Leaderboard

One of the major factors in my ultimate decision that killing a UHS, whether it be for profit or for science was totally wrong, were communications with some of the tribal elders regarding the NA perspective. IMO, are some groups attempts to apparently demonize UHS by portraying them as some sort of medieval monster more grounded in trying to justify a position than anything else?

Interesting. I was just googling images of Neanderthal and they do span a range. Also found this rendition of homo erectus. And here is a couple for bigfoot. I've doubted that bigfoot isn't in the fossil record if it really exists today and have felt that one of the two hominins above would be a more likely candidate for bigfoot than a nonhuman relative that became bipedal and arrived here without leaving a trace along the way.

Really? It would be highly presumptuoous to assume that there are no fossils of Homo that are from an 800 lb individual. There may be many that were that large. Some of the "erectus" and heildelbergensis are potentially that large. It isn't like there are truckloads of fossils to choose from and very few of them have postcranial (non skull) bones where the size of the body can be measured. I recall one heidelbergensis femur that was estimated to be from a larger than 7 foot tall individual. I found an article about it. This is supposedly our most recent ancestor even more closely related than Neanderthal. This guy claims they were much larger than modern humans. It wouldn't be presumptuous to assume that living in a cold climate might make it grow evem larger. Too bad it wasn't the whole femur. http://www.sydhav.no/giants/south_africa_berger.htm Many assume they were lean because they were in Africa. Some even had the hypothesis that they went extinct because they overheated from being too large. That is one reason why they aren't 800 lbs in the literature. They are making the presumption that they would overheat. Oy Vey. Some who I give even less credit apparently think they were small with giant heads because giants are in mythology and they want to sound scientific. The shape of the skull below was also very different from a modern human. I am sure someone could make a model and make even that guy in Stringer's hands look like a modern human. That doesn't mean that he actually looked anything like the model beyond the shape of the skull. He was likely closer related to us than even Neanderthals so I could excuse that presumption of looking human but that fossil was only about 15 to 20 percent of the way to early Homo going backwards in time. I included the link because it shows the skull in someone's hands to give a more proper perspective. He may have also been huge compoared to average modern humans. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/whats-new/tags/dan ______ The meganthropus are commonaly presumed to be much smaller with huge teeth because "giants" are parts of mythology and scientists must therefore poo-poo the idea so they sound scientific. If they didn't assume they were small with giant teeth some nut might even claim them as possible ancestors of bigfoot or a race of giants. How big was the owner of these teeth for example. He was a "human" by the standards many use. How big would a person be if he had teeth this large?

IMO, you need to take into account that humans tend to explain events, objects, things in context with the understanding of knowledge in existence, at that particular point in time. I wonder if in a few hundred years, the writings on such internet boards like this one, will be considered as primitive?

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