Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NatFoot

A "ghost population"

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
50 minutes ago, Old Time Lifter said:

Your earlier post though concerning height is somewhat reprieved by the following (though it's still Heidelbergensis and not Denisovans and it's 7' and not 8'.  But, I do thank you for your earlier post as it has led me to some interesting reading.  God bless!

 

According to Lee R. Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand, tibia and femora remains indicate that populations of H. heidelbergensis between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago were routinely over 2.13 m (7 ft) tall. According to him, this was a short-lived experiment that lasted during a grassland expansion, which lead to very large ungulates and antelopes.

 

Modern humans can grow to almost 9 feet tall. I think that other species in the genus Homo which were obviously more robust than we are were capable of such heights as well. Of course without a more complete fossil record it's impossible to know for sure.

 

But I think the basic question is...... is it possible that Bigfoot is a member of the genus Homo based on morphology? I think that answer must be yes.

 

I have always argued that its behavior is what argues against its inclusion into the Homo line. (No fire, no stone tool manufacture)

 

 

A Neanderthal skull looks like a pretty tough costumer (top) until you match it up with a Hedielberg man (bottom). Then they as refined as a sports illustrated swimsuit model....

IMG_1468.JPG

IMG_1467.JPG

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Looking at Patty's head? No forehead and a heavy heavy brow ridge?

 

I think its Hedelbergensis like.

IMG_1469.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Modern humans can grow to almost 9 feet tall. I think that other species in the genus Homo which were obviously more robust than we are were capable of such heights as well. Of course without a more complete fossil record it's impossible to know for sure.

 

But I think the basic question is...... is it possible that Bigfoot is a member of the genus Homo based on morphology? I think that answer must be yes.

 

I have always argued that its behavior is what argues against its inclusion into the Homo line. (No fire, no stone tool manufacture)

 

 

A Neanderthal skull looks like a pretty tough costumer (top) until you match it up with a Hedielberg man (bottom). Then they as refined as a sports illustrated swimsuit model....

IMG_1468.JPG

IMG_1467.JPG

 

Humans do not grow to 9 feet (actually none have been 9', only one made it to 8'11" and only 6 have ever made it over 8'3") or 8' for that matter, without it being a physical abnormality.  Usually, something involving the pituitary gland.  Though there are those few 7 footers, as it has been stated before there are VERY, VERY few of those folks living at any given time (though in my family tree there was one back in the 1700's he must have really felt like a freak!).  The average height of human males is closer to 5'9" or 5'10".   Those that have grown to 8' or even many over 7' suffer from very serious health issues as homo sapiens just aren't designed to grow that tall.

 

Robust, does not mean tall..... modern humans are getting less and less robust but we aren't getting any shorter.

 

I'm not going to speculate what BF might or might not be... or how tall they might be or not be... I for one am not done speculating whether or not they ARE...

 

Tallest Humans (EVER verified)

Robert Wadlow – 8 ft 11 in (2 m 72 cm)
John Rogan – 8 ft 9 in (2 m 67 cm) ...
John F. Carroll – 8 ft 7.5 in (2 m 63 cm) ...
Väinö Myllyrinne – 8 ft 3 in (2 m 51 cm) ...
Edouard Beaupré – 8 ft 3 in (2 m 51 cm) ...
Sultan Kösen – 8 ft 3 in (2 m 51 cm) ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people

 

Interestingly there are only 16 people living that are known to be 7'6" or over.  That's a pretty elite club.

 

Edited by Old Time Lifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I said ALMOST for a reason....because thats all we can verify in modern times. Despite ancient sources that claim taller. Such as Goliath at over 9 feet.

 

And absolutely being robust doesn't necessarily mean tall.... for example Neanderthals.

 

But it would seem Hedelbergensis and Erectus were much taller than Thals and maybe even modern humans.

 

Again, Sasquatch as reported is morphologically well within the parameters of the genus Homo.

 

But we need a body to verify exactly what it is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter

We agree there has to be a body.

32 minutes ago, norseman said:

I said ALMOST for a reason....because thats all we can verify in modern times. Despite ancient sources that claim taller. Such as Goliath at over 9 feet.

 

1

 

My point was that there is a physical issue for humans to grow over 8' or even close to 8'.  Generally, it's something like a tumor on the pituitary gland.  Humans don't get that big because of our genetics, it's because something has gone haywire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
22 minutes ago, Old Time Lifter said:

We agree there has to be a body.

 

My point was that there is a physical issue for humans to grow over 8' or even close to 8'.  Generally, it's something like a tumor on the pituitary gland.  Humans don't get that big because of our genetics, it's because something has gone haywire.

 

I would agree within our species.

 

But do not think we represent the tallest species within our genus. And we are definitely not the tallest primate.

 

A body nails the coffin shut! I really want a FLIR rifle scope!

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Even within this little forum community, we have a man who stands at 7'1" and upwards of 320 lbs. I would consuder myself somewhat average at 6'1", 275 lbs. My little (younger) brother is 6'4", 260 lbs., and I consider him rather skinny or not really bulky. 

 

If Denisovans are just slightly taller and more "robust" as us, they would be sasquatch size.

 

Thought of another way, the almas of the region where the Denisovan fossils have been found was considered slightly smaller than North American sasquatches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

I would agree within our species.

 

But do not think we represent the tallest species within our genus. And we are definitely not the tallest primate.

 

A body nails the coffin shut! I really want a FLIR rifle scope!

 

The original contention was about an 8' Denisovan, which I don't think our ancestors had to worry much about running into...

 

giphy.gif

 

 

As far as for the scope, it just takes money... 

 

101829432-happy-emoji-isolated-on-white-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Sure. But the reason they are theorizing about a 8 ft Denisovan? Is because our community is always on the lookout for the source of Bigfoot.

 

And I think our ancestors were hanging out in a pretty tough neighborhood..... it would not shock me if some of them were on the plus side of things.

IMG_1432.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NatFoot
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, norseman said:

Sure. But the reason they are theorizing about a 8 ft Denisovan? Is because our community is always on the lookout for the source of Bigfoot.

 

And I think our ancestors were hanging out in a pretty tough neighborhood..... it would not shock me if some of them were on the plus side of things.

IMG_1432.JPG

I would think that our BF would actually be prey to this big MFer.

 

Unless...they're pretty homo and helped make them extinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I found this which seems legit...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_of_Castelnau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus
BFF Donor

It strikes me as naive to think we've found anywhere near our entire family tree, so the idea of just three contributors seems unlikely. The fossil record is SO incomplete, it's impossible to have absolute confidence in what we presume from it. Speciation can occur at an amazing rate, most folks don't get this, especially in light of ecological bottlenecks, where selective factors may seem absurdly random, and could result in species that last only a short while but may still contribute genetic materials to the Homo soup we find within ourselves. Hybrids and bottlenecks can result in some wacky shyte that may or may not persist through time, in either whole or partial form. Genetic code that does not always manifest is not simply discarded, but rather stashed away until some selective factor chooses for or against it or its presence within the the overall code. 

So personally, it wouldn't much surprise me to learn that this anomalous material to be source from well more than just a single "unknown contributor"

Edited by guyzonthropus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

I wasn't claiming Denisovans were tall, I was just imagining and using height as an example of "otherness". Maybe I imagined that from the robust teeth find. So forget details. But the "otherness" is what fascinates me while speculating and imagining. It intrigues the hell out of me. 

 

I wonder, how do they spend their time? Why do they build? What are their social constructs? What is their language and chlture? That's what intrigues me - about all of the hominid populations. Fascinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×