Is Bigfoot a remnant of Neanderthal?

reply to post by auraelium


You must have ignored the video I have based my hypothesis on.
Go back and watch it.

I liked the idea that bigfoot, if Neanderthal, could be so elusive and secretive because of the fact that they were hunted by man. Although the evidence showed we bred with Neanderthals, I believe it is only suspected that we hunted them. I could be wrong, but there must be other explanations, such as their lack of adaptability due to their limited intelligence. That's just speculation on my part, since I don't know enough about them to say for sure.

However, an idea that I like more, is very similar. Gigantopithecus, as I mentioned in my earlier post, was hunted by homo-erectus. G.P. is considered to be the largest hominid that ever existed, if I'm not mistaken. They had very large brains. It has been shown that larger animals have a tendency to explore, roam, and spread, and with its size, G.P. would have had no problem making it to North America. Their elusiveness probably spurred from fear, and they haven't lost this trait, purposefully using their large brains to frequent areas that humans don't frequent.

Every idea used to debunk the existence of sasquatch can be refuted as well. The common questions by skeptics include "why haven't we found any bones," "why isn't their better photographic evidence," etc, etc.
There are dozens of these questions, and although they may seem solid on the surface, further prying and investigation into similar species' easily refute these claims. I could write an entire thread on just those two questions, so I won't get into it at the moment, but my point is that although the existence of bigfoot cannot be proven, it can never be disproven.

Also, so many people think that there is no physical evidence available, and this just isn't true. There are footprints, tree marks, scat, hair samples, vocalizations, etc. Despite popular opinion, there have been hair samples analyzed that cannot be matched to any known animal or person. This in itself is enough evidence to warrant further scientific investigation, especially when combined with the other physical evidence.

I think the best evidence, that could potentially blow the lid off the whole thing, is the Minaret skull, which due to incompetence is sitting somewhere in a room at UCLA, unobserved, having not been analyzed since the 60's, when it could not be identified.

So with all things considered, while bigfoot could be Neanderthal, I think the better option is Gigantopithecus, although we could all be wrong. Maybe it doesn't exist. Maybe it does. The only thing that I'm certain of is that it will probably never be proven that it doesn't exist.

reply to post by flyingfish


The information you are posting is all outdated. At a rough guess is pre 1980s before the advent of DNA profiling.In the last 10 years alone our understanding of Neanderthal man and his origins and way of life has increased ten fold.
There is no early neanderthal specimens in the sense that they have not changed over time,neanderthal is neanderthal.neanderthals that roamed th earth 10,000 years ago are identical to the specimens that roamed it 300,000 years ago.They were highly advanced, we know from recent archaeological digs that they buried there dead in a ritualistic manner...



had there own language, and used fire to cook food.



news.nationalgeographic.com...

Ive watched the video, but Modern archaelogy discredits all of those theorys.

Gigantopithecus or Neanderthal?
Bigfoot could be neither,who knows? I do believe there is somethings going on, but definitive physical evidence eludes us.
A neanderthal Bigfoot I believe is worth a discussion, any things possible I suppose.

S & F

I've always wondered if it could simply be a distant cousin of Gigantopithecus
still alive and hanging around out there...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/03ea2488503e.jpg[/atsimg]

Gigantopithecus

Gigantopithecus is an extinct genus of ape that existed from roughly one million years to as recently as three-hundred thousand years ago, in what is now China, India, and Vietnam, placing Gigantopithecus in the same time frame and geographical location as several hominid species. The fossil record suggests that the Gigantopithecus blacki species were the largest apes that ever lived, standing up to 3 metres (9.8 ft) and weighing up to 540 kilograms (1,200 lb).

we're all part neanderthals. well, except for those who are of african descent.

Some of the human X chromosome originates from Neanderthals and is found exclusively in people outside Africa, according to an international team of researchers led by Damian Labuda of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Montreal and the CHU Sainte-Justine Research Center. The research was published in the July issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution.

The idea that they are intelligent would help to explain the fact that evidence is not common.

