Is Bigfoot a remnant of Neanderthal?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by trollz
 





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.


My problem with Gigantopithecus being a Bigfoot are for starters the dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas. His size alone would suggest that such a large, heavy animal would put enormous strain on the creature's legs, ankles and feet if it walked bipedally.
Also scientists, think Gigantopithecus probably looked more like its closest modern relative, the orangutan.

The species lived in Asia and probably inhabited bamboo forests, since its fossils are often found alongside those of extinct ancestors of the panda. Most evidence points to Gigantopithecus being a plant-eater.

To me this creature was probably happy in a bamboo forest and had no need to worry about predators or hiding.
There is no evidence to suggest he was any smarter than modern orangutans.
Now look at Neanderthal he could fill Bigfoot's shoes and there are plenty of sightings of a Neanderthal sized Bigfoot.




posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by generik
 





now let me ask a purely hypothetical question. in the case of alien invasion, by a species bent on wiping out the human race. a species that is much more advanced in weapons then we are. they have achieved ALMOST wiping us out. but hey some were smart enough to disappear into the wilderness. how would we try to survive? would we attack them in organized groups? HELL NO not if we wanted to continue to survive. an attack WOULD MEAN that we are still around probably prompting a renewed search to finish us once and for all. what i see happening is that we would HIDE. we would do EVERYTHING in our power to MAKE DAMMED SURE that we aren't noticed. we would NOT build above ground any structures that would point to us being there. we would pretty much be living in caves, hiding them as effectively as possible.

Good post

This is exactly my line of thinking.
Star.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by trollz
 





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


My problem with Gigantopithecus being a Bigfoot are for starters the dominant view is that it walked on all fours like modern gorillas.



Sorry for jumping in but..
I too think it's a more "evolved version of Gigantopithicus" which wouldn't still be walking on all fours.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 





Supposedly alcohol is a useful tool for luring them.

Alcohol is well known to attract Bigfoot



Sorry had to do it.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I would like to begin by saying, I have had this thread open in a tab sense before the first comment. I find it intriguing. I have read the thread and its sources, among others, watched the video, and weighed the evidence and have really given it some thought, as I realized I had never contemplated the different possibilities of what Bigfoot could be. Here is that process and my conclusion.

Neanderthal Man could have been lightly covered in fur as we Humans are. He could have worn cloths and he could have looked very much like Human. On the other hand, it is also a possibility that his face was more ape like and over the last 100,000 years he may have forgone cloths in favor of his natural fur. The problem, size.

Gigantupithecus resembles the images of Bigfoot that I have seen, thus making it a good possibility. The question then becomes, Is it possible that he stood up in 100,000 years? Yes, I think it is possible. The problem, size.

Is it possible that they could both change in size? Yes, but IMO the chances are remote.

I then began to think about the mixing of Human and Neanderthal. In the beginning I do not see a comfortable intermingling of the species and therefore, there would have been conflict. Any young born, that was not like the "tribe" in which it was born to, may have been raised for a while then shunned from both species. IF these "Hybrids" formed a tribe of their own and remained away from those that shunned, it would have only taken 3 generations to form a "Pure" bred, their own species. They may have forgone cloths and opted for natural camouflage ie; full body fur, and thus becoming masters of hiding in their environment. The problem, size.

The Hybrid still had my attention as a possibility for some reason. Then a few minutes ago, the reason why came to me. A while ago I watched a show with my daughter, about large cats. Lions, Tigers, and leopards to be exact. In that show, a man decided to breed a male Lion with a female Tiger in the natural fashion. The result he called a Liger. The way the genes mix, shown in every birth, the Liger is twice the size of a Tiger and almost three times the size of a Lion.


This brings in the possibility of the Hybrids being larger than both Human and Neanderthal. Being large with a Human/Neanderthal facial structure and full body fur, combined with the instincts of hiding due to being shunned they could have stayed hidden for thousands of years.

I therefore submit a third theory to the mix.
edit on 20-7-2011 by Agarta because: I added pictures and video



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 





This brings in the possibility of the Hybrids being larger than both Human and Neanderthal. Being large with a Human/Neanderthal facial structure and full body fur, combined with the instincts of hiding due to being shunned they could have stayed hidden for thousands of years.

This is a very good possibility.



The problem, size.

I would like to add that eye witness accounts concerning the size of Bigfoot could be way off(we all know a credible eye witness can get details wrong) people tend exaggerate and if they see something that is scary and traumatic,who's to say it wasn't ten feet tall!
edit on 20-7-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Another interesting detail about the Gigantapithcus/Sasquatch argument that detractors of the theory often quote is the assumption that Giganto primarily walked on all fours - like many primates. This is quite probable. However, what people tend to forget is evolution and it's effects. It's quite conceivable that Giganto did travel on all fours - and in prehistoric Asian sub-tropical forests, this would have been logical. But once Giganto crossed over into temperate North America, he would have been at a disadvantage. N. American forests back then, like now, would have been covered with coniferous forests. And confers - particularly large conifers like old growth, which were prevalent here before the white man - have an interesting characteristic: they don't have any lower branches of significant size - making them pretty well useless for an ape used to using the big, low branches of Asian forests for travel, protection, nesting etc. This I think is why we see Sasquatch developing the upright walking stance over the last few tens of thousands of years since arriving here. It would also neatly explain why his arms are so long in proportion to his body and legs. What we are seeing here I think is the remnants of evolutionary development. His long, powerful arms are an evolutionary left-over trait from his ancient Asian origins of sub-tropical forest existence...

J.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by Agarta
 





This brings in the possibility of the Hybrids being larger than both Human and Neanderthal. Being large with a Human/Neanderthal facial structure and full body fur, combined with the instincts of hiding due to being shunned they could have stayed hidden for thousands of years.

This is a very good possibility.



The problem, size.

I would like to add that eye witness accounts concerning the size of Bigfoot could be way off(we all know a credible eye witness can get details wrong) people tend exaggerate and if they see something that is scary and traumatic,who's to say it wasn't ten feet tall!
edit on 20-7-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)


The problem is we DO have good video footage and more than a few footprint casts that seem to substantiate the majority of eye witness testimony with regards to Sasquatch size. It is one big dude! Average height seems to be in the 8-10 foot region. Way too big in my opinion for the Neanderthal theory... at least that's how I see it.

Good thread by the way...



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by jimbo999
 





The problem is we DO have good video footage and more than a few footprint casts that seem to substantiate the majority of eye witness testimony with regards to Sasquatch size. It is one big dude! Average height seems to be in the 8-10 foot region. Way too big in my opinion for the Neanderthal theory... at least that's how I see it.

I assume your referring to the Patterson footage, there is much debate about the size of Patty in the footage. The estimates range from six feet to ten! When you view the footage do you see a ten foot tall creature?
Using foot size to determine height could be way off, just as with Neanderthal arm and foot lengths are disproportionate to it's height.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 

Interesting post Agarta, and one sentence of yours has reminded me of some side-issues in the thread:

Neanderthal Man could have been lightly covered in fur as we Humans are. He could have worn cloths and he could have looked very much like Human.

Are all modern humans "lightly" covered in fur?
Definitely not to an equal extent.
In fact, perhaps naively so, I think that could be a sign of the populations with the Neanderthal admixture that remained somewhat dominant (because it served a function in the colder climates).
I'd say the Caucasian peoples definitely have more body hair than the rest.
But is it layered, self-cleansing fur like animals have?
I'd say it's not, neither does it block out the sun for Vitamin production (which carnivores don't need).

At the point of colonialism much of the planet around the tropics did not wear clothes.
Except for ritual outfits and body-paint, most people didn't wear a stitch of clothing.
In fact, the Jaghan and Ona people of Tierra del Fuego hunted and swam the Antarctic conditions of the Bering Sea totally naked.
Unfortunately the settlers waged a genocide against them in the 19th century, but it was said they looked more robust and were taller than average people back then (hence the myth of "Patagonian giants").
So it seems that even Native American groups adapted to the environment within a relatively short time period.

It's often said that the Japanese are hairier than their Asian neighbors, because they mixed with the Ainu people. So, even without proof I'd say body hair (except for common pubic hair) is related to Neanderthal (or even other hominid like Alma or Bigfoot) interbreeding from the dawn of history 30 000 years ago.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
I have a question.

If Africans were 'modern' humans 100,000 years ago compared to the Neanderthals then why is it that Africans today look more like Neanderthals than others do? This is a serious question. Non-Africans have more Neanderthal DNA yet look worlds different compared to Africans or Neanderthals. Why do the hybrids look more modern?

I'll throw in a possibility:
1) 100,000 years ago, Africans lived in a temperate climate, Neanderthal lived in an ice-covered world
2) At some point the tables turned and Africa dried up and the rest of the world became temperate
3) The hybrids left Africa with their Neanderthal genes and spread across the world

Could it be that the original Neanderthals ran for the hills and snowy places while the stubborn africans stayed in africa even as it grew too hot and slowly lost their edge and the mixed hybrids spread into the temperate world and became the dominant breed?

But what about the Africans who left Africa but never breeded with the Neanderthals? Wouldn't they have become the dominant breed? Or could it be that the AFricans benefited from having Neanderthfal genes? So contrary to this OP's video, the Neanderthals weren't just dumb apes. They offered the human lineage something that allowed us to dominate the whole world.

Kind of like the Africans had the axe, but the neanderthals had the muscle. I would even go so far as to say that the Neanderthals may have been smarter because we know that carnivores tend to be smart because predators need intelligence to hunt their prey. Maybe Neanderthal gained other beneficial characteristics from the Africans that allowed the modern human to eventually come about. Maybe more longterm memory or social traits or less fur or something.

I think a lot of it's hard to understand because sometimes genetic things are hard to pin down. For example, I found a science link that that suggested a pronounced brow ridge and other characteristics of the Neanderthal were more the result of random things than they were of any selection process. Maybe looking like Neanderthal does not mean you're primitive.
edit on 21-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Something else thati's itneresting that I've read on his website. He doesn't argue that Neanderthals killed and canabilized the africans just for show. He also argues that because he's looking for a selection pressure. A selection pressure will increase the evolutionary process. So this means that in 50,000 or 100,000 years a LOT could have happened. And that's what he's looking for, an open door, so he can make his theory and not feel guilty about it.
edit on 21-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 

But do African actually look more like primates?
Actually all people look like some related primate (where they still exist), although such terms have become more politically incorrect and confined.
Actually African people have a black skin.
Primates (if you shave them) have a greyish-white skin.
Black Africans have thick lips.
Primates have very thin lips. The racist stereotype confuses the protruding jaw of the primate with "thick lips".
We seem to see each other and primates as caricatures, and that sends unrealistic signals to the brain.
That itself could come from inter-hominid warfare and interbreeding in prehistory.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by the secret web

I think Mr Balseiro has plenty of qualifications to accurately model Vendramini's ideas.
Here are some fine examples of Arturo Balseiro's work.


Sorry but not of those are 1 - the same quality as the work rthats been provided as evidence here in regards to the ...those asubject of this thread and 2 - no different in quality to anyone of a number of artists you'd find online. Anatomically one thing a straight out of the box thats VERY wrong is that the eyelids are as thin as paper and have no mass...eyelids have a lot more thickness than people realize....I could go on about how wrinkles have weight and do not defy the laws gravity (and much more) but that'd be pointless in this thread. My point is not to bash the artist responsible (hey no one ever got shot for exagerating their skills to get work...thats fair game),but rather it being presented as if they guys work produced is worthy of being 'evidence'. Its not. Maybe read the about section of my site and you may see that I'm not just some random dude...my word does carry some weight, or again send spinger a message and he will enlighten further (as not everything is on my site).

