Jump to content

The case for Homo Erectus


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 9 months later...
  • gigantor featured this topic

The browridge recovered in Lake Chapala, Mexico was said to most closely resemble Zhoukoudian (Peking) Man III which was recovered in China. Anyone think this is a mere coincidence or is this replica the closest thing we have to a Sasquatch skull??

95A8D594-AFE1-4B48-AA11-B31CE856A625.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So last week I contacted two of the authors of the 2017 Cerutti Mastadon paper. Now it was never specifically mentioned in the paper what the authors thought actually made the breaks to the mammoth bones though it was strongly implied that it was some sort of hominin species. I told them I thought it was a Homo erectus based on the findings in Lake Chapala and both of them thought I was on the right track in making that assessment. They then sent me this supplemental to the Cerutti paper. The good stuff really doesn’t start until page 56 but I thought it was quite interesting that it mentions Homo erectus, Neanderthals and Denisovans as each being possible contenders for pre-Holocene hominin expansion into the Americas. Now neither of them would say if they specifically believed in Sasquatch however the one did say that if there is something out there presently and you wanted to find the origins then this 5e interglacial period of Beringia is where you’d definitely want to start.

Nature Supplemental.pdf

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good work! Excellent actually :) and what you did falls right in line with what I've been saying all along which is that scientists and academia are accessible and they DO respond to email inquiries. That's why I keep saying they need to hear from us because ya just never know how many BF proponent type scientists are out there.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, hiflier said:

That's why I keep saying they need to hear from us because ya just never know how many BF proponent type scientists are out there.

Edited 37 minutes ago by hiflier

It’s funny you mention that because both seemed relieved that younger people are finally starting to take note of the findings in Cerutti and take their conclusions seriously. Even though neither scientist would admit to believing in the existence of Sasquatch I could definitely relate to both of them as they gave me the indication that their findings and overall conclusions have been HEAVILY scrutinized and outright dismissed by large swaths of the anthropology/archaeology community.  As a squatcher this sure sounded all too familiar. 
 

P.S. The reason I won’t mention their names is that I left both conversations on fairly decent terms and I don’t want either scientist to be afraid to converse with me again in the future. Just as neither one would say whether they did or did not indefinitely believe in the existence of Bigfoot, even the slightest association with various cryptids can be a career and reputation killer for modern day scientists. Nonetheless, I do believe proponents of a pre-Holocene N. American hominin are some of the best academic allies we have currently have in the Bigfoot community. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willystyle said:

P.S. The reason I won’t mention their names is that I left both conversations on fairly decent terms and I don’t want either scientist to be afraid to converse with me again in the future.

 

No worries WS, that's been my posture as well. I'm sure others will agree that until a scientist openly admits their interest enough to go on record then it's the wisest avenue to take.

 

1 hour ago, Willystyle said:

Nonetheless, I do believe proponents of a pre-Holocene N. American hominin are some of the best academic allies we have currently have in the Bigfoot community.

 

Nail on the head! And while they me seem relieved about the young'ns take it from me, OLDER folks that show an interest are just as well received. Especially when one is studied enough to converse their language using their terminologies. Keep up the good work :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Willystyle said:

It’s funny you mention that because both seemed relieved that younger people are finally starting to take note of the findings in Cerutti and take their conclusions seriously. Even though neither scientist would admit to believing in the existence of Sasquatch I could definitely relate to both of them as they gave me the indication that their findings and overall conclusions have been HEAVILY scrutinized and outright dismissed by large swaths of the anthropology/archaeology community.  As a squatcher this sure sounded all too familiar. 
 

P.S. The reason I won’t mention their names is that I left both conversations on fairly decent terms and I don’t want either scientist to be afraid to converse with me again in the future. Just as neither one would say whether they did or did not indefinitely believe in the existence of Bigfoot, even the slightest association with various cryptids can be a career and reputation killer for modern day scientists. Nonetheless, I do believe proponents of a pre-Holocene N. American hominin are some of the best academic allies we have currently have in the Bigfoot community. 


Nice work.

 

I’m sure the Bigfoot question never crossed their minds. But I’m a firm believer that our human origins are only 1/100th understood. If we have had two feet for millions of years? Doesn’t make sense that we started using them only 300,000 years ago. 


