This Is A Neanderthal.

[JDL]

With regard to cached bones of extant hominids preserved in museums.  It wouldn't surprise me if they were set aside as "anomalous".  It would also not surprise me if, upon collection of a type specimen, a number of collections respond with, "Oh?  I think we have one of those back here."

 

Anomalous classification is an easy way to set inconvenient evidence and data aside in order to proceed with a favored theory.

[Guest Stan Norton]

My personal opinion (please correct me if I'm off) against BF-Neanderthal theory is that it of it's reported behaviour. It would seem that the species would have to had taken a major technological nosedive.

In the blink of an eye from when they were happily wandering around Eurasia to present day, they have lost their ability make and use tools that took them tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years to learn. (Unless they keep them starched somewhere)

Also in this time, they have nearly doubled in height. (Not to mention all of the other, sometimes unusual, traits BF are associated with)

As for IQ, please inform me if I'm wrong in my thought process (everyday is a schoolday) but it would that Neanderthals with better at thinking 'inside the box' with evidence of much more advanced stone tool making practices. Whereas sapiens didn't have the need to develop such techniques due to thinking 'outside the box' (atlatl etc)

CC

 

Yes, you're absolutely correct. Nothing about purported sasquatch appearance or behaviour matches what we know about Neanderthals. Neanderthals were a human species, able to interbreed with our ancestors...according to one species concept this makes us one species anyway.

 

Not sure we can, or if it is even helpful to, speculate about how 'in the box' they were: that argument is so coloured by our own preconceptions and prejudices. We can say that Neanderthals were very intelligent and sophisticated, just like us. 

[Doc Holliday]

sophisticated indeed, in fact >>

[Wheellug]

I can't imagine modern bigfoot descending from neanderthal. 

If neanderthal were truly toolmakers, it was beneficial to their development and this should not have been lost. 

Just as some people who suggest modern humans revert back to some beast if they are feral, it doesn't happen.  Feral children suffered a social learning and did not turn into some hairy beasts. 

Size, as mentioned above, should not increase so quickly even if you used Darwinian logic. 

I do see similarities on the suggested bone structure as it is also of bi-pedal origin and the chest of Neanderthal appears to be closer related to Gorilla in that they both are triangular shaped. 

Modern human has, at least to me, has a closer link to neanderthal then say the  modern chimp which is only a few percentages away from matching us. 

Edited June 22, 2014 by Wheellug

[Guest Divergent1]

Perhaps there was an earlier contributor to the Neanderthal line that hasn't been discovered yet either in the fossil record or in tracing back the genetic line through DNA looking for statistical evidence of a missing link? I can see some similarity in reported Sasquatch behaviors and what anthropologists extrapolate from Neanderthal camp sites:

 

No evidence of the use of clothing

No art work

No evidence of future planning ( food storage)

Foot shape

Reticence to make contact with strangers

No definitive roles for family members ( they all hunted)

 

And the list could go on, another difference between Neanderthals and modern HS is the amount of time it took for children to mature. There is evidence that the Neanderthal brain was fully grown and formed at age 4 which indicates a short life span. Modern HS brains are still forming at age 21, who knows how this relates to bigfoot, but that is an extreme difference in one so closely related genetically to modern day humans.

[SWWASAS]

Divergent I may be misreading your post, but Neanderthal wore skin clothing,  made cave art,  and new research shows they ate plant materials which implies storage, even cooking plants in some cases.   Reluctance to contact other species,  and roles of family members are just guesses and cannot be supported with significant data I am aware of.     So evidence exists that Neanderthals are just as different from BF as we are.   

[Guest]

^^^Everything I know about scientists, science and museums says your dad is correct.  What was his specialty and where did he teach?

 

I should add that a "cover-up" needs have no other explanation than this:  we just aren't mentally prepared to accept that possibility.  So we won't.