If they evolved to fear humans noticing their presence.

reply to post by flyingfish


Dont get me wrong,Ive studied Bigfoot for years and firmly believe they do exist.But there are a lot of problems accounting for there origins. My guess is they are decended from a creature not yet discovered. because evidence suggests that Gigantolapithicus was not bipedal and had a gait similar to a urangutang.
i also strongly believe that humans are not decended from any of the ape genres either and that there was genetic manipulation by more intellegent creatures at some time in our past, and perhaps Bigfoot was the result of genetic manipulation as well, possibly a mark 1 prototype or something like that. thats just a theory but it is interesting.

hers a video worth watching on the subject, this guy is an alternative historian and he goes into some theorys on how we may have been geneticly altered in our past.

video.google.com...=4463271645081297361

reply to post by auraelium

The information you are posting is all outdated. At a rough guess is pre 1980s before the advent of DNA profiling.In the last 10 years alone our understanding of Neanderthal man and his origins and way of life has increased ten fold.

Outdated? the data is cutting edge science on Neanderthal Genome.

On May 7, 2010, the long awaited Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome was published in Science. Amazingly, all the major findings of the 3 year, US$6.4 million study by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig were anticipated in Danny Vendramini's 2009 book, Them and Us. The principal findings that Vendramini predicted using Neanderthal Predation theory include: Neanderthal males interbred with human females. The gene flow did not occur in reverse- ie. human males did not mate with Neanderthal females. The interbreeding occurred only in the Middle East. Interbreeding occurred between 100,000 - 50,000 years ago. The interbreeding took place before humans spread out across the world. The Neanderthal genes in the human genome do not code for overt physical or behavioural traits. It has been a long time since a scientific theory has predicted observational data with such accuracy. It is the strongest possible proof of the theory's veracity.

Your data is outdated these are recent publications.I find the data very compelling.

according to Vendramini's research, they looked nothing like this. He believes they are anthropomorphic fantasies conceived by artists and unsupported by the scientific evidence Danny Vendramini and Spanish digital sculptor Arturo Balseiro scanned a Neanderthal skull then used NP theory and the latest computer technology to generate the most accurate forensic reconstruction of a Neanderthal ever produced.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by auraelium

 

The information you are posting is all outdated. At a rough guess is pre 1980s before the advent of DNA profiling.In the last 10 years alone our understanding of Neanderthal man and his origins and way of life has increased ten fold.

Outdated? the data is cutting edge science on Neanderthal Genome.

On May 7, 2010, the long awaited Draft Sequence of the Neanderthal Genome was published in Science. Amazingly, all the major findings of the 3 year, US$6.4 million study by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig were anticipated in Danny Vendramini's 2009 book, Them and Us. The principal findings that Vendramini predicted using Neanderthal Predation theory include: Neanderthal males interbred with human females. The gene flow did not occur in reverse- ie. human males did not mate with Neanderthal females. The interbreeding occurred only in the Middle East. Interbreeding occurred between 100,000 - 50,000 years ago. The interbreeding took place before humans spread out across the world. The Neanderthal genes in the human genome do not code for overt physical or behavioural traits. It has been a long time since a scientific theory has predicted observational data with such accuracy. It is the strongest possible proof of the theory's veracity.

Your data is outdated these are recent publications.I find the data very compelling.

according to Vendramini's research, they looked nothing like this. He believes they are anthropomorphic fantasies conceived by artists and unsupported by the scientific evidence Danny Vendramini and Spanish digital sculptor Arturo Balseiro scanned a Neanderthal skull then used NP theory and the latest computer technology to generate the most accurate forensic reconstruction of a Neanderthal ever produced.

I dont know who this guy is but hes obviously willing to ignore proven facts like the ones i have listed:

Neanderthal wore clothes
Used fire
cooked food
Were linguistic
Made complex hunting weapons
Did not have hair covering all their bodys
Had religious rituals
Painted pictures of animals on cave walls..

None of these traits are documented in bigfoot encounters, not one..

Add in the fact that Bigfoot body proportions from documented sightings are vastly different, there twice the size, they have a strange gait when walking,there covered in hair. The facial features are ape like, there skin is black like a gorilla. there communication is on a par with gorillas and chimpanzees in the sense that they use wood knocking and primitive whooping sounds to communicate.

reply to post by auraelium


I need links on proof Neanderthal whore clothes and on any of these claims.
Here is mine that suggest they were hairy.
Again recent data.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by auraelium

 

I need links on proof Neanderthal whore clothes and on any of these claims.
Here is mine that suggest they were hairy.
Again recent data.

edit on 18-7-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

Tools:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Clothing:

anthropology.net...

