Denisovans and Sasquatch

[Buckaloo]

Although this is a video/documentary, I believe the theories this guy advances go beyond the video itself and are worthy of more discussion.

 

His video lays out an interesting argument for Denisovans being the "wild men" of history and of our more modern-day Sasquatch sightings.  Some of the information in this video has been talked about here before, but he does an excellent job of tying it all together.

 

He shows how the Denisovan fossil evidence we've gathered so far could point to Sasquatch.  He also talks about the historical distribution of wild-man stories matching the speculated range of the Denisovans.

 

Another very interesting topic he presents is the early-man "avoidance" theory.  This is where one group of human-species adopts a more primitive or "wild" lifestyle to avoid having to interact with more technologically-advanced groups of "humans."  This would lessen the chances of being killed-off or absorbed.  Over tens of thousands of years, the more "wild" human-species group would develop enhanced physical characteristics like being, larger, hairier, faster, better night vision, etc.

 

As I said, some of this information has already been discussed in this forum, but this is the first time I've seen one source that links it all together in one theory.  Interesting!

 

https://youtu.be/vN9q8ewDQs0?si=Eyi6vE2g2PH2XEJz

 

 

[norseman]

According to modern science? We (Homo Sapiens) were still in Africa 130,000 years ago.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site

 

 

[Northern Lights]

Very good video, well worth the time to listen through all of his analysis.  Highly recommend giving this a listen and I would be very interested in opinions.  

[norseman]

Here is Meldrum’s 3d printed skeleton.

 

https://isubengal.com/sixteen-hundred-hours-of-sasquatch-skeleton/

[norseman]

I think Denisovans are a pretty tough sell. They are making beads, flutes, stone tools, spears and fire. And their cousins the Neanderthals did the same.

 

Their direct ancestor Homo Heidelbergensis also made stone tools, spears and fire. And they were also big tall people like Denisovans.

 

Is Sasquatch is in the Homo lineage? They must be some early off shoot of Homo Erectus which is more primitive than any of the above three. IMHO.
 

 

[Catmandoo]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

Here is Meldrum’s 3d printed skeleton.

 

https://isubengal.com/sixteen-hundred-hours-of-sasquatch-skeleton/

 

The skull is a gorilla skull. How did they program the 3-D printer without a Sasquatch skeleton? IIRC, the plastique-fantastique was made for media activity. I can't remember who bankrolled it.

[Incorrigible1]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

I think Denisovans are a pretty tough sell. They are making beads, flutes, stone tools, spears and fire. And their cousins the Neanderthals did the same.

 

Their direct ancestor Homo Heidelbergensis also made stone tools, spears and fire. And they were also big tall people like Denisovans.

 

Is Sasquatch is in the Homo lineage? They must be some early off shoot of Homo Erectus which is more primitive than any of the above three. IMHO.
 

 

 

 

[Buckaloo]

11 hours ago, norseman said:

I think Denisovans are a pretty tough sell. They are making beads, flutes, stone tools, spears and fire. And their cousins the Neanderthals did the same.

 

Their direct ancestor Homo Heidelbergensis also made stone tools, spears and fire. And they were also big tall people like Denisovans.

 

Is Sasquatch is in the Homo lineage? They must be some early off shoot of Homo Erectus which is more primitive than any of the above three. IMHO.
 

 

Maybe not that tough a sell.  Some evidence of Denisovan tool use comes from caves also occupied by Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, so it's not 100% settled.  Even if Denisovans did use tools, some groups could have opted out of it in favor of a more "wild" lifestyle. 

 

The avoidance-theory that this guy floats, speculates that hallmarks of civilization (like tool use) would increase interactions with other human-species.  That in turn would lead to competition, which would lead to some species being decimated.

 

The thing that some get wrong about evolution and the survival of a species, is that it's not locked into moving in one particular direction.  Tool use, leading to civilization, leading to technology may not be a forgone conclusion with some hominum species.  It may just be one possible survival strategy. 

