Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
norseman

Patty in taxidermy form and comparisons

56 posts in this topic

Believe me, I understand "anthropological consensus."  With the appearance of the Miocene apes, the level of squabbling within the anthropological community gets really nasty.  Which Miocene ape were the antecedents of the gorillas, chimps, gibbons, and finally, humans?  They suggest there were over a hundred to choose from that lived in the Old World, but none lived in the New World.  Although there were some monkees in South America.

 

I mean, how could so many variants finally be whittled down to just the four main groups we have today?  The 3 types of chimps, 2 types of gorillas, 2 types of orangutans, and 4 types of gibbons?  Is it possible that someone made a mistake in determining there were 100 types, and maybe there were just 50?  20?

 

The curse of the field of anthropology, as in many fields - fame means money, power, and status.  Careers depend on making big discoveries or naming a new species.  This is why we have such a wide array of wannabe humans, pre-humans, could-be humans, and maybe-some-day-would be humans.  Entire species have been declared and determined by minor variances in the cusp of teeth.  Not entire jaws with teeth - just a tooth here and there.

 

They consistently twist and struggle to use any clever, or roundabout way - to be interpreted as a "new species."  So, they work very hard to suggest that when on the ground, the Miocene apes walked erect - but when they took to the trees a few minutes later, they brachiated and climbed to the tops of the trees.  Problem is - anthropologists don't want to let the Miocene apes walk erect.

 

Now, back to your Lucy and her story.  Her bones were millions of years old, and scattered on the surface.  The bones of her "family" were likewise scattered all over the area - yet they really don't match up - although anthropologists said they were of the same family.  They had one obvious problem:  extreme sexual dimorphorism.  In other words, Lucy was a little bitty thing - representative of the female.  The males would have been six feet tall, as an adolescent was about 5'6" tall, and it is reasonable to assume he would have reached a full 6-foot height as an adult.

 

If these clowns weren't so desperate to connect these together, it would be clear to an independent third party that there was the bones of at least two species intermingled.  Sometimes, these guys will attribute a more modern bone fragment to a more primitive skull - and they were separated by fifty yards.  

 

Lucy's hip is not in reality anything like a bipedal hip.  Looking head-on with a chimp and human, yes, Lucy's more broad iliac  looks more like a human than a chimp.

 

BUT.  Viewed with the hip socket facing the viewer, it's narrow like a chimp - very narrow - and nothing like a human - but given to belong to a tree climber - similar to that of the orangutan.

 

Perspective.  Artistic perspective.  Front-on, looks like one thing.  Side-view, it will be something entirely different.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucy was no endurance runner....yes there are differences between modern humans and her. But the differences between her and a Chimp is way way greater. Anyhow this thread is not about debating Lucy.

 

Its about commenting on the Patty recreation and where it fits in with other recreations as they are interpreted by science.

 

Rockape, Patty looks brownish to me in this color picture?

IMG_0520.JPG

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does factual forensic evidence get cast aside in favor of artistic license?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, norseman said:

Flesh out your statement please?

 

Was not a statement, rather, a rhetorical question designed to stimulate a certain thought process.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch prehistoric autopsy if your confused. Nowhere does forensics get "thrown out".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone that wishes to see an alternative depiction of something we've all seen presented by anthropology, one will find most interesting a video presented on the THEM+US website by Danny Vendramini.

 

In fact, not only does he give an alternative presentation of one well known species - if you watch the short video - as he runs though some basic determinations - maybe you, like me, will see an uncanny resemblance to what we speak of here on this site.

 

One after another, after another, after another.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Rockape, Patty looks brownish to me in this color picture?

 

Yeah, I'm not saying she wasn't. She's just always looked black watching the film and it throws me off a little seeing that recreation in her true color. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

For anyone that wishes to see an alternative depiction of something we've all seen presented by anthropology, one will find most interesting a video presented on the THEM+US website by Danny Vendramini.

 

In fact, not only does he give an alternative presentation of one well known species - if you watch the short video - as he runs though some basic determinations - maybe you, like me, will see an uncanny resemblance to what we speak of here on this site.

 

One after another, after another, after another.

 

Do you mean the crackpot that claims Neanderthals had cat like eyes with slits for irises?!!!!

4 minutes ago, Rockape said:

 

Yeah, I'm not saying she wasn't. She's just always looked black watching the film and it throws me off a little seeing that recreation in her true color. 

Her face looks lighter in the picture.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Do you mean the crackpot that claims Neanderthals had cat like eyes with slits for irises?!!!!

Her face looks lighter in the picture.

 

Did you watch the video?

 

You didn't.  

 

Otherwise, you'd have noted that was just ONE of the possibilities to explain the extreme night vision.

 

Your original inquiry was about artistic accuracy.  

 

Watch the video.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the video years ago....I cannot believe you take this man seriously.

 

He is a joke.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, norseman said:

Her face looks lighter in the picture.

 

Oh yeah, more of a greyish color. 

 

The thing is when it comes to saying what a BF should look like, they come in many sizes and colors according to witness accounts. If you scroll down at the bottom of this page you'll see an array of sketches done by Pete Travers from witness descriptions. Loren Coleman ponders why they look so different, some more human and some more apelike, but with them being Hominids it would make sense that like humans, they all or most would look a little different.

 

 

What Changed the Face of Bigfoot?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the witness, who for the first time is coming into contact with a fellow two legged ape. 

 

We are suppose to be the only ones left....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, norseman said:

I watched the video years ago....I cannot believe you take this man seriously.

 

He is a joke.

 

Well, some suggest "Lucy,"  99% ape, was a human ancestor.  I can't believe anyone would take this postulation seriously.

 

And the question you raised - for the third time for me - was about the accuracy of artist renditions.

 

I merely mentioned this - as he's not the one who did the representations - he merely applied non-human musculature and skin to the skull.  

 

I'd say - his interpretation is probably a lot closer than the crap we see represented in museums - who have an official agenda to maintain.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0