Fire

archaeologyexcavations.blogspot.com...

Burial:

www.scilogs.eu...

art:

www.uh.edu...

reply to post by auraelium


I know about all these theories,I was hoping you had some concrete physical evidence to show me.
Beside the tools.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by auraelium

 

I know about all these theories,I was hoping you had some concrete physical evidence to show me.
Beside the tools.

edit on 18-7-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-7-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

I have to agree with auraelium on this one, the additional information about concrete physical evidence was already posted above (fire, burials and art)

Fire archaeologyexcavations.blogspot.com...
Burial: www.scilogs.eu...
art: www.uh.edu...

In addition they wore jewellery

shells
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/12149ad1f7ef.jpg[/atsimg]

link

and recent findings of lamagier eagle feathers suggest they also used feathers as jewellery

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f2bf5baafce.jpg[/atsimg]

link

Alsol discoveries of 'make-up' (link) would suggest that Neanderthal was mainly hair free as it would be much less likely for a hairy creature to paint its body...

The site you have linked (here) is an older site (2009) promoting a book which presents a theory where as the links we are providing are this year (2011). In my opinion the book presents a highly speculative theory with no basis in fact. It is the theories of one man (Danny Vendramini) and it flies against the rest of the scientific communities research and understanding of Neanderthals.

This study discusses Neanderthal clothing LINK

it seems more likely from the scarce archaeological evidence, that they wore clothes that fit and sturdy foot-wear to boot.

reply to post by flyingfish


It's an interesting theory, but in my opinion the evidence points much much more towards Bigfoots being an ape species rather than neanderthal. An evolved Gigantopithecus is the most likely I think. They have certain physical characteristics consistent with that that I don't think would be seen in neanderthals, such as the mid-tarsal break and that crest on top of the skull; I forget what it's called. Plus, the sighting locations are consistent with Gigantopithecus migration from Asia across the land bridge into North America.

reply to post by flyingfish


guess you didn't read the link i provided in my previous post or deliberately ignored the information it contained. the proof is in the (our modern day) genes.

Dr. Labuda and his team almost a decade ago had identified a piece of DNA (called a haplotype) in the human X chromosome that seemed different and whose origins they questioned. When the Neanderthal genome was sequenced in 2010, they quickly compared 6000 chromosomes from all parts of the world to the Neanderthal haplotype. The Neanderthal sequence was present in peoples across all continents, except for sub-Saharan Africa, and including Australia.

and yes, that article is recent having been posted just two days ago.

I'm very glad somebody finally put forward the Neanderthal predation theory.
Politically correct anthropomorphism has been applied to ridiculous levels to Neanderthals.
There is not a shred of evidence that they wore clothes (let alone stitched them) or were hairless, and even their burial sites are a matter of dispute (the pollen could have blown in naturally, and they could have been natural cave-ins).
All those human attributes are fantasy and artistic interpretation.
I find the predation theory offers a more realistic picture, which actually fits the skeletal evidence of a hominid with no neck, a primate's v-shaped rib-cage, no forehead and high-set enormous eyes.
Whether they actually hunted and raped our ancestors to near extinction is a theory, but it probably has some truth. Humans already seem to have brought aggressive traits from Africa, since Eurasians are not uniquely aggressive (to say the least).
At least this theory does away with all the romanticized rubbish, and reflects the little that we undisputedly know about "them": they made stone tools, hunted animals and practiced cannibalism. That's about as spectacular as it gets.
We've never found a Neanderthal stitching needle, yet some claim they stitched clothing based on something as abstract as energy conservation! There's no evidence for any of these claims. Where are the skeletons of Neanderthals actually wearing jewelry? Where are their works of art, like Neanderthal paintings? A shell with a hole in it, or a shell with some clay on it isn't evidence of anything (and could have been left by humans in that period, since most sites were occupied by both species at different times). It's all evidence for a fertile human imagination.

