Leaderboard

The flap over conflicting viewpoints regarding Neanderthal cannibalism illustrates that the data is open to interpretation and argument. Within these sciences, we must keep in mind that we are always operating based on the latest set of informed guesses. Newly discovered information always results in new questions, and new forensic techniques still have a degree of imprecision. How much variance is required to makes us different from chimps? Just 1.6%, right? As persistent as this meme is, even this has since been challenged, https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/greater-than-98-chimphuman-dna-similarity-not-any-more/. There are also articles stating that modern human DNA contains 1% - 4%, or up to 20% Neanderthal DNA. Your choice until someone reconciles the diverging viewpoints, perhaps by stating that one population of modern humans has the lesser amount and another the greater amount. And the Neanderthal depiction in the OP indicates that anthropomorphism is, indeed, in play in that the eyes do not reflect the obvious morphology of the underlying skull. I respect Stan's faith in his profession, but assert that transient and serial fallibility is inherent in science.

I'm saying some folks will believe anything and it's not worth your time.

Science is only as infallible as the human conducting it

agreed JDL, +1 on that and the point earlier about funding. funny thing is the next group of "sensible people" will probably come along in a few years with another differing view , making this Neanderthal theory obsolete as well. that's the irony of such discussions...... iron fisted support of todays theories while admitting those of yesterday were wrong even though the proper scientific methods supposedly were applied each time leading to a new set of "facts", then presenting the old facts as fiction..... got to love the proclaiming of hypothesis as cold hard fact when in reality they don't have much more than guess from a clue.

<One line cheap shots doesn't move the science ball ahead> Neither do three lines of vague bs.

Don't be so hard on yourself DWA. They probably do care what you think.

Plussed that imediately for truth Booger! But also do recognize that new evidence will always change the picture a bit while never changing the bones themselves.

So there is no push to humanize Neanderthals in response to the perception that the public will be more inclined to fund Neanderthal research, either directly or indirectly, if they perceive neanderthals to be more like them? There was no hot controversy over the last few years about whether or not Neanderthals were cannibals? Is this "settled" scientific fact? Scientists are just as prone to pander to funding and, by extension, agendas as any other profession, it's just that most scientists seem to want the public to believe that this isn't the case. If Vendramini put a million dollars in grants on the table for evidence backing up his theory, he'd have it, from someone with "impeccable" credentials.

You ask how Sasquatch humanity manifests itself, thinking it has to manifest the way you think it has to. I don't think it does. If a Sasquatch person can speak a language, but does not paint oil paintings, and you believe that each of those things is an attribute that belongs to humans only, then you will have to revise your definition of "human". When your theories can no longer accommodate what is, you have to revise your theories. The other point to be made is that Sasquatch DO do all those things you say they don't. They make tools and fire, live in communities, sing and dance, and make art. WesT made a brilliant study of a Sasquatch blind, from which study he concluded that Sasquatch use spears to hunt deer. Not always. Just sometimes. Other people have heard Sasquatch singing. Others have witnessed Sasquatch building and tending fires. Others have been gifted with Sasquatch art. And on and on and on. It's fine if you don't believe any of this. I do. I have enough experience of my own to know that none of this is impossible. Again, I sooooo appreciate your civility. Have I mentioned how important I think that is? (I think it is very, very, very important.) And I also appreciate that you say, "in my opinion if you don't make tools you're not human". I guess I would say, in my opinion, if you have language, you are a human. Not that labels matter. The Sasquatch people are who they are, whatever we decide to call them. What's sad is that we seem to think we can accord them less respect if we don't classify them as human.

I agree, but would like to point out that remains do not reveal the actual "look" of the specimen, it's an educated artist's conception. Great topic!

I'm not even reading the rest of this thread, just going to answer your question from my opinion after hearing him speak at Salt Fork a few weeks ago... He talked about how much he was ridiculed by his local people. His wife went to the bank teller and she refused to wait on her. He said that the next day after they came back, he was so exhausted from staying up all night to hike back a long way over rugged terrain, then having to get the truck and horses out of the river that rose up, that he crashed out to sleep when they got home. The next day, Patterson announced it to the public, and Gimlin caught some grief for not being there when it was announced. After all these years, it seemed like he was still ticked off about that. He also said that he didn't get any money from the rights to that film. As I say this, I want you to know that he was very cool about it and didn't get nasty or accusatory, he was just stating the facts as they were. And this is just my opinion from what I took away from it. He doesn't talk much but when he did, it was powerful. He had the audience eating out the palm of his hand. Listening to what it was like for him personally to get to Bluff Creek was just captivating. Patterson asked him to go because he really wanted the research and to get prints from there. Gimlin was free that day and went with him. Gimlin did a LOT OF WORK to make that trip happen. He's just a low key country rodeo guy that was good with horses and was up for an expedition. One of the coolest things that he said, was that "I saw it with these two blue eyes. I was not looking at it from behind a camera. I saw it make it's move and watched it the whole time. Patterson was rushing to get the camera." They only had 1 minute left on the reel because Patterson had been filming other things. Gimlin said that while Patterson was rushing to get the shot while looking through the camera lens, he tripped on a rock or something which is why you see the shot jumble for a few seconds. Because he saw it from start to finish with his two blue eyes, he feels that he got the best look at it. It's burned into his brain and at 82 years old, he tells the story like it happened yesterday. He also said something about the horses getting spooked off when it showed up and they had all the gear and extra film on them. I'm not sure when exactly that happened with the horses running off, but I think that's how it goes from what he said. It was just one of those moments. They went up there to document and track prints and fortunately had less than a minute left in the can to capture the event. I did hear from a very close friend of his that there were a few times when he would give a talk and people were just milling about and not paying attention to him. I can't even imagine that. When he was at Salt Fork, he was treated like a hero. He said many times that we were the best group he had ever spoken to. We were just so grateful that he came all the way from California to talk to us, and we are grateful to Tom Yamarone for bringing him to us safe and sound! So what are his regrets? I don't know. It seems like there were a few snags along the way, but honestly, from how genuine and nice he was to each and every person that he met, he's just enjoying life now. I got to actually spend some time with him, as did anyone that wanted to. He was so available and I don't know how he kept his energy up. I thanked him for being here and for everything that he has done, and he turned it around on me, and said I thank all of you people for carrying it on. What a guy. So sweet, so cool, tough on the inside, but soft on the outside. He speaks the truth as far as I'm concerned and no one will EVER convince me that that film wasn't real. I challenge a skeptic to listen to him talk about it if he ever does again. I was just one of the lucky few that heard it.

I have!!!! http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3339/20090520005419sweetumsp.jpg