Wayne...



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Personally I think this may digress from my original theory of the reincorporation of body fur, but you, by way of this thread, have opened the can of worms as to why we as Humans lost it in the first place, as well as the interbreeding of Human and Neanderthal and the differences of location globally. I call this a can of worms due to the multiple theories as to why this happened. I will touch on each major theory and hopefully answer your questions.

As I understand it....

Semi-Aquatic lifestyle:
A semi-aquatic lifestyle can be described as Homo-erectus nor Neanderthal fur are not an adequate insulate from water, therefore the fur was lost and replaced with higher levels of fat to compensate for insulation problems. The problem with this is, evidence for an aquatic phase of human development has been elusive at best, but it does explain why whales and dolphins lost theirs.

Climate Change:
Fur holds in the body heat. During the day, in a warmer climate this can become a problem. a sweating mechanism may have "kicked" in causing the loss of fur beyond the normal shedding cycle. As this may have worked so well the need to regrow the heavy fur was not needed. Because sweating does not help during the colder nights a cover may have been used to maintain warmth, and with that the understanding of cloths began and thus the divergence from the need to grow a thick fur. The hair on our heads and the fur in the pubic and armpit regions may have remained as these are areas of heightened heat loss. Hair on the head and face may be attributed to the head is the area of the highest heat loss.

External Parasites:
A thick body of fur is the perfect place to harbor external parasites like lice, ticks, biting flies, etc. These external parasites not only bring annoyance and skin irritation but can also carry viruses, bacteria and protozoan diseases like West Nile, Lyme disease, malaria, and sleeping sickness, not to mention other diseases that may be extinct or dormant today, all of which can cause reoccurring diseases and possibly death. Therefore, as other animal females choose a mate due to strength and health by say plumage for example, it may have been seen by Homo-erectus as a sign of health and freedom from these diseases and parasites to have thinner or very light fur. Females are genetically lighter on fur in most cases and probably lost theirs first, realizing the benefit, began to choose mates with the same qualities. Thus a need to remain warm in the cold leading to blankets/coverings and ultimately cloths.

In these three descriptions I have combined others that support the theory as a whole. I hope you don't mind.

As all mammals have body fur including whales and dolphins, It brings us to the dominant alleles. It is obvious that the dominant allele is the lack of fur, however the recessive gene does exist for fur growth. It will seem that certain locations or societies have chosen a specific level of these alleles to their specific region or society. This I believe is changing at least in mixed cultures.

As for fur being specifically attributed to Neanderthal Man and is consequently "bred out" during the re-purification of the Human race is speculation at best. That is hidden in the pure undiluted form of the original Human species. I would say that even the "Pure" Human the genes still exist but the alleles have been shut off for a very long time, due to the fact that, again, All mammals have body fur.
edit on 21-7-2011 by Agarta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Agarta
 

Excellent point.
It is no mistake that humans are the only primate that can swim.
I think that was a key development in our evolution - living off seafood by the coast.
In South Africa the oldest Homo Sapiens' sites are virtually all along the coast.

I doubt the Neanderthals could swim, and our lighter aquatic weight not only gave us a much greater range (especially since coastlines were always changing at a point), but it gave us the courage to cross greater bodies of water.



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by Agarta
 

Excellent point.
It is no mistake that humans are the only primate that can swim.
I think that was a key development in our evolution - living off seafood by the coast.




Swimming primates
Why do I feel like I am on Myth Busters?






edit on 21-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Oops, OK point taken.
But swimming apes?



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


Some bands/clans/troops or whatever they're called aka "group of Chimps" {Which are apes} have been seen in the wild swimming however you're right, the vast majority do not swim and avoid the water.
edit on 21-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Check out this sighting, this thing looks the part for a Neanderthal Bigfoot.
I don't know if this is a hoax or not, but I think I would have dropped the camera and ran like little girl if saw this thing.

Has this video been debunked?





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join