Leaderboard

I thought I would address the opening statement by Norseman who wrote: 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!" ................................... There are some fallacies to that statement. 1) No one has shown that sasquatches have Neanderthals in their linage; so, any comparison you make to what you claim is an incompatibility with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens is academic. 2) Since the genome of Neanderthals have been sequenced its found that all Homo sapiens outside of Africa have some Neanderthal DNA. The DNA seems to all be male Neanderthals mating with female Homo sapiens. So, why can't another male species of man also mate with Homo sapien females and produce young? You say it can't happen because Homo sapien women would miscarry male babies due to an incompatibility with the Y chromosome. But three things: a,) Sasquatches may not be a hybrid of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens. b.) Since modern humans do have some Neanderthal DNA there was successful interbreeding that deposited Neanderthal DNA in modern man. c.) If the Russian version of sasquatch "Zana" produced a viable male offspring "Kwit" and also daughters that works against the incompatibility arguments.

Put longer hair on both of those and straighter legs and taller and you will have it. The It ! The freak of nature, But why is it here and how? We as humans split , from Africa. Ones humans went up through europe and spread and other humans went through central china and spread though there. My question is , were these creatures here when humans arrived and were thriving? and that our illnesses brought them down until they started mating with us and their genes crossed with us . This is where this so call mutation starts among them but it was never in us. It also show that they were never in europe since there is no sign of Neandrothall in them or in the collected samples but does show Human. Strange in away. But again with the speculation and another theory or should I say hypothisis. It has to be proven. Lets say that Humans did run into these creatures when they first ventured into these lands. I mean how did Humans make it here ,before the discovery of North America. When North America was discovered there were humans already living here , so how did they get here before discovery. Humans are resource full , I mean look at our selves at what we can do. So discovery of North America was made way before anyone else discovered it yet this fact has been hidden. Why in central China are there talk of creatures like we have here. Some thing is not right here, yet there is a trail that we can follow. Look at the Yowie and where it's location is , how and why is it where it is? Could it be that this where it first started or is central China and maybe these creatures followed the Humans as they made their passage. Now this is our ancestors and I say this cause we are all related. It is hard to understand the journey they did to survive , as Humans found hope in certain areas of the world. So if these creatures followed us but live the way they do then they must have chose to do so. Our path was meant for a different destiny that we are still in discovery. Many decisions can be made on what is being said.

Norse, I swear I'm not arguing against you for the sake of arguing, but there have been other renditions that look nothing like these. I have read articles, National Geographic, and all the rest for years that basically said, "Give a Neanderthal a shave and a haircut, and he could pass unnoticed on the streets of New York." That is a load of manure. That is anthromorphism, or a tendency to make something that doesn't look like us - look like us. In this case, it's just dishonest. The Neanderthal eyes were so much higher on the head, strong protruding brows, and their eyes were 20% larger than human eyes - indicating they would be more successful as a primarily nocturnal hunter. Then, their entire skeletal features were much, much more powerful and much more robust. These things were brutes. When I see human muscle tone, with a human face, I just feel that is a most dishonest portrayal of what these things looked like. One guy started with a clean sheet of paper. Danny Vendramini delved into this and his determinations were much different than traditional "transitional species" work by mainstream anthropologists. In his rather eye-opening book, THEM + US, one can see clearly that he tried to approach the task with unbiased honesty. He had the same skulls and the same skeletal remains addressed from a viewpoint as to not bias appearances from a more gentle human standpoint, but to apply anthropological science to the bones and skulls. He had renowned sculptor Arturo Balseiro laser scan the skulls and use NP theory and the latest computer technology to generate a new reconstruction. Gentlemen, at least have a look at some of the things proposed in THEM + US, the renditions, and many of the determinations made by the author. We may not agree with all of them, but it will enable one to approach the problem from a completely different angle, and at least be aware that there is another, equally possible range of differences. Look at the skulls and then the facial presentations by Vendramini, and compare the skull and facial presentations supplied by those others who want them to look more human. Then. Look at the Vendramini presentations and compare to what you've seen in the field. I think the truth is somewhere in between mainstream and the Vendramini presentation.

Jayjeti^^^^^^ 1) Once again someone has acknowledged my comparison and then threw it out the window.... At no point do I claim Sasquatch has any relation to Neanderthals. What I am claiming is common sense. Neanderthals are roughly the same size and shape as us. They wore clothes, started fires and flaked stone tools like us. They likely possesed language like us. It is said that if you gave one a bath, a shave and a suit? The Neanderthal could walk down any side walk in the US and not draw any attention to himself. Obviously a half Human and half Neanderthal hybrid would be virtually undetectable to the naked eye in a human population if properly bathed and clothed. Sasquatch? Not even close. And as a hybrid Sasquatch would be the result of a mating with a human mother and a very ape like archiac hominid. So 7 ft tall 600 lbs Patty whom if you dressed in a dress and high heels would cause a panic in public? Is HALF human.......holy moly....what did the paternal donor species LOOK LIKE King Kong? This is where the train leaves the tracks for Sasquatch hybrid theories. We know now that Neanderthals were close cousins to humans but just barely enough to succesfully mate with. Morphologically speaking this would rule out any other successful interbreeding with a more archaic distant species that Bigfoot's daddy absolutely represents. 2) We also interbred with Denisovians. Melanasians carry up to 6-8 percent of their DNA. We do not have an answer yet if the Denisovian Y chromosome is extinct like Neanderthals in our own modern populations. But Denisovians like Neanderthals were close cousins to humans. I guess what a person needs to ask themselves is what did BIGFOOT'S DAD look like if Bigfoot himself is 8 ft tall, 700 lbs, covered in fur, has a peaked head, has no fire, tools, shelter and throws 55 gallon drums of fuel off of Jerry Crew's construction site at Bluff Creek? And how did the human mother survive conception and child birth? And more importantly? How did Bigfoot become its own species? Which did not happen with Neanderthal or Denisovian hybrids? Who were instead quickly assimulated into the human population. And what happened to the paternal donor species of Bigfoot? There are a multitude of other "problems" with Bigfoot hybrid theory. But my comparison based on this latest genetic work is very valid. And it has nothing to do with Sasquatch being a Neanderthal. Not even close. Sasquatch is not morphological speaking even as a hybrid as close to humans as Neanderthals were. If in doubt? Watch the PGF again.

I just found this article.......... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans It seems to echo what I've been saying in the quote below.

I have seen forest cut down and at first was so against, until I saw renewed animal life. It did not matter if it was insects or birds, and even deer. It all played a part in their regrowth of the enviorment. It is really cool , how in two years of clear cutting can effect the out come of wild life. Life seems to produce no matter how we effect the enviorment. For myself nature is in a way cool, in how it manages it self. It has it's ways of self controls and yet we can effect it not, cause nature will work around it. Another neat factor. We might not live long , but nature will with out us. It is our inventions that destroys. A sad part of our kind, that the more we learn the more we hurt nature. Sometimes science can be a cruel animal, Yes? Thats if you want to call science as a collective a animal. ( Metaphorically ). Like mans start of fire by seeing lightening strike tree. Who knows? maybe it is true. We have the brains , they do not. But they are close.

You're here as much as I am so how about that get a life thing? The diff? You are a one-note song. Only Neil can get away with bending a single note for 4 bars at a time. Lay out a wee bit, huh?