And I’m not sure how they can argue with a piece of a skull brow ridge??? Huh? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, norseman said:

And I’m not sure how they can argue with a piece of a skull brow ridge??? Huh? 

Personally I think the Lake Chapala brow ridge is the holy grail of early American hominin evolution as well as a clear explanation as to the origins of Sasquatch. As the link you mentioned says though many people are still skeptical of it just as they’re skeptical of the findings in Cerutti. Believe it or not I also emailed Joel Irish (see the paper below) and this is what he said about the brow ridge: 

 

Hello: To my way of thinking, there's no evidence of Homo erectus in the New World, so I can't say such for the Lake Chapala brow ridge. It is huge, but unless we ever get more skeletal remains there's no way of telling. Also, no dates of any use on it, unfortunately. Best, JDI.”

 

My thing is even if this thing were a plant brought over from Africa or Asia this is still an incredibly rare find even amongst old world fossils. It’s not like you can just go down to the local Chinese wet market and buy largely intact Homo erectus skull caps. The original Zhoukoudian III skull came up missing after being sent off from China to the USA because of how rare and priceless they are. Irish says we need more skeletal evidence before he’ll be a believer however the Cerutti authors I talked to said most American archaeologists aren’t looking for human remains from the Ionian/Tarantian era. The Chapala brow ridge and the Cerutti site were both basically found on accident. It’s difficult to find something you’re not looking for in archaeology which is why it’s music to their ears anytime an aspiring scientist takes notice of their findings and starts drumming up interest in further expeditions. 

PrehistorichumanskeletalremainsfromJaliscoMexico.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other exciting thing about the Chapala browridge is that we still don’t even have a date on it. This could make it either much younger or much older than the dates proposed for the Cerutti site. The Dmanisi skulls in Europe were dated at 1.8 million years old. If the Chapala brow ridge is the same age as the horse and camels it was found amongst (1.6 M.a.) then this could place hominins in the Americas at an extremely early age and could explain why they seem to be much more primitive than later, more recent Eurasian erectus populations in regard to fire and tool use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting video. The fact that erectus was able to sail to Java somewhere between 1.3-1.6 mya really does open up the possibility that they may have been able to colonize the Americas much sooner than even MIS 6 or MIS 5. I have to wonder if they might have even been here as early as the Calabrian period which would certainly explain the circumstances surrounding the Lake Chapala brow ridge.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unfeatured this topic
  • 5 months later...

(Copied / pasted)

 

THE EARLIEST KNOWN MATING BETWEEN DIFFERENT HUMAN SPECIES has been defined by ancient DNA analysis. This interspecies sex happened about 700,000 years ago, long before we (Homo sapiens) were around. Ancestors of both Neanderthals and Denisovans interbred with their Eurasian predecessors - a well-established "superarchaic" population that had separated from other humans 2 million years ago. 

 

The time frame fits with the mystery sex partner being Homo erectus, who has to be regarded as the most successful human species of all time, lasting for 1.8 million years compared to our ~300,000 years to date.

 

It's AMAZING what else the ancient DNA analysis can tell us:  The superarchaic population was large (between 20 and 50 thousand individuals). When Neanderthals interbred with the superarchaics, their populations had been separate for 1.2 million years. Later, when this mystery population exchanged genes with Denisovans, the two populations had been separated even longer. This made them the most distantly related humans ever to interbreed. The DNA analysis also indicated that ancestors to Neanderthals and Denisovans endured at least one significant population bottleneck. It's mind blowing what DNA analysis is uncovering - stuff we would NEVER know otherwise! 

 

Here's the article that also has a link to the Rogers et al. (2020) research paper:   https://www.businessinsider.com/ancient-humans-interbreed-with-mysterious-population-2020-2?fbclid=IwAR2EFwmtt3fzsvYamMHgfSm3VqQG00WqZmocx7gOcC_m0XQiU8pkrinu2VI

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 10/7/2021 at 4:03 PM, Incorrigible1 said:

It's mind blowing what DNA analysis is uncovering

 

yup, my only doubt is the estimated dates, I don't think they can be that accurate.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...