Yuchi1 Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 JDL, I personally believe that they can probably interbreed with us (meaning they're pretty close to us genetically, certainly closer than the great apes). There is also a fair amount of anecdotal evidence (stories) out there supporting my belief that they can interbreed with us. And by this, I mean stories of human women being violated by BF and producing viable offspring. And even one well known story of an almasty (Russian/northeast Asian BF) female coupling with a human male and producing viable offspring. If I recall correctly, there was a show recently regarding the Almasty, Zena where researchers were able to run DNA analysis on one of her children. I believe the results came back she was sub-saharan in origin.
southernyahoo Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 In a most fortuitous evening, I happen to have one of the UK's most active researchers on Neanderthals staying at mine tonight. Apparently an anthropologist from Oxford university is currently undertaking a study into scientific attitudes towards Neanderthals (how these have changed over time: 90s hulk to 00s sophisticate) as part of a wider investigation into the way scientists interpret their findings. In other words, looking into the often subjective nature of human ancestry. 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. 1
the parkie Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) The Neanderthal on the right in that pic is the spit of John Virgo. Maybe their tool use included both sticks and chalk. Edited June 1, 2014 by the parkie
JDL Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 JDL, I personally believe that they can probably interbreed with us (meaning they're pretty close to us genetically, certainly closer than the great apes). There is also a fair amount of anecdotal evidence (stories) out there supporting my belief that they can interbreed with us. And by this, I mean stories of human women being violated by BF and producing viable offspring. And even one well known story of an almasty (Russian/northeast Asian BF) female coupling with a human male and producing viable offspring. Now suppose that these stories of BF/human offspring are all false and really are just stories. Even then, there is more anecdotal evidence (more stories) of human females being violated by BF and no offspring resulting - hence my statement that the BF think they can interbreed with us and try to do so. HOWEVER, after thinking about it since I made that earlier post back on page 10 of this thread (which I did in quite a hurry), I remembered that they violate other animals as well (cattle and horses, that I know of), so my statement that they think they can interbreed with us may be wrong, and all they're doing, even with humans, is just getting their rocks off. I'm sorry that I confused you, and I hope this has cleared up my earlier post. If not, PM me and I'll try to 'splain it mo' better. To the mods: I know I'm walking a tightrope here in this post and I've tried to use the verbiage that you have used in one particular earlier thread. So, if I've fallen off that rope, please forgive me and edit this post accordingly. Sincerely, Coonbo That helped. I wondered if you might know for certain one way or another. So we know they'll give it a shot given a chance, and we don't know for certain how accurate the stories are. Personally, I think they can. The young pregnant female I encountered had chest anatomy that was dramatically more pronounced than Patty's or that of the female in the Roe sketch and much much more like that of a human female than like that of an ape. It wouldn't surprise me if their DNA is so close to ours as to be easily mistaken for ours.
the parkie Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 To continue my references to people that those outside of the UK will never have heard of, a few years ago British TV personality, and one time 'housewives favourite', Alan Titchmarsh branched out from his usual gardening shows and made a series about British natural history. In one of the programs, he was made up to look how a Neanderthal was thought to look and walked down London's busy Oxford St to see if anyone noticed anything unusual...I don't think he had more than a few cursory glances.
the parkie Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 In a most fortuitous evening, I happen to have one of the UK's most active researchers on Neanderthals staying at mine tonight. Apparently an anthropologist from Oxford university is currently undertaking a study into scientific attitudes towards Neanderthals (how these have changed over time: 90s hulk to 00s sophisticate) as part of a wider investigation into the way scientists interpret their findings. In other words, looking into the often subjective nature of human ancestry. OK I'll say it...did you dig up some old memories?
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Boom boom... Interesting chat with her about this topic (not sasquatch but Neanderthal appearance and our perception of them). She recounted tales of her undergrad days when Neanderthal was still viewed as some drooling knuckle dragging oaf..this was in the 90s. The reality, as I and others here have been explaining, is so very different. We have shells with crushed pigment, we have crayons...it is only a matter of time before we find verifiable art by this species. They were indisputably human. They've suffered from terrible PR.
the parkie Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Yes, from everything I've read I agree. Out of interest have or would you discuss your interest in sasquatch with her, your colleagues or your wife?
