JDL Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 please don't get me wrong, I do actually hate soccer. Common ground. We both get a participation award.
Guest Divergent1 Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Neanderthal brain was larger than modern humans, therefore, he 'should have been' smarter. But clearly was not. Better adapted to colder climate large mammal hunting, yes... Brain size doesn't necessarily equate to something being smarter. If that were the case, elephants would have us beat on IQ tests. The difference lies in how the brain is hardwired or organized. The Neanderthal brain appears to be shaped differently than our modern day brain.
southernyahoo Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Yes back to the original post. I personally have been all over the place on BF capabilities. Some witnesses who seem credible and have frequent interaction, attribute near god like paranormal powers to BF but cannot produce a single bit of supporting evidence. To others it is a big dumb ape. Now that I am getting my own contact, and getting some data, the data and evidence I have to date does not support either extreme. BF are very adept in their environment. So much so that we as humans are at an extreme disadvantage in that environment. But animals like wolverines are too and are probably seen less frequently than BF is. Some BF seem to have a sense of humor. Some like to play and I think scaring humans time to time may be part of that. Glyphs of stick and rock suggests some level of intelligence but lack of tool, spear, arrowhead or fire use seems to indicate something missing that ancestral and modern humans have had for a very long time. Data and lack of artifacts suggest some creative or problem solving part of their brain must be very small or underdeveloped in comparison with humans. A species with near human capabilities should have progressed along with humans just by watching human development. That does not seem for have happened. The BF deity crowd would argue that they do not need that. They are perfectly adapted for their environment. But that environment is changing, habitat is disappearing, and I see nothing other than migration to compensate for it. Evidence does not seem to support adaptation. Deity BF would have made logging, and human presence in the woods too dangerous for humans to even be there and tried to protect their habitat. BF habitat would have been a human forbidden zone with humans disappearing in large numbers. Unless federal forest and BLM closed areas are evidence, that has not happened. For sure humans would have fought to protect their lands as did the Native Peoples. Or peaceful BF would have formed lines of protest and sat down in front of approaching logging equipment. That has not happened either. In the years I have been doing research, the once very active area in the 1990s, has been mostly clear cut and there is little cover left. Evidence suggests that BF can do or has done nothing but migrate out of the area to survive. Randy Just wanted to address the bolded parts SASProject, The only reason I can see that they wouldn't evolve on a similar path as we did is because they just don't mix well with us socially. We might well have driven them to their current status, with sheer numbers and a natural repulsion for one another. I think their brains may have adapted for greater memory. They would certainly be able to map more geography in their head, remember where resources are, recall more info from their encounters with all things in the world. Not sure if memory necessarily replaces creativity and social skills, but perhaps something to think about.
JDL Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 The perspective is entirely human centric. It assumes that the success of a sapient species is dependent upon it's ability to develop and use technology, and also assumes that technology is the only measure of sapience. It also defines "human" based on these constraints. I would submit that a non-technological approach can also be successfully pursued by a sapient species. Keep in mind that as we create technology that increases success, we also create vulnerabilities that increase failure when deprived of that technology. Drop 99% of the human race in the woods naked and they will not thrive. Put 99% of humans up against an aggressively competitive group of other humans willing to kill to survive, and they will not thrive. In fact, we create specialists within our society to protect us from such people. Deprive humans of food distribution, electricity, gas, and water, and many will die. Many more in cities than in rural areas. To say that I am superior because I can develop and use tools (which many people actually cannot), is little different than saying one is superior because one can be a Vegan. But, loss of tools is the short route between thriving and dying. And starvation is the short route between Vegan and cannibal. The more technologically successful we become, the more dependent upon our technology we become, and the less important physical weaknesses become. Something as simple as near-sightedness, once a major impediment to successful hunting and avoidance of danger (i.e., survival), is no longer an impediment to success, provided that you have access to, or can make, corrective lenses. But take the technology away and the simple weakness impedes your survival, and impedes your ability to pass on your genes through a selective mate. An additional measure of intelligence might be considered the ability to survive in a world humans dominate. Without speculating on their specific origin, Squatch certainly developed in tandem with us. They had to adapt strategies and find a niche that allowed them to survive in a world where we aggressively eliminate competitive threats. We're very good at exterminating our own and exterminating others. How smart does something have to be to adapt to that and survive? Permanent structures, fire, and recognizable tools left about are all evidence that a competing hominid is present, allowing the dominant hominid to detect, locate, and eliminate them. To coexist with us while simultaneously employing strategies of elusiveness and pilferage has to say something. Many of us feel like they are running circles around us when they want to in their environment, and in shared environments. In our environment they can't do that, but they can simply rip our heads off and return to theirs. How smart do they have to be to out-smart us? 4
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 JDL - Excellent Post - I especially like ...."...loss of tools is the short route between thriving and dying. And starvation is the short route between Vegan and cannibal."