 

We see this avoidance-theory to some extent in modern humans with the few remaining uncontacted tribes.  They choose a stone-age lifestyle (how is that even possible in 2026?) and even violently resist contact.  Perhaps Denisovans were more physically equipped to adopt a wild, natural lifestyle.  Whatever Sasquatch is, their lifestyle has worked for them!

[norseman]

15 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

The skull is a gorilla skull. How did they program the 3-D printer without a Sasquatch skeleton? IIRC, the plastique-fantastique was made for media activity. I can't remember who bankrolled it.

It’s way bigger than a Gorilla skull. And the Foramen Magnum is lined up with the spine. It was patterned off Meldrum’s anatomy knowledge and study of the Patterson Gimlin film.

 

I am not saying it’s right. But it may be close. 
 

If Sasquatch doesn’t cook its food? That means it eats its food raw. That’s a lot of chewing. Lots of chewing means a heavy jaw bone and heavy muscles and a place on the skull to attach those heavy chewing muscles. A sagittal crest. At least that is what we find in the fossil record.

 

Like Paranthropus Robustus as Incorrigible points out. 

[norseman]

4 hours ago, Buckaloo said:

Maybe not that tough a sell.  Some evidence of Denisovan tool use comes from caves also occupied by Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, so it's not 100% settled.  Even if Denisovans did use tools, some groups could have opted out of it in favor of a more "wild" lifestyle. 

 

The avoidance-theory that this guy floats, speculates that hallmarks of civilization (like tool use) would increase interactions with other human-species.  That in turn would lead to competition, which would lead to some species being decimated.

 

The thing that some get wrong about evolution and the survival of a species, is that it's not locked into moving in one particular direction.  Tool use, leading to civilization, leading to technology may not be a forgone conclusion with some hominum species.  It may just be one possible survival strategy. 

 

We see this avoidance-theory to some extent in modern humans with the few remaining uncontacted tribes.  They choose a stone-age lifestyle (how is that even possible in 2026?) and even violently resist contact.  Perhaps Denisovans were more physically equipped to adopt a wild, natural lifestyle.  Whatever Sasquatch is, their lifestyle has worked for them!

Yes, but if you dress up someone from the Amazon and take them to Rio? No one would notice.

 

Sasquatch looks like Sasquatch because of the life it has lead for milennia.  Not because it has forsaken clothing, tools and fire in some active lifestyle choice like the Amazon Indian could do in 2026. (Forsaken a Stone Age existence for a modern one in the case of the Indian)

 

It’s a chicken versus the egg argument. Could a Denisovan or a Neanderthal survive today in the mountains of British Columbia if you took away its tools, fire and clothing? And if it survived? Would it thrive without those things and then morphology follows over generations? It grows more body hair? Grows thicker chewing muscles? Kills without its signature spear?
 

Or is it just going to seek to recreate what you took from it? And it’s roasting meat merrily in its new BC cave not long after you release it?

 

I don’t know. But I do know that all great apes feel discomfort. And even a Orang will make a makeshift umbrella to escape the rain. Heat from a fire feels pretty nice in winter. Warm clothes do too. Stone tools make life much easier. 
 

But each generation you’re gonna have to unteach all of these things to kids to stay hidden? That seems like it’s a invitation to disaster because junior is gonna disobey and make a spear or start a fire.

 

Orangs don’t do any of these things because it lacks the gray material to figure it out. And despite being bipedal neither did Paranthropus evidently.

 

So is it more logical that Sasquatch gave up all of these things? Or that it never had them to begin with?

 

 

[Buckaloo]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

Yes, but if you dress up someone from the Amazon and take them to Rio? No one would notice.

 

Sasquatch looks like Sasquatch because of the life it has lead for milennia.  Not because it has forsaken clothing, tools and fire in some active lifestyle choice like the Amazon Indian could do in 2026. (Forsaken a Stone Age existence for a modern one in the case of the Indian)

 

It’s a chicken versus the egg argument. Could a Denisovan or a Neanderthal survive today in the mountains of British Columbia if you took away its tools, fire and clothing? And if it survived? Would it thrive without those things and then morphology follows over generations? It grows more body hair? Grows thicker chewing muscles? Kills without its signature spear?
 