DWA, In my opinion we will be disclosing that America has an "ape" species that lives here, and has always been here all over the  North American continent. The species is very stealthy, and rightfully avoid humans at all costs. Some are peaceful, some aren't. The public **NEEDS** to know what could be facing them when hiking and camping. I pray that disclosure is close to help protect the innocent unaware and naive humans who happily hike and camp with no idea of the possible dangers they are facing.  

^^^Everything I know about scientists, science and museums says your dad is correct.  What was his specialty and where did he teach?

 

I should add that a "cover-up" needs have no other explanation than this:  we just aren't mentally prepared to accept that possibility.  So we won't.

My dad had  Ph.Ds in Pharmacy and Botany which are the plants that we made many of our medicines out of before chemistry replaced a lot of our floras as medicines. Dad knew his plants, and would hike pointing them out to us with both of their names..

We, as kids, toured many museums with my parents, and my dad would say that skull is not what they say it is, it could be a Sasquatch skull. As a kid and young man my dad hiked and camped, he believed in Sasquatch, and  he shared his beliefs with me.

"Stan, Amen to the "animal camp". I too believe that the Sasquatch *are* animals, smart animals, but still animals. "

Are we not all animals in a way, did we not live like animals at on time. At one time in our human existence we ate raw meat and scavenge what we could. Now we are more civilized , we have learned to live what we perceive to be civil. These creatures are like us, that have a way to live . Even if they have not advanced like us it does not mean they do not live like us. They have the same needs as we would need if we were living the same as them. So I would call them more of some branch of our ancesters which when proven will show.

SB, I sincerely think that you have been "brainwashed" some how:)

 Humans have always gathered into groups for protection, shelter, and continuation of the species. The Sasquatch have not advanced, they do not form societies, I have heard of small family groups with a female, male and infant, but never of large groups supporting each other within their species.

[Guest]

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.       

Plus one for you from me, and well said my friend:) Disclosure could mean their survival if they are protected from being hunted. However, my main concern is protecting naive innocent humans who camp and hike with absolutely no idea of the potential dangers they could face in our woodlands, and for me, that is just wrong. People need to know **WHAT** exactly is sharing the woodlands with them.

My kids do not believe me, they hike and camp with no idea of the potential dangers they **could** face while hiking and camping in deep woods.

We took them camping as kids, we shared our love of the outdoors with them, and now I cannot convince them that there are things that "Go BUMP in the night" that could really harm them. They cannot accept my sighting of a "Dogman" as being real:( 

[SWWASAS]

If my kids don't believe they have been polite enough not to say anything.       I said I wanted to take my grandson out to do field work when he was old enough and my son had a look of horror.     He asked me if I wanted to use him for bait.   So I guess he believes me.   

 

I suspect that if your kids are active outdoors eventually they will either have an encounter or have a situation that makes them wonder if there might be something out there like you have told them.     Most people who are active outdoors who do finally have an experience, start thinking back and realize they have probably been around BF several times in the past but just blew it off as something else at the time.    So hopefully they will come around for you at some point.     

[Guest]

Thank you Swwasasquatchproject:  I hope so also, and I hope they believe before something scary or dangerous happens to them.

Edited June 23, 2014 by SweetSusiq

[Guest Divergent1]

Divergent I may be misreading your post, but Neanderthal wore skin clothing,  made cave art,  and new research shows they ate plant materials which implies storage, even cooking plants in some cases.   Reluctance to contact other species,  and roles of family members are just guesses and cannot be supported with significant data I am aware of.     So evidence exists that Neanderthals are just as different from BF as we are.   

I may have misread the post, but there is some ambiguity around the dates for modern HS /Neanderthal occupation of cave sites where tools for leather preparation have been found, likewise with the artwork. I favor the opinion that each borrowed skills from the other, but I also have my own theories regarding cognition. I don't think modern HS had much ability in the way of abstract reasoning prior to their first encounter with Neanderthal's, although they may have have been more curious and adaptable. I think they differed with Neanderthal in lifestyle in that they were herdsmen. As they moved north with the climate looking for greener pastures, their herds were easy pickings for the Neanderthal hunters. That might have been one scenario for how the first encounter happened.

 

I believe it was that hybridization event that gave modern HS that cognitive adaptation abstract reasoning that led to the ability of symbolic representation in artwork/ creativity and invention/ belief systems, etc...There is evidence that later Neanderthal's, with some modern features suggesting hybridization, did adopt jewelry making and other arts/craftsmanship attributed to modern HS that back my assumption. The caves with the earliest examples of artwork came after modern HS would have had opportunities to mingle with Neanderthal communities and these ancient examples of cave paintings are also in those areas where occupation between the two species fluctuated over thousands of years.

 

Assuming bigfoot exists, what if it's a different version from those same hybridization events that didn't get the same combination of genes that we did? It's a big "maybe". I'm willing to admit that I might be a seeing a pattern of behavior and physical descriptions for bigfoot that agrees with what is extrapolated from Neanderthal skull morphology that simply isn't there in reality. .

[southernyahoo]

Yes, you're absolutely correct. Nothing about purported sasquatch appearance or behaviour matches what we know about Neanderthals. Neanderthals were a human species, able to interbreed with our ancestors...according to one species concept this makes us one species anyway.

 

Not sure we can, or if it is even helpful to, speculate about how 'in the box' they were: that argument is so coloured by our own preconceptions and prejudices. We can say that Neanderthals were very intelligent and sophisticated, just like us.

 

I agree that it is hard to separate species into two if they can interbreed. This is the whole problem when there should be another DNA profile out there , yet is more elusive than bigfoot itself. The problem with that bolded part is that they should have picked up our technology and ran with it, but apparently didn't?  Why couldn't they get along with us and assimilate?

[Guest]

I may have misread the post, but there is some ambiguity around the dates for modern HS /Neanderthal occupation of cave sites where tools for leather preparation have been found, likewise with the artwork. I favor the opinion that each borrowed skills from the other, but I also have my own theories regarding cognition. I don't think modern HS had much ability in the way of abstract reasoning prior to their first encounter with Neanderthal's, although they may have have been more curious and adaptable. I think they differed with Neanderthal in lifestyle in that they were herdsmen. As they moved north with the climate looking for greener pastures, their herds were easy pickings for the Neanderthal hunters. That might have been one scenario for how the first encounter happened.

 

I believe it was that hybridization event that gave modern HS that cognitive adaptation abstract reasoning that led to the ability of symbolic representation in artwork/ creativity and invention/ belief systems, etc...There is evidence that later Neanderthal's, with some modern features suggesting hybridization, did adopt jewelry making and other arts/craftsmanship attributed to modern HS that back my assumption. The caves with the earliest examples of artwork came after modern HS would have had opportunities to mingle with Neanderthal communities and these ancient examples of cave paintings are also in those areas where occupation between the two species fluctuated over thousands of years.

 

Assuming bigfoot exists, what if it's a different version from those same hybridization events that didn't get the same combination of genes that we did? It's a big "maybe". I'm willing to admit that I might be a seeing a pattern of behavior and physical descriptions for bigfoot that agrees with what is extrapolated from Neanderthal skull morphology that simply isn't there in reality. .

Well said Divergent1, and a plus 1 from me to you. BTW, welcome to the forum, I sincerely believe that you will add a lot of good ideas and info to the BFF!    I also saw a BF type creature, but "my" creature had a snout, so I saw either a Dogman or a wolfman, I truly don't know what the difference may be between the 2 types, or if there is any difference between them:( 

Hugs to you from me....Susi 

Edited June 25, 2014 by SweetSusiq

[Guest Divergent1]

It looks like they did pick up some of our craft/technology in some respects. The Neanderthal were built with less range of motion in their upper arms and they were unable to adapt to throwing spears for long distances, this might have been true for other things that they didn't pick up from HS.

[southernyahoo]

There does seem to be some reports of bigfoot throwing rocks overhanded and not just underhanded pitching, so that might be telling if Neanderthal had trouble with that.