See-Te-Cah NC Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 To the mods: I know I'm walking a tightrope here in this post and I've tried to use the verbiage that you have used in one particular earlier thread. So, if I've fallen off that rope, please forgive me and edit this post accordingly. Sincerely, Coonbo It's my opinion that you've done an excellent job describing possible human/Sasquatch interactions.
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Boom boom... Interesting chat with her about this topic (not sasquatch but Neanderthal appearance and our perception of them). She recounted tales of her undergrad days when Neanderthal was still viewed as some drooling knuckle dragging oaf..this was in the 90s. The reality, as I and others here have been explaining, is so very different. We have shells with crushed pigment, we have crayons...it is only a matter of time before we find verifiable art by this species. They were indisputably human. They've suffered from terrible PR. Well, again, sounds like the push, the agenda, to make them ''equal'' to Cro-Magnon, and therefore, modern man. Really, the love affair with what would be described as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, seems to be the new holy grail amongst those promoting intensive navel-gazing fluffy thinking and promoting the fallacy of ''equality'', INSTEAD of Diversity, which itself means, Different. Well, yes they sprinkled flowers on the dead, and had low symbolism. But they were creatures of the ice age, and would not have adapted well to the loss of the large animals they hunted. The Ice age shaped them, and it would mainly have demanded brutish behavior on a constant basis, because they would have been largely meat eaters, and the animals at the time, were much NASTIER than they are today, requiring more testosterone, more brutish, thuggish behavior. Pleistocene was ROUGH. No tea and crumpets for the Thals, none at all. Yes, our cousins, our brutish, thuggish cousins. The tripesters can try to chip away at the reality, but they were NOT the equal of modern man, and even with all the pressure to make them equal, which is quite bizarre in itself, I seriously doubt the square peg is going to fit into the round hole on this one. And given comparison to modern human groups, we can, like it or not, roughly determine comparative IQ for Neanderthal, which would be in the low 60's most probably. Maybe your Cambridge friend can put on his expensive thinking cap and elaborate on comparative IQ of Neanderthal with the given evidence, and his competitor. I'm sure he will spout knowledge and insight, like a beacon of light, and we will all be the greater for it. Edited June 2, 2014 by See-Te-Cah NC 2 B
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) To continue my references to people that those outside of the UK will never have heard of, a few years ago British TV personality, and one time 'housewives favourite', Alan Titchmarsh branched out from his usual gardening shows and made a series about British natural history. In one of the programs, he was made up to look how a Neanderthal was thought to look and walked down London's busy Oxford St to see if anyone noticed anything unusual...I don't think he had more than a few cursory glances. MrT.jpg The head would be larger, the eyes would be larger, the skull would be smaller, he would look WAY more freakish and he would be more muscled, and grunt at the girls, and would get really angry when people would ask for money when he wanted 10 hot dogs, and dent the hot dog cart with his fist. Again, the push to make them just like you, is fine. But he ain't just like me bro', if that's what you want to be. This nonsense is self-degrading unicorn stuff. THEY WERE NOT MODERN HUMANS, THEY WERE WELL MUSCLED THICK BONED AND THICK HEADED. They would NOT be compatible with modern humans. If they were the same, then they would not have been killed off, and they did not 'die out' they were killed off in Spain, by OUR ancestors. That was the last of them. Repeat, our CRO-MAGNON ANCESTORS KILLED THEM OFF. OUR ANCESTORS, AND NEANDERTHALS, WERE DIFFERENT ENOUGH THAT THEY COULD NOT SIT AROUND THE CAMPFIRE LIKE GOOD FRIENDS, AND CO-OPERATE, in the end. NOPE, THEY WENT TO WAR, WITH SPEARS AND ROCKS. NEANDERTHAL LOST, BECAUSE THEY WERE LESS MENTALLY DEVELOPED. Edited June 2, 2014 by See-Te-Cah NC 2 B
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Bizarrely, and somewhat ironically, you and I both have literally no idea what you are on about.
Recommended Posts