Or is it just going to seek to recreate what you took from it? And it’s roasting meat merrily in its new BC cave not long after you release it?

 

I don’t know. But I do know that all great apes feel discomfort. And even a Orang will make a makeshift umbrella to escape the rain. Heat from a fire feels pretty nice in winter. Warm clothes do too. Stone tools make life much easier. 
 

But each generation you’re gonna have to unteach all of these things to kids to stay hidden? That seems like it’s a invitation to disaster because junior is gonna disobey and make a spear or start a fire.

 

Orangs don’t do any of these things because it lacks the gray material to figure it out. And despite being bipedal neither did Paranthropus evidently.

 

So is it more logical that Sasquatch gave up all of these things? Or that it never had them to begin with?

 

 

Based on recent discoveries, it's pretty clear that we know next to nothing about early hominids and their development (although we are slowly learning!).  I'm not convinced we know yet what's "logical" or not in this area.  Also, no one's claiming that modern humans choosing a stone-age lifestyle leads to Sasquatch morphology.  It DOES demonstrate what hominums MIGHT do if they believe it helps their survival - no matter how illogical it might seem to us.

 

Again, we don't know for certain what Denisovans had to give up, if anything, to live a "wilder" lifestyle.  Some groups of them may have adopted tool use, others maybe not.  The guy in the video is just theorizing that based on what we know so far about their morphology, it might make them a good candidate for Sasquatch.  If you transported an "average" Denisovan from 300k years ago to a modern city, we have NO clue if they could blend in or stick out like sore-thumb Sasquatch might.

 

I think it's risky to rule-out survival strategies that other hominum species may have developed based on our very-limited knowledge of them.  Let alone based on our limited knowledge of how WE developed.  The video merely floats a theory.  He does a good job of presenting it.  It's of course VERY FAR from proven, but I see nothing overtly illogical about his basic argument.

[xspider1]

So, I asked google AI:  'could bigfoot be descendants of Denisovan?'  Just wanted to post the AI response mostly because it shouted out to the BFF:  

 

Edited 12 hours ago by xspider1

[Buckaloo]

17 hours ago, norseman said:

It’s way bigger than a Gorilla skull. And the Foramen Magnum is lined up with the spine. It was patterned off Meldrum’s anatomy knowledge and study of the Patterson Gimlin film.

 

I am not saying it’s right. But it may be close. 
 

If Sasquatch doesn’t cook its food? That means it eats its food raw. That’s a lot of chewing. Lots of chewing means a heavy jaw bone and heavy muscles and a place on the skull to attach those heavy chewing muscles. A sagittal crest. At least that is what we find in the fossil record.

 

Like Paranthropus Robustus as Incorrigible points out. 

Perhaps I'm missing the overall point, but I don't necessarily accept that Sasquatch needs a gorilla-sized jaw or a sagittal crest just because it eats raw food.  Gorilla's have all of that because they're primarily herbivores that tackle super-tough things like bamboo shoots and tree bark.  Also, despite my huge respect for the late Jeff Meldrum, I don't think we have NEARLY enough data to decide whether or not Sasquatch is more ape-like than human-like.

 

Modern humans routinely eat raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, and I personally enjoy my steak RARE.  Omnivores are more than capable of handling many raw foods.  AND It's been established that Denisovans had significantly larger skulls, jaws, and teeth than Homo Sapiens.  So it's reasonable to speculate that they could handle raw food.

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Buckaloo said:

.........Also, despite my huge respect for the late Jeff Meldrum, I don't think we have NEARLY enough data to decide whether or not Sasquatch is more ape-like than human-like...........

 

Seems to me that foot structure alone (not to mention predominately bipedal locomotion) ties sasquatches to the homo genus. No other extant apes (Hominidae or Hylobatidae) have feet shaped like ours. During the Pleistocene and Holocene Epochs (roughly 2.58 million years to today), the only confirmed bipedal apes have been determined to be hominins.