The Bigfoot is a type of hominid, perhaps distantly related to Neanderthals (like us), or perhaps from a line that were pacified after humans got the upper hand over the Neanderthals, or who developed from a hominid that already fled from the cannibalistic hominids 100 000 years ago. The Neanderthals proper are extinct, possibly lucky for us. I doubt they would ever have become passive and evasive like the Bigfoot or Almas, and these hominids are hardly carnivores, which the predation theory attributes to Neanderthals based on tooth and other analysis. That's not to say that the modern hominids are complete vegetarians or pacifists, but they don't seem to deliberately hunt humans for food. Their environments also offer a variety of plant foods, unlike Ice Age Europe. Like most carnivores the Neanderthals would have manufactured their own Vitamin C (perfect for the Ice Age), which means it wasn't necessary for them to lose their fur to gain access to sunlight.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Whether they actually hunted and raped our ancestors to near extinction is a theory, but it probably has some truth. Humans already seem to have brought aggressive traits from Africa, since Eurasians are not uniquely aggressive (to say the least).

On the contrary, we "bred them" out of existence. Modern DNA testing shows that everyone except those of strictly "sub saharan African or Aboriginal Australian" bloodlines [Which doesn't include those with mixed racial heritage who identify themselves as African/Aboriginal descent] all show signs of having either Neanderthal and or Denisovan DNA to varying degrees. As far as aggressive traits. I'll let the real history of Eurasia speak for itself.

Man's Genetic voyage. Fact, Speculation and Theories
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ef8d960330c.jpg[/atsimg]

Neanderthal DNA Lives On in Modern Humans
Researchers compared the Neanderthal genome with the genomes of five living people: one San from southern Africa, one Yoruba from West Africa, one Papua New Guinean, one Han Chinese and one French person. Scientists discovered that 1% to 4% of the latter three DNA samples is shared with Neanderthals — proof that Neanderthals and early modern humans interbred.

The absence of Neanderthal DNA in the genomes of the two present-day Africans indicates that interbreeding occurred after some root population of early modern humans left Africa but before the species evolved into distinct groups in Europe and Asia.

Denisovans

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f85e3eba4914.jpg[/atsimg]

Denisova hominin
The mtDNA of the Denisova hominin is distinct from the mtDNAs of Neanderthals and modern humans.[3] In December 2010, an international team of scientists determined the sequence from the nuclear genome of this group (known as the Denisovans) from this finger bone. According to their analysis, this group shares a common origin with the Neanderthals and interbred with the ancestors of modern Melanesians

With the Australian/African non-Neanderthal/Denisovan connection happening due to a Coastal migration which avoided those other "Neandethal/Denivaon" bloodlines. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/189a5a5d9a92.jpg[/atsimg]
DNA confirms coastal trek to Australia

DNA evidence linking Indian tribes to Australian Aboriginal people supports the theory humans arrived in Australia from Africa via a southern coastal route through India, say researchers. The research, lead by Dr Raghavendra Rao from the Anthropological Survey of India, is published in the current edition of BMC Evolutionary Biology.

One theory is that modern humans arrived in Australia via an inland route through central Asia but Rao says most scientists believe modern humans arrived via the coast of South Asia. Skeletal remains, dating back between 40-60,000 years from Lake Mungo in New South Wales, also support the theory that modern human arrived in Australia at least as far back as this, he says.

At least this theory does away with all romanticized rubbish, and reflects the little that we undisputed know about "them" - they made stone tools, hunted animals and practiced cannibalism. That's about as spectacular as it gets.

So had early Homo-Sapians. Remember, this period in time was during the "Ice-Age" one could imagine some pretty tough times and Cannibalism happening out of necessity.

Donner Party?

Another thing worth considering is that Neanderthals clearly both mated with homosapien sapiens and produced offspring which were fertile and which went on themselves to produce offspring. link

If Neanderthal were so far from human and so much more 'ape like' its highly unlikely that a mating between Neanderthal and homo sapien would produce offspring of any sort let alone viable offspring that were themselves fertile.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by halfoldmanthey made stone tools, hunted animals and practiced cannibalism. That's about as spectacular as it gets.

So had early Homo-Sapians. Remember, this period in time was during the "Ice-Age" one could imagine some pretty tough times and Cannibalism happening out of necessity.

Donner Party?

Another theory is that cannibals practice cannibalism for spiritual reasons, absorbing the strength, knowledge etc of the person. Tribes that have practised cannibalism until fairly recently have done so for spiritual reasons rather than necessity. So cannibalism could actually point to a spiritual belief system