Yuchi1 Posted April 27, 2016 Posted April 27, 2016 Once you observe one in a frontal view the eyes may well present the image of total hatred, if you've caught it in an awkward moment.
ShadowBorn Posted April 27, 2016 Moderator Posted April 27, 2016 This is what Neanderthals looked like based on scientific reconstructions....they are basically Human. Contrast this photo with the PGF. Keeping in mind Patty represents the HYBRID, and not the Paternal line like with the Neanderthals. The Neanderthals look MORE HUMAN than the "half human" Patty..... Norse, I swear I'm not arguing against you for the sake of arguing, but there have been other renditions that look nothing like these. I have read articles, National Geographic, and all the rest for years that basically said, "Give a Neanderthal a shave and a haircut, and he could pass unnoticed on the streets of New York." That is a load of manure. That is anthromorphism, or a tendency to make something that doesn't look like us - look like us. In this case, it's just dishonest. The Neanderthal eyes were so much higher on the head, strong protruding brows, and their eyes were 20% larger than human eyes - indicating they would be more successful as a primarily nocturnal hunter. Then, their entire skeletal features were much, much more powerful and much more robust. These things were brutes. When I see human muscle tone, with a human face, I just feel that is a most dishonest portrayal of what these things looked like. One guy started with a clean sheet of paper. Danny Vendramini delved into this and his determinations were much different than traditional "transitional species" work by mainstream anthropologists. In his rather eye-opening book, THEM + US, one can see clearly that he tried to approach the task with unbiased honesty. He had the same skulls and the same skeletal remains addressed from a viewpoint as to not bias appearances from a more gentle human standpoint, but to apply anthropological science to the bones and skulls. He had renowned sculptor Arturo Balseiro laser scan the skulls and use NP theory and the latest computer technology to generate a new reconstruction. Gentlemen, at least have a look at some of the things proposed in THEM + US, the renditions, and many of the determinations made by the author. We may not agree with all of them, but it will enable one to approach the problem from a completely different angle, and at least be aware that there is another, equally possible range of differences. Look at the skulls and then the facial presentations by Vendramini, and compare the skull and facial presentations supplied by those others who want them to look more human. Then. Look at the Vendramini presentations and compare to what you've seen in the field. I think the truth is somewhere in between mainstream and the Vendramini presentation. Fararcher See that is just the thing that I cannot stay silent about, History says one thing while facts says another thing. Yet, we go by what history says and not what the facts are saying. This is what does not make sense to me and should not make sense to anyone of us. Why are we accepting history rather then the facts thats says the Native americans were here frist in the Northern Americas, But yet it was by Discovery. Is this right? in my view it is not and should be corrected. If there were Humans here in North America before it's discovery then History has been rewritten already. It is a raw deal and should be changed, but at the same time if these creatures are real which we both know they are. Then the proper owners of this land is theirs and thats if they were here before us Humans. As it stands all rights are on paper and as far as paper goes it can be burned and to these creatures it means nothing to them. Yet, at one time there was war with these creatures and why? was it for land that the Native Americans wanted since there was more game on those lands. Is this the reason that humans had to move further north and wes. Was it for the game that was needed to survive as a hUMAN SPECIES AS WELL AS BEING ABLE TO PLANT. Which by the way how did we require these skills? Who taught us these skills that we can plant and watch them grow? This stuff just did not just pop into our heads? We must have observed this some where from some one. It is not like we ate an apple and watch a seed drop to the ground and seen that it grew? Right ! Do see where I am going with this. Am I crazy to think like this or should I just stop and forget. I saw what you saw and more and it question my mind all the time , just like what I have experience in the Military. What bothers me is that I have no idea what it is and yet i want to really know. How do you deal with this question ? What is the answer. You know the answer, Right !
ShadowBorn Posted April 27, 2016 Moderator Posted April 27, 2016 Human DNA tracking. Where we came from at the start and how we ended up where we are at. DNA does not lie and it shows fact's, that we all can agree on. Why do these sightings only show up in these area's that I have mention, but not in the European side. Why are there only Neandratholl in Europe? but not in North America? But yet we have a large some thing that might have Human DNA in it running around in our National Forest. So some thing is up with that, would you not say? Am I screwed up and am I the only one who see's this ? Our whole history is wrong on how North America was discovered and should be changed ? If one of these creatures is killed imagine how much more things will change then and how far will it go to keep them a secret. If they are any part Human then rights would have to be established and I can see how that would go. A lot to think about is there not?
FarArcher Posted April 27, 2016 Posted April 27, 2016 Well, with eyes 20% larger than ours, I'd say that's a mighty big indicator that they excelled at night work in comparison to us. There was one thing that stood out to me when I saw that critter - and it was how high on the head his eyes were. I mean, on up there where our forehead is. We certainly don't have enough Neanderthal gene in us to prove or disprove that Neanderthal had cat eyes, but I likewise would think this is unlikely, and besides, cat eyes are not needed when your eyes themselves are so much larger. It's possible humans were primarily diurnal, and Neanderthal were primarily nocturnal - to take advantage of the characteristics nature gave them. They were much heavier and much more robust than us - again, giving them different capabilities than we had. Shadowborn, I think anthropologists don't know as much as they postulate - which is why they have to keep backing up and changing their minds on who belongs where, and who went where, and when. And the Out of Africa may be blown out of the water by the Petrolona Skull. We don't know half of what we think we know. Every time these experts come up with a timeline, a later discovery blows that timeline and all the accompanying assumptions out of the water. The alternative is to ignore newer findings. Norse, that's exactly what I said as well. Didn't need cat eyes when round eyes are so much larger. We agree on this.
Yuchi1 Posted April 27, 2016 Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) Relic hominid, Ape, Monster, et. al. are labels applied in the attempt to sequester this enigma into a controlled narrative for human society. What if BF lives the way it does not because of (human perceived) cerebral limitations but because BF chooses to live that way? If so, what does that say for their actual intelligence level and how does that speak to ours? Take away our germs, guns and steel and what do you have? BF "smarter" than we are? Say it ain't so! However, humans disappear in the woods (aka: 411) on a regular basis, yet how many BF have we caught/killed/abducted lately? Edited April 27, 2016 by Yuchi1
FarArcher Posted April 27, 2016 Posted April 27, 2016 Shadow, I've been criticized for being "anti-science," and in a number of ways it may appear to be that way, but I'm really not. I'm just saying that many conclusions that paleoanthropologists make are based on very flimsy evidence, and that as new discoveries are made, we find them always having to back up, turn around, and go backward or forward and have to strain to cobble together another scenario. This Out-Of-Africa narrative. All the ancient hominoid fossils have been found in only two regions of Africa - which just coincidentally happens to be geologically favorable to find old fossils. Just because someone finds dinosaur bones in Mongolia and the Western US doesn't mean they originated in Mongolia and the Western US. Then, we have the paleoanthropologists at odds with DNA scientists. So does one trust in DNA, mitochondrial science, or do we trust those who dig, guess at what era the exposed surface bones belonged in, and what they are and where they fit? One side has specific DNA science, the other has small piles of bones and a lot of guessing. The Laetoli footprints were determined to be real footprints left long, long ago. But a very, VERY large (4-5 times the size of a modern human) human-type footprint is also in rock - on Gower's Mountain in the Cleveland National Forest. But this is considered anomalous. A number of human tracks have been found in the Cretaceous limestone near Glen Rose, Texas, but they too, are anomalous and disregarded. Thirteen 22-inch tracks, with a four to five foot stride were found near Alamagordo NM, and they're disregarded. A very defined shoe track, 16 inches long from toe to heel was found IN ROCK, and dated to 10-20 million years old - likewise anomalous and to be disregarded. Either geologists cannot date rocks and strata with any degree of accuracy - or we have another problem. 1
SWWASAS Posted April 27, 2016 BFF Patron Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) Valid theories have to fit evidence found in rocks and strata or strata dating is just a bunch of geological hocus pocus. Like you I feel the tendency to disregard anomalies that do not fit the theories means we are dealing with dogma rather than science. If something does not fit the strata theories, it is discarded and ignored. There are many more enigmas than you detail. Strata dating has problems because of such anomalies. Africa is basically a very stable continent and some of the oldest rock on earth. It has drifted and banged around between the other continents relatively unscathed by tectonic forces. No wonder it is great place to find fossils and just because we have, it is not direct evidence that all humanity originated there. The Americas on the Pacific RIng of Fire is being ground on from below by the Pacific Crust, constantly flooded by lava from above from volcanoes all along the West Coast,the mid continent thrust up folded, metamorphosed and deformed by the Rocky mountains, the mid continent is frequently submerged by inland seas, and the once majestic Adirondack mountains of the East coast have weathered down to a fraction of what they were. Northern Canada has some very old rock but it has been covered with ice most of Earths non molten history. Throw in ice ages grinding down the Northern latitudes every 65,000 years or so, and the rising and falling of ocean levels, and the Americas are a messy place to find fossils. The only thing we might conclude based on African strata evidence is that the present crop of humans probably originated there. Were there other developmental runs of humanoid creatures on the planet before that, the evidence of which are found in some of these strata anomalies? Would that explain some of these enigmas? It is not limited to footprints. Fabricated metal objects have been found in strata far earlier than known existence of humanity. That means strata dating is false, real human history is unknown, or we have been visited by aliens who left metal things. Take your pick. Some choices are right and some are wrong but strict adherence to strata dating and human history seem to be in conflict. Bipedalism is not limited to present day humans but was so common in the hundreds of millions of years of the age of the dinosaurs that it has to have some sort of evolutionary advantage. If then and now, why not before? Just wondering?. Edited April 27, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
norseman Posted April 27, 2016 Admin Author Posted April 27, 2016 Well, with eyes 20% larger than ours, I'd say that's a mighty big indicator that they excelled at night work in comparison to us. There was one thing that stood out to me when I saw that critter - and it was how high on the head his eyes were. I mean, on up there where our forehead is. We certainly don't have enough Neanderthal gene in us to prove or disprove that Neanderthal had cat eyes, but I likewise would think this is unlikely, and besides, cat eyes are not needed when your eyes themselves are so much larger. It's possible humans were primarily diurnal, and Neanderthal were primarily nocturnal - to take advantage of the characteristics nature gave them. They were much heavier and much more robust than us - again, giving them different capabilities than we had. Shadowborn, I think anthropologists don't know as much as they postulate - which is why they have to keep backing up and changing their minds on who belongs where, and who went where, and when. And the Out of Africa may be blown out of the water by the Petrolona Skull. We don't know half of what we think we know. Every time these experts come up with a timeline, a later discovery blows that timeline and all the accompanying assumptions out of the water. The alternative is to ignore newer findings. Norse, that's exactly what I said as well. Didn't need cat eyes when round eyes are so much larger. We agree on this. No, that is your quote. I linked you to the Neanderthal genome wiki article. We know for a fact that they did not have cat eyes. They have extracted Neanderthal DNA from bone directly. That is HOW they know that we have Neanderthal DNA in us.....
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 27, 2016 Posted April 27, 2016 (edited) Or this... All this guy is missing is a sagital crest and more facial hair. His brain is probably much bigger than Sasquatch but very similar our brain size (or Neanderthal). He does have a recessive forehead and chin but has a more pronounced neck than a Neanderthal or more primitive Hominid (obviously the guy is human, but I bet he has a lot of "sumthin sumthin"). Read Homo Erectus or Neanderthal or something similar and we are not talking about 3 or four genes, either. Edited April 27, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
norseman Posted April 27, 2016 Admin Author Posted April 27, 2016 There are plenty of modern humans that have archaic skulls.
bipedalist Posted April 28, 2016 BFF Patron Posted April 28, 2016 (edited) Red deer cave people, that is all! http://m.phys.org/news/2015-12-bone-red-deer-cave-people.html http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12408 Edited April 28, 2016 by bipedalist
Incorrigible1 Posted April 28, 2016 Posted April 28, 2016 Shadow, I've been criticized for being "anti-science," and in a number of ways it may appear to be that way, but I'm really not. I'm just saying that many conclusions that paleoanthropologists make are based on very flimsy evidence, and that as new discoveries are made, we find them always having to back up, turn around, and go backward or forward and have to strain to cobble together another scenario. This Out-Of-Africa narrative. All the ancient hominoid fossils have been found in only two regions of Africa - which just coincidentally happens to be geologically favorable to find old fossils. Just because someone finds dinosaur bones in Mongolia and the Western US doesn't mean they originated in Mongolia and the Western US. Then, we have the paleoanthropologists at odds with DNA scientists. So does one trust in DNA, mitochondrial science, or do we trust those who dig, guess at what era the exposed surface bones belonged in, and what they are and where they fit? One side has specific DNA science, the other has small piles of bones and a lot of guessing. The Laetoli footprints were determined to be real footprints left long, long ago. But a very, VERY large (4-5 times the size of a modern human) human-type footprint is also in rock - on Gower's Mountain in the Cleveland National Forest. But this is considered anomalous. A number of human tracks have been found in the Cretaceous limestone near Glen Rose, Texas, but they too, are anomalous and disregarded. Thirteen 22-inch tracks, with a four to five foot stride were found near Alamagordo NM, and they're disregarded. A very defined shoe track, 16 inches long from toe to heel was found IN ROCK, and dated to 10-20 million years old - likewise anomalous and to be disregarded. Either geologists cannot date rocks and strata with any degree of accuracy - or we have another problem. Shut the front door! Alluding to young earth? Really? SMH What next, great flood? Cmon. 1
MIB Posted April 28, 2016 Moderator Posted April 28, 2016 However, humans disappear in the woods (aka: 411) on a regular basis, yet how many BF have we caught/killed/abducted lately? Bigfoot is not, at least for the most part, responsible for the Missing 411. What gets us also gets them. Ponder that for a while. MIB 1
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 28, 2016 Posted April 28, 2016 If all the scientists are wrong, another words all those with advanced degrees, experience, knowledge and hundreds of millions of hours of study, insight, and a record developing an intellectual range on a subject they specialize and study. The question is who is right? Those who do not study, do not research, have a poorly trained intellect, no track record, and are anti intellectual? It would be nice. However scientists debate and argue much more than you (the hypothetical you) do, because the more you know, the more you know you don't know and the more questions requiring debate arise as opinions are formed on new subjects and old beliefs are overturned on the arrival of new evidence. The anti intellectuals never reach that level, they just say science is B.S. and what ever pet theory of the day drives the discussion of a depth of one inch or so, Aliens, niburu, giants, demons, conspiracies, paranoia, delusion, misinformation. Just like what you get on the internet, all heat and no light. Learn how to learn and then you don;t have to attack "science" you (the hypothetical you, again) can attack your own ignorance instead. Bad science or wrong science is only that, incompetence, turf wars, ignorance, conformism dominate in all areas of human life. But with science you get to use a flashlight. With the internet of recieved popular wisdom you get mud (and cats and ponies, oh my!). A smart guy can waste a lot of time knocking science. A smart guy who learns the a scientific method, logic, math, science can actually have a positive effect. You know, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Hawkings, Einstein. Not everyone needs to rediscover the wheel.
Recommended Posts