ClayRock Posted July 20, 2021 Share Posted July 20, 2021 Some people just cling to bad theories. Sasquatch as a neanderthal would even make the producers of ancient aliens leave it in the cutting room floor. And those guys fish for every scrap of details they can to fill space. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 32 minutes ago, ClayRock said: Some people just cling to bad theories. Sasquatch as a neanderthal would even make the producers of ancient aliens leave it in the cutting room floor. And those guys fish for every scrap of details they can to fill space. Lol. Bad theory? I love how everyone has figured out this mystery creature that no one can prove exists. Norse identified some Neanderthal traits that sound very similar to those reported to be found with Sasquatch. How is that a ‘bad theory’? Ok. Y’all lay some more cherry-picked anthro-babble on us. Only peer reviewed information on Sasquatch, please. No assumptions or hypotheses…about this undiscovered creature that the scientific establishment pretty much universally finds foolish. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayRock Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: Lol. Bad theory? I love how everyone has figured out this mystery creature that no one can prove exists. Norse identified some Neanderthal traits that sound very similar to those reported to be found with Sasquatch. How is that a ‘bad theory’? Ok. Y’all lay some more cherry-picked anthro-babble on us. Only peer reviewed information on Sasquatch, please. No assumptions or hypotheses…about this undiscovered creature that the scientific establishment pretty much universally finds foolish. I'm just a guest here with less than .02 to offer but since you mentioned science, my 5 year old nephew can tell the difference between a prehistoric man and something no one can define. You don't need science for this one. Others have already sliced and diced this guy's theories. I didn't read babble on other posts. I read compelling arguments why this guy's theories are bad. That's a harsh word but it's true here. Anyway, don't let a guest get in the way of 12000 posts and counting. At some point something has got to stick for him. Edited July 21, 2021 by ClayRock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 21, 2021 Author Share Posted July 21, 2021 46 minutes ago, ClayRock said: I'm just a guest here with less than .02 to offer but since you mentioned science, my 5 year old nephew can tell the difference between a prehistoric man and something no one can define. You don't need science for this one. Others have already sliced and diced this guy's theories. I didn't read babble on other posts. I read compelling arguments why this guy's theories are bad. That's a harsh word but it's true here. Anyway, don't let a guest get in the way of 12000 posts and counting. At some point something has got to stick for him. I have but ONE theory. And that theory is that if we cross paths? I am shooting! Paranthropus Neanderthal Gigantopithecus Alien Robot Giant Lemur (Ive heard them all) Once its on a slab, people a lot smarter than me can sort it all out…… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 1 hour ago, ClayRock said: I'm just a guest here with less than .02 to offer but since you mentioned science, my 5 year old nephew can tell the difference between a prehistoric man and something no one can define. You don't need science for this one. Others have already sliced and diced this guy's theories. I didn't read babble on other posts. I read compelling arguments why this guy's theories are bad. That's a harsh word but it's true here. Anyway, don't let a guest get in the way of 12000 posts and counting. At some point something has got to stick for him. Well, seeing as how it is undefinable…that leaves a lot of possibilities as to what it could be. If your 5 year old nephew can figure it out, get him to join up in 13 years. Lots of certainty here about what the indefinable is and isn’t. A prehistoric man/relic hominid is actually one of the prevailing theories out there, so I am not sure why this topic ruffled so many feathers. Not sure what anyone’s post count has to do with anything. But please, post your own theories so that the rest of us can examine them in the same manner. And welcome to the forums. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeMan Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 6 hours ago, norseman said: You can either start researching things on your own or not. I do. That's why I know you're wrong. You on the other hand can't even be bothered to read my citations and instead get angry at me simply disagreeing with you. Since you want to be immature and call into question the amount of rigor I place in my research I'll humor you and play this stupid little game of yours. For whatever reason I am able to view the article on mobile and I traced the original study. Needless to say it does not buttress your claims in the slightest. Not once does it imply that Neanderthals have flat feet. They suggest the plantar vault is less pronounced but that is not the same thing and you can clearly see by the very same footprints that they display arches. Moreover it has been shown that Neandertals had nearly identical feet to modern humans since the 80's. I suggest actually reading the literature regarding this because your assertions are simply false. Though I doubt you'll even do that and I instead suspect that you will probably hand wave my claims with more fallacious reasoning. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83413-8#Sec13 https://sci-hub.do/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248420300373 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6409716/ 2 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: Y’all lay some more cherry-picked anthro-babble on us.......the scientific establishment pretty much universally finds foolish. Stop. You're conflating your ignorance of the field with "cherry- picked anthro-babble" and if more people tried looking at the evidence in a scientific light instead of positing Aliens, Interdimensional beings, Shapeshifting sorcery or whatever other crap then it probably would be taken more seriously by the "establishment". But no, you want to act like we're epistemologically impotent simply because the subject of our curiosity is an unknown organism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRockBigfoot Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 (edited) 28 minutes ago, MonkeMan said: I do. That's why I know you're wrong. You on the other hand can't even be bothered to read my citations and instead get angry at me simply disagreeing with you. Since you want to be immature and call into question the amount of rigor I place in my research I'll humor you and play this stupid little game of yours. For whatever reason I am able to view the article on mobile and I traced the original study. Needless to say it does not buttress your claims in the slightest. Not once does it imply that Neanderthals have flat feet. They suggest the plantar vault is less pronounced but that is not the same thing and you can clearly see by the very same footprints that they display arches. Moreover it has been shown that Neandertals had nearly identical feet to modern humans since the 80's. I suggest actually reading the literature regarding this because your assertions are simply false. Though I doubt you'll even do that and I instead suspect that you will probably hand wave my claims with more fallacious reasoning. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83413-8#Sec13 https://sci-hub.do/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248420300373 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6409716/ Stop. You're conflating your ignorance of the field with "cherry- picked anthro-babble" and if more people tried looking at the evidence in a scientific light instead of positing Aliens, Interdimensional beings, Shapeshifting sorcery or whatever other crap then it probably would be taken more seriously by the "establishment". But no, you want to act like we're epistemologically impotent simply because the subject of our curiosity is an unknown organism. The footprints in France show the beings had a less gracile foot compared with our delicate tootsies. They also featured a less pronounced plantar vault — meaning they had flat feet. This fits with what we know about Neanderthal foot structure compared with ours. 20 seconds of googling. https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-french-neanderthals-had-lots-of-kids-fossil-footprints-show-1.7817591 Enjoy your time on the forum, fellow Bigfoot enthusiast! Edited July 21, 2021 by BlackRockBigfoot 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeMan Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: 20 seconds of googling. I'm sorry but it requires more than 20 seconds of googling to actually understand comparative morphology of archaic hominins. I'm sure that shocks you. That's a pop-science article, not the actual study which I already demonstrated does not reflect the assertions of said article. Do you want me to quote them? . Furthermore, don't just ignore every other piece of evidence I've laid forth either. Do I need to actually show you the pictures of a neanderthal footprint vs homo sapiens one? Because they are extremely similar and neither are flat at all. Edited July 21, 2021 by MonkeMan 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 21, 2021 Author Share Posted July 21, 2021 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 21, 2021 Author Share Posted July 21, 2021 Neanderthal Human Bigfoot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 21, 2021 Author Share Posted July 21, 2021 Thal(L) Sapien(R) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeMan Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 44 minutes ago, norseman said: Neanderthal Human Bigfoot Yes and this demonstrates my point. As you can see, neither the Neanderthal or the Homo sapiens prints are flat footed. I’m still waiting on you to address my citations. You can post as much as you’d like, it doesn’t make the comparative analyses simply disappear. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeMan Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, norseman said: Thal(L) Sapien(R) Ah, even better. You can see how similar the morphology is between us and our extinct European cousins. The main differences being in the robustness of each example. I’m not really sure how this would substantiate your erroneous claims unless of course you’re conflating a flatter foot with a flat foot. Still waiting. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 21, 2021 Author Share Posted July 21, 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 21, 2021 Author Share Posted July 21, 2021 Definition of flat footedness. And it affects up to 30% of modern humans. Some of it is hereditary. Some of it is injury or lack of proper growth from childhood. https://www.drfihman.com/blog/item/449-are-flat-feet-hereditary.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts