless annecdote - is because - the people creating the anecdotes are useless

i am helping -

You must have misinterpreted my post. I was asking for your help, not TELLING you to dig up evidence.

As far as the whole useless anecdotes from useless people, that's way out of line an since some of them were mine
I'm offended.

In a cryptid forum most of the posts ARE going to be speculative. It's the nature of the topic so I can't see where
Claims need to be opposed to deny ignorance. This isn't a hard science forum section to begin with.
But cheers to you anyways, an Happy Thanksgiving!

Dropping this off just for reference: Giant of Castelnau

The expression "Giant of Castelnau" refers to three bone fragments (a humerus, tibia, and femoral mid-shaft) discovered by Georges Vacher de Lapouge in 1890 in the sediment used to cover a Bronze Age burial tumulus, and then possibly dating back to the Neolithic. According to de Lapouge, the fossil bones may belong to one of the largest humans known to have existed. He estimated from the bone size that the human may have been about 3.50 m (11 ft 6 in) tall. No modern peer-reviewed study has been published about the alleged giant bone fragments.

Emphasis mine.