Leaderboard

Hmmmm ... I think we have a non-linear scale of perception. We set ourselves apart almost arbitrarily based on technology they simply don't need. The apparent difference between a "NYC hooman" and sasquatch might seem great. The apparent difference between a member of a pre-contact Amazonian tribe and a sasquatch might not be so great. And yet we know the difference between a "NYC hooman" and a "tribal hooman" is basically only cultural, someone born to either but raised by the other from 1 week old would be part of the culture that raised them, same intelligence, same capabilities. It seems to me we have two schools of thought, one overly anthropomorphizing bigfoot, the other going overboard in "anti-anthropomorphizing" bigfoot. The fact is we just don't know. Why is that so hard for anyone to embrace? Winning each other over to one side or the other isn't going to change the truth when it comes, it just means we'll be wrong with more company. MIB

In making the assumption that you imply "animal" as living in a primitive state (as compared to homo sapiens of today), possible evidence includes the fact there are no populated subdivisons such as BF Acres and that they keep eluding capture by homo sapiens, save the occasional maiming of one, by gunfire. Live in the woods? Possible, but would be extremely tough as homo sapiens lack the physical characteristics of UHS.

For the record, I, Pteronarcyd, and others on this Board actually are scientists.

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.