Guest Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 While I don't think that there is any chance that sasquatch, bigfoot are relic neanderthals, I am also skeptical of artist's conceptions or reconstructions of anything we only have bones of. There is really no way to tell for sure what shape the nose was, how much hair covered the body or face, how big ears were, etc. There seems to be a trend lately of portraying anything homo erectus or later as being very human like. Anything earlier is portrayed as very apelike with nothing in between. There are just too many variables to say these reconstructions are 100% accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Well no-one said they're 100% accurate. They are the very best scientifically led representation though, based on EXPERT assessment of the bones (yes, it is possible to know what someone's nose looked like...) and latest DNA developments. So, no wild guess but a highly educated guess. As accurate as you would hope e.g. the police forensics would be when reconstructing the face of a skeletal murder victim: those have often assisted in jogging memories. Are we really expecting absolute infallibility from this or perhaps might we be best accepting that some scientists really do know what they're doing in this respect, within certain understandable limits? It's like the anti sasquatch debate in reverse... I have been to Altamira. They made us walk in with headlamps with all the lights turned off. Then, when everyone was present they illuminated the ceiling of the area I believe they called the cathedral. It was spell-binding to be sure. We had to have special permission from the government to be admitted. At that time they had determined that the human respiration was causing lichen to grow on the walls and eat the paintings themselves. Obviously the "paint" was animal blood and charcoal so it was vulnerable to the lichen. I will never forget the experience. Lucky you! I saw the reconstruction of Altamira a decade or so ago...even that was cool. The best sites I ever saw were in the Vezere valley near Les Eyzies-de-Tayac. Font du Gaume was incredible...animals dancing across the cave walls. Glad I saw that....truly a bucket list moment. Edited June 2, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 The ecological niches able to be filled by an intelligent upright thinking Homo are not endless Hi Stan. I know you 're way more qualified to speak on this subject than I am..... but..... can you name an ecological nitche that hasn't been exploited by an intellegent homo? (north and south pole excluded). The problem I have with pic in the OP is: big head, skinny neck. It makes it appear very goofy looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Don't count on that qualified thing! What I meant is that both sapiens and neandertalensis are medium sized upright terrestrial omnivores with an ability to manufacture objects to assist in procurement of resources. Whilst both are very adaptable, the fact remains that they fill a specific niche...and it's a dead cert that both exerted restrictions on the other through competition..ideal vs realised niche...the overlap with other species is great but (and this seems trite I know) we ain't cats, dogs, birds or reptiles...We fit into a box and it's not boundless. You are right in that now we are lords of the planet we have been able to fulfil our ideal niche in most habitats give or take a few exceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Which brings up an interesting point, Stan........ People claim a Squatch is as intelligent as we are if not more so, and that they live like animals because they choose to. To have the ability to be the lord of the planet and turn your back on things like, fire, shelter, clothes.........and not to mention chocolate, the light bulb, the hot tub, the automobile, the cheese burger, etc etc etc........ I've never seen it work that way in the natural world. Bear cannot create marshmallows..............but they choose them every time over berries or carrion or fish. And if they had the ability to make marshmallows they would have complete Bear factories in the woods creating them, of this I have no doubt. A Bear's sweet tooth is insatiable! People see Squatch as some sort of forest dwelling Shaman, straight out of the movie Avatar. It's a popular theme with urban dwelling humans right now............getting back to nature and living in harmony with earth. And that's all fine and good, but it's also just human's projecting. If Sasquatch exists, it's not anywhere as smart as we were, otherwise if they were smarter, we would be the ones peering out through the trees at the lights of town. Not them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Agreed Stan and thanks for the reply. I'm not sure how many ecological niches our homo ancestors filled but to keep things on topic and maintain the kiss method (keep-it-simple-silly) I'll agree that as far as we know now, Neandertals did live in a specific ecological niche. But as we all know, this is always subject to revision when, and if, new information comes to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Again, Norse, you're right. The forest people thing is beyond me. Neanderthals were not forest people...heck none of our ancestors were kindly forest folk. Everything credible I've ever read about sasquatch points to an animal not Homo. If somebody wants to provide some evidence of gifting and the like, well....until then? I'm in the animal camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 2, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 2, 2014 People claim a Squatch is as intelligent as we are if not more so, and that they live like animals because they choose to. To have the ability to be the lord of the planet and turn your back on things like, fire, shelter, clothes.........and not to mention chocolate, the light bulb, the hot tub, the automobile, the cheese burger, etc etc etc........ I've never seen it work that way in the natural world. Bear cannot create marshmallows..............but they choose them every time over berries or carrion or fish. And if they had the ability to make marshmallows they would have complete Bear factories in the woods creating them, of this I have no doubt. A Bear's sweet tooth is insatiable! A friend of mine saw a BF hiking a ridge at 11,000 feet in western Canada in early March a few years ago. Of course that is above the treeline and there was snow. He said the airplane instruments indicated that the outside temperature was about -10 F. Clearly fire, shelter and clothes are things it does not need as it is adapted to its environment. We humans are not- instead we favored our ability to use our brains to adapt which arrested our morphology. IOW what I am saying is most of what you mention in the post above may not be motivators for such a creature. The fact that we have made these things does not preclude us as the smartest critters, instead we made those things to deal with the fact that we don't fit in as well. Worked pretty good too... at the same time though I would not make the assumption that BF is any more or less smart. Its an unknown. But one thing is sure- their ability to stay off the radar as well as they have suggests they know a thing or two... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I'm in the hybrid/evolutionary convergence animal camp myself. I base my conjecture on what science has discovered and the reported behavior and physical description of the subject in question. No, Sasquatch, as far as I can tell, is not a relic Neanderthal population that eludes detection to this day. One more thing, covered in hair and fire use doesn't mix. Just because a sas doesn't use fire isn't exactly a reflection of their overall level of intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 A friend of mine saw a BF hiking a ridge at 11,000 feet in western Canada in early March a few years ago. Of course that is above the treeline and there was snow. He said the airplane instruments indicated that the outside temperature was about -10 F. Clearly fire, shelter and clothes are things it does not need as it is adapted to its environment. We humans are not- instead we favored our ability to use our brains to adapt which arrested our morphology. IOW what I am saying is most of what you mention in the post above may not be motivators for such a creature. The fact that we have made these things does not preclude us as the smartest critters, instead we made those things to deal with the fact that we don't fit in as well. Worked pretty good too... at the same time though I would not make the assumption that BF is any more or less smart. Its an unknown. But one thing is sure- their ability to stay off the radar as well as they have suggests they know a thing or two... I disagree because I think you have it backwards. We make things easier for ourselves because we can! It's not that Squatch chooses NOT to produce the longer lasting light bulb because he can see well enough in the dark without assistance......... It's because he has never contemplated the longer lasting light bulb. If Sasquatch is a real entity? Then he has starved. He has froze to death. He has been attacked and killed by a grizzly bear. But he doesn't domesticate sheep and cows nor does he domesticate wheat or potatoes, so that he doesn't go hungry in lean times. Nor does he build teepees and fires to stay warm. Nor does he built weapons to defend himself with..........why? Because it's the same reason cattle graze in a circular fashion in a field.........it's what they do. They do not have the ability to contemplate anything else. No doubt about it that our species has grown soft, and this trend does not seem to be letting up. But let's not forget that our ancestors had none of these things. And yet through our wits and guile we persevered above the animal kingdom, becoming the hyper dominant species on the planet. And I'm positive that there were more than one Squatchy like species that got in our way and paid the price. Brains over brawn, we developed brains early on and used them to create things to make our lives easier and more comfortable and assured a better survival rate for our offspring. Something doesn't "choose" to live like an animal. Taking the "dirt road" makes for a great country song, but it just doesn't prove true in evolution........... Animals by my observation ALWAYS take the easiest route, they always go for the easy kill, they always cut corners if they can. Why? Because it's survival of the fittest, that's why..........getting a leg up on the competition is crucial to survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Define Hairy? European and Middle eastern men do seem to be more hairy than Asians or Africans. But I don't think Neanderthal's resembled a Gorilla in body hair. We know they made clothing, (which a Sasquatch does not seem to do) because of the tools we find associated with Thals. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/13/neanderthal-bone-tools It could also prove true and makes more sense to me..........that Neanderthals actually were more advanced in certain areas because they were on their own turf. And somehow this technology was transferred to Cro Magnon's coming out of Africa. As we see with the article above concerning bone tools. But some of the African Savannah technology made more sense in Ice age Europe than Thal technology did..........such as the throwing spear, and nomadic camps........versus the thrusting spear and living in caves. That article only suggests they might have been making sophisticated clothing because of some bones found that may have been used to work leather. They still don't have evidence of sewing. No needles. Define Hairy? More hairy than us generally, meaning thicker and longer on average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Why would you scrape hide to make leather then? You mean more hairy than this man? He would make for a pretty patchy Squatch............but would do better than "fine" for a Thal. IMO. Edited June 2, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Wax on. Wax off. Genes on. Genes off. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 He is kinda squatchy, and you're right in that we don't see Asians and Africans with hair like that, So it may well be a northern climate European thing. Perhaps a few hides thrown on like a poncho wasn't enough. Remember this guy isn't full blooded thal. I've heard of patchy squatches too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) JDL^^^^^^^^^^^ Allowing for variances within species and genus, absolutely. But a Muscovy Duck will never be a Merriam Turkey, despite the superficial resemblance. Edited June 2, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts