Bigfoot is really a person or maybe an animal?
The unknown and the unexplained: Bigfoot is really a person or maybe an animal? The fact that the caveman — not a Ghost, clearly. The ghosts do not leave residue, does not tear the bark off trees, not to celebrate natural needs. But the person or animal?
Back to most recognized authorities in this matter, in absentia, and discuss it with them.
Carl Linnaeus called our friend the «Man cave». Thus, like the issue was resolved. We are talking about the man, although not of our kind. However, the higher classification of primates proposed by the Swedish naturalist, though, and formed the basis of modern biology, but today needs significant additions.
The word «man» Linnaeus used arbitrarily, applying it even to the higher apes, which we are to people certainly not consider.
Vitaly Andreevich Hahlov used in his works the term «wild man», «antediluvian man», «the first man Asian», but believed that the genus Homo it is not true, and can be perceived as mysterious humanoid creature.
You need to keep in mind that this interpretation is unleashed Hohlovu hands, as allowed to hunt this animal if necessary, using weapons.
The following undisputed authority on the subject — Belgian zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans. In 1955-1958, he was relying almost exclusively on data about the Yeti of the Himalayas, «christened» his new offering called «diastrophism». That is, according to famous cryptozoologist, we are talking about a creature similar to man, but not about the person.
But think on this issue Boris F. Porshnev: «the Term «Bigfoot» is absolutely conditional. People here mean no more than, say, the name «orangutan» («man of the forest»), that is simply borrowed from the folk names of this animal, also called the «wild man», «man-beast», etc.; the adjective «snowy» means no more than the names «snow leopard», «snow stamp», «bighorn sheep», that is to say only about belonging of this species to the mountain fauna, but certainly not on a permanent dwelling in the eternal snows.
Three main features of the troglodyte away from the man and closer with the animals:
- the absence of articulate speech,
- the lack of material culture
- the lack of the ability to use fire.»
Commenting on these provisions, in General, no doubt, the faithful must note the following:
- There is evidence that in the absence of articulate speech, the individual sounds like human syllables, sometimes in his catch cry.
- In the absence of material culture he is not deprived of the ability to gun activities. The ability to use stones and sticks, appears again in his testimony, he expressed a little stronger than the great apes.
- Not being able to use fire, he’s different from all the animals that fire is not afraid, bravely comes to fires, sometimes sits right up against the burning wood.
Referring troglodyte animals, the pistons proved the possibility of the use against it of weapons. Since then the years have passed, we see that against animals and weapons can be used far not in all cases.
To dispute, whether person or animal, not delayed indefinitely, we need to define what a man is. And this, too, is not so simple. First, remember where the border between man and animal modern paleontologists.
They secrete the family of the hominid — that is, people (we emphasize this fact!), distinguish in it six species, but for some reason, the people called only three of them. This two fossils, skilled, and upright, and live — sapiens.
To the family of «the People» are the Australopithecines, three types: afar, African and massive. Treat people, but people are not. The transition of Australopithecus afarensis to Homo habilis and was the trait which, according to many paleontologists, separated man from the animal world, Under this scheme, person has at least two million years.
Porshnev, based on his definition of man, refused to «humanity» even Neanderthals. Thus, the Dating of time of human existence given by different scholars may differ by two orders of magnitude. These differences are based not so much on different material (although in recent years he has added), how many different views of what a man and what is animal.
They say that in science there are two things that cannot be done exhaustively to define and build the classification. So I will not claim to be exhaustive, but still try to propose an approach able to link into a whole different views on human nature.
It seems to me that definition must be at least two: biological and social. Biological should reflect the structure plan. This definition is based on the upright posture, perfect forelegs, the large volume of the brain. Under this definition, the boundary between Australopithecus and humans will be conditional, however, to hold it possible.
Articulate speech, of course, is an important human characteristic. But, introducing her as one of the key factors you need to remember that its presence on the fossil material it was difficult to identify.
Of course, there is a definite relationship between the size of the mental Eminence and the ability to articulate speech, but this relationship is not expressed accurately enough to determine the presence or absence of speech in the fossil material.
In addition, among people conceivable, and other ways of information transfer, and loss of speech does not give reason to include silent to other species.
The use of fire is undoubtedly the most important characteristic of man as a social phenomenon. The difficulties here arise again in connection with the Dating of the time of development of the fire. It is believed that this source of energy has mastered the Homo erectus. But is it possible on this basis to assume that it refers to a person in the social sense, and its the ancestor of habilis (the person skilful) — no?
Material culture — the undisputed prerogative of man. But the beginnings of it there and the Australopithecines that seem to refer to monkeys (from the Latin. australis — the southern and ancient Greek. πίθηκος — monkey) . Only in the later stages of development, sapiens material culture is so developed that you have completely separated our direct ancestors from the entire animal Kingdom.
In my opinion, a developed material culture can be considered only if it provides for the exchange of products of material production between different members of social groups. The market, at least in its most rudimentary form, are what formed the social form of motion of matter.
Social people produce wealth. The transfer of these values among members of society creates a relationship of exchange. Where the exchange once there are laws of the market, stimulating the growth of material production, increasingly separates man from the animal world.
The development of material culture and associated market exchange began within ten thousand years ago on the evolutionary scale, recently.
I’ll try now to formulate a definition, knowing that they will not be exhaustive.
People in the biological sense — is representative of primates, family hominidae, characterized by bipedal locomotion, large brain size, perfect device and increased mobility of the forelimbs, capable of complex forms of behavior.
People in the social sense, is a being who use articulate speech, fire and other sources of energy, with complex material culture and marrying with other such beings in relations of exchange that take place under the laws of the market.
Now try to answer the question, what is Bigfoot. From a biological point of view, is, undoubtedly, a man, from a social point of view — animal, based on paranormal-news.