Leaderboard

You're still making a leap to assume there were no viable males, there are other reasons why the male Neanderthal Y chromosome mutations were phased out of the gene pool if true ( we haven't tested every human.) Natural selection and re-isolation are still players in this.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35992612 Several of the Y chromosome genes that differ in Neanderthals function as part of the immune system. Three are "minor histocompatibility antigens," or H-Y genes, which resemble ones that transplant surgeons check to make sure that organ donors and organ recipients have similar immune profiles. Because these Neanderthal genes are on the Y chromosome, they are specific to males. In theory, a woman's immune system might attack a male foetus carrying Neanderthal versions of these genes. If women consistently miscarried male babies carrying Neanderthal Y chromosomes, that would explain its absence in modern humans. So far this is just a hypothesis, but the immune systems of modern women are known to sometimes react to male offspring when there's genetic incompatibility. Prof Bustamante said: "The functional nature of the mutations we found suggests to us that Neanderthal Y chromosome sequences may have played a role in barriers to gene flow, but we need to do experiments to demonstrate this and are working to plan these now." ------------------------------- If Homo Sapien Sapien cannot bred successfully and produce viable male offspring with Homo Neanderthal? What chance is there that Homo Sapien Sapien can bred with some archiac hominid and produce a Sasquatch baby? And this be replicated enough times to produce a viable breeding population of male and female Bigfeet? Its zero. That means that if Sasquatch is a hybrid its not because its paternal side mated with modern women 12000 years ago!

The best look I've had at one was just his face. When I first saw him, I thought "Who IS that?!?" Then it flashed through my mind for a split second that he was an Italian guy. The only thing that distinguished him from a human was excessive hair & his turned-up nose. It was much smaller that I would have expected. There was no brow ridge, & his hair appeared to start about 2 1/2 inches above his eyebrows, & grew straight up & back from his face. His eyes were solid dark brown & his skin was brown. I can't remember how dark, but it must not have been very dark since I thought he looked Latin. He was young, not a teenager, but maybe mid to late twenties. I didn't take a good look at the lower part of his face, & don't remember if there was a beard, but I don't think there was. After I realized that he was a BF, I looked into his eyes & couldn't look away for several seconds. We stared at each other & it felt like he was looking into my mind, & studying my thoughts. Finally, I looked down & when I looked back up, he was gone. This picture is the best resemblance I've found to him. The skin is too dark, & the nose a little too big but it's pretty close.

The Aporia, so endemic in Sasquatchery is largely self-inflicted and the principal catalyst for perpetuation of the current situation. Oh, to once again, be able to see through the eyes of a child.

We can't have any Neanderthal genes in us without successful reproduction. We are all hybrids with different immunities. There is no fork in the above statements.

Our DNA does include that of an unidentified antecessor, plus Neanderthal, plus Denisovan. http://www.nature.com/news/mystery-humans-spiced-up-ancients-sex-lives-1.14196 No.The unidentified species bred with Denisovians, and not us directly. If any of that mystery DNA is shared through Denisovians to Australian or Melanasian populations your article did not say. Guess you're right. Looks like speculation is that Homo Heidelbergensis might be the unidentified species.

Some of these groups are so jealous of their funding - in spite of no real headway - but they'll incrementally make minor adjustments, hoping that will change their luck. And it never does. Then you have a lot of intellectual 'contributors,' and some not so intellectual 'contributors. Everyone has personal input into the project, and while they may do something as a group, it's usually a lot of individual efforts based to a degree on their personal concepts or their personal contribution of maybe a piece of equipment. It's approached as a process. A group process. A group assembled often out of convenience sake. And due to funding considerations, often there's way too many guys there. No way to maintain proper appearance discipline, noise discipline, light discipline, or movement discipline. Then, there's no discipline. If I tell one of my guys, "don't turn your head," what I'm saying is that cutting your eyes and slightly angling for a view is NOT what I want done. If I say, "don't turn your head" then I expect him to continue exactly as he's currently doing. No change, no jerky movements, no sitting up straighter, no easing a weapon a bit closer - nothing. That's because we trust each other, and he'll know I'll explain it at first reasonable opportunity - but that now is not the time. If I say, "that duck can pull a truck," I don't want a song and a dance. Just hook 'em up. Maybe one guy has spent $13K for a thermal camera. Too bad. I'll tell him I don't want that anywhere near us, and to leave it behind. Why? I'll explain it later to him. The wrong technology is a negative, and I don't care about hurt feelings. So much for "contributors." Someone has to be in charge - the team must be small, and every team member must work like fingers on a hand - no thinking to it. They know, they do their part, and we all leave our egos at home. We leave our emotions at home. We leave our frustrations at home. You gotta be empty. Inside, you must be empty.

Man qualities, yet does not fit man. This is what I have been saying but how else can we explain them, when they act like us but are animals in a sense. Yet, what I saw looks similar to this photo or to the photo on the book cover of Enoch and that one is scary to what I saw with longer hair. Yet you had a day light sighting and I cannot disagree with what you are saying. Since every one believes that we have to search for them during the night when that's not true. We can look for them during the day and still encounter them so night is not a problem. 25 yards is not a far distance to have a sighting which is 75' which is a good distance to view this creature in the day light. I agree that they fit neither man/ ape but are in their own category. Thanks for being open about your sighting.

Face much flater, so eyes not as sunk in and nose even flater. Eyes wider apart, larger, but like the OP no whites. Hairier, even in middle of face, no patches of just skin, but not as thick or long. Much more unkept looking. Mouth wider, lips a bit thinner. Color different, a reddish brown. 25 yard view stare at each other for 2 minutes broad daylight. So not super close, but lots of time... The thing is, everyone wants to assign theses things to man or ape, but neither fits. They look like Bigfoot.