SWWASAS Posted June 16, 2014 BFF Patron Posted June 16, 2014 I agree that take away power, gas, and other modern utilities and most humans would not survive. Some national disaster like a supervolcano eruption would probably kill most of us and BF would have a better chance for survival because they do that now on a daily basis without reliance on our technology. . Whales and animals are a good example of powerful sapient creatures that are well suited for their environment and can survive in the wild without technology but mankind has all but killed them to extinction with technology. In many ways we are doing the same thing to BF with taking away their habitat and shooting them now and then. Unless man is taken out of the equation, extinction of BF is probably inevitable. We seem to habit of doing that to species we encounter like the Neanderthal. So I think a lot of evidence points to that being the eventual fate of BF too, especially since it is not recognized by science and has no protection of law working for it.
the parkie Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I liked: "Keep in mind that as we create technology that increases success, we also create vulnerabilities that increase failure when deprived of that technology." George Carlin said that he thought humans were already 'circling the drain' as a species, and JDL's post reminds me of that quote. I often ponder humanity's existence with our depletion of the environment, reliance on technology and consumption of junk, and question whether it indeed is 'advanced'. That said, I am as reliant on technology and medicine (in particular painkillers) as anyone else. I guess a tipping point will be reached sooner rather than later.
david75090 Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Unless man is taken out of the equation, extinction of BF is probably inevitable. I read in a thread, on this very forum, that the extinction of BF has already occurred. That means, we can all move along. There's nothing to see here...
Cotter Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 I read in a thread, on this very forum, that the extinction of BF has already occurred. And you'll never get that time back! (and neither will I!) :-)
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 The difference with my field of expertise is that we could easily set up tests to determine who is correct. One of us would have reproducible results, the other would not, unless there were some variable in play that resulted in both of us being right, and then that could be reproducibly tested. Any way you look at it, I wouldn't be offended, which is another way of saying that I'm puzzled that anyone would be offended by an opposing viewpoint on this. For the record, I do certainly believe that due consideration of skull morphology is being trumped by wishful anthropomorphism. Also for the record, I don't think they looked like chimps, but I do believe, based on the skull morphology, that they did look much more distinctively different from humans than shown in the OP. Let me get this straight, you are saying that my assertion that it is a HUGE assumption that human facial reconstruction techniques can be applied to Neanderthal remains is "beneath me". I think it quite reasonable to point this out, and I would think it quite reasonable for someone to consider this in context, as Stan has done below. I don't recall ever saying that they were not a species of human, just that they probably looked distinctively different from us. They were certainly human enough to interbreed with us and shared many characteristics with us, and I completely agree with your last paragraph. We disagree only to a matter of degree. Nope, not in Idaho. Never lived there, but find much of the land there beautiful. I somehow got trapped in the greater Manhattan area several years ago and haven't been able to escape yet. I live in a small town near New York City, just small enough and far enough away to be an entirely different environment. My offices are midway between. New York, whew. I was afraid you were my brother-in-law. He's another military engineer who teaches at the Naval Academy and lectures others on their field of specialty. This is NOT my field of specialty, but reconstruction begins with the bones. Where the muscles and ligaments attached and how large they were. The guess work comes in things like skin pigment. Hair color comes from genes. So my problem is with you throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Most of the reconstruction work will look the same regardless of whether or not the people involved were homo-centric. Whether they had giant eyes set way up high comes from the bones, not from bias. As for them looking distinctly different from us...which us? Humans come in a huge variety and most of us recognize each other as equally human.
southernyahoo Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Getting back to the OP picture......... I think his mustache is shaven a little too close for flaked stone work. A long mustache might be a nuisance, but too risky to cut it that close. Any cuts could get infected. They were also suppose to be brutish and strong, but they made him look like a weakling. not the guy I would picture going up against large mammals with just a fat spear.
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Getting back to the OP picture......... I think his mustache is shaven a little too close for flaked stone work. A long mustache might be a nuisance, but too risky to cut it that close. Any cuts could get infected. They were also suppose to be brutish and strong, but they made him look like a weakling. not the guy I would picture going up against large mammals with just a fat spear. Well, I have an image of my wife and son standing next to him but I won't be posting that here. Suffice it to say that he is short and stocky, not big and brutish. Robust you could say, sturdy. I could see him being well up for some rough and tumble with a large beast, his low centre of gravity, high intelligence and probable fearless attitude making him a formidable predator. Not to mention that he'd be bringing a bunch of his mates along for the fight. I'd steer well clear! He may have got a friend to trim his facial hair. A flint flake is sharper than any modern razor by the way. The perfect tool for a shave in fact. And if you've ever had a go at knapping flint you'll know that cuts are all part of the process. Edited June 16, 2014 by Stan Norton
Doc Holliday Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 yes, these highly developed specimens always seem to sport a 5 o clock shadow
JDL Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 I agree that take away power, gas, and other modern utilities and most humans would not survive. Some national disaster like a supervolcano eruption would probably kill most of us and BF would have a better chance for survival because they do that now on a daily basis without reliance on our technology. . Whales and animals are a good example of powerful sapient creatures that are well suited for their environment and can survive in the wild without technology but mankind has all but killed them to extinction with technology. In many ways we are doing the same thing to BF with taking away their habitat and shooting them now and then. Unless man is taken out of the equation, extinction of BF is probably inevitable. We seem to habit of doing that to species we encounter like the Neanderthal. So I think a lot of evidence points to that being the eventual fate of BF too, especially since it is not recognized by science and has no protection of law working for it. Even simpler. A high altitude nuclear burst over the Eastern US would create an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse), that could knock out all unprotected electronics and electrical supply systems as if lightning were striking them all simultaneously up and down the coast. Car ignition systems and computers, aircraft electronics, power lines, refrigerators, freezers, unprotected back-up generators, pacemakers, cell phones, computers, and electric nose hair trimmers all fried, all at once, and most shot. Congress established an http://EMP Commission several years ago and they produced both a http://Critical National Infrastructure Report and an http://Executive Report. Expect to lose some sleep worrying if you read them. Both Iran and terrorist organizations have stated the intent to do this to us given the means. I predict that such an event would have little impact on bigfoot.
Recommended Posts