Is Bigfoot a remnant of Neanderthal?

reply to post by halfoldman

I doubt the Neanderthals could swim

Don't know about Neanderthals but apparently Bigfoot does.
Humboldt County,Trinidad,California Sasquatches swimming off-shore-Winter 2007

reply to post by flyingfish

No? Really?
Maybe he's just wading through relatively shallow waters.

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.
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.

first off i don't believe humans are "primates" in the first place.i am not a believer in the religion of Darwinism.

but even if i did, there are plenty monkeys and stuff that can and do swim, i see someone has posted pictures of it.

then you seen to be making the statement, that humans learned to swim because of eating fish, and living in coastal areas. i really hate to burst your bubble but neither of those two things has anything to do with the ability to swim. in fact even in into the 1800's many MARINERS COULD NOT SWIM. in fact many were rather scared of the water. sounds rather silly, but hey lots of things we do doesn't seem to make sense. what gave the "courage " to cross great bodies of water was the FAITH they held in their boats and ships. nothing at all makes one need to be able to swim, (unless of course they were SWIMMING across it).

reply to post by generik

Well you're coming from a faithful angle, so that's good for you!
However, culturally one might add that the mariners were not hunter-gathering tribes, but workers on a boat.
It would be presumptive to say that none of them could swim, depending on where they came from.
Swimming is also a cultural activity. After the infant stage it must be learnt.
Some cultures divided swimming along gender lines, so only the men or women could swim.

Bigfoot is something other, it's a hybrid. Not of man and neanderthal, but a different relic hominid and modern man. He may also have some neanderthal in too.

There's some dna analysis going on now, and though it hasn't been approved yet, the preliminary findings are that bigfoot are 37% from human. While comparatively, chimps are I believe 50% from human. I may be getting this wrong and would need to look at the chart again.

This dna being conducted by researchers and labs are from samples that have been sent in to them. They feel certain that very shortly they will be releasing a peer reviewed document to the world announcing they have found bf.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

This dna being conducted by researchers and labs are from samples that have been sent in to them. They feel certain that very shortly they will be releasing a peer reviewed document to the world announcing they have found bf.

Are you referring to the Gonzalez's DNA?
Could you provide more information on this post.

first off i don't believe humans are "primates" in the first place.i am not a believer in the religion of Darwinism.

If you are not a "primate" then your not human, are you alien?
I've never heard of any one worshiping Darwin, sounds like a made up term.

Originally posted by flyingfish
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.

As for it being on all fours, there are several bigfoot sighting reports of it going on all fours, so it is not incapable of doing so; plus, the giganto jawbones are shaped in such a way that suggest the skull sat on top of the head instead of in front. This might suggest that it walked on 2 legs instead of 4.
As for it's legs, ankles and feet, I've never heard that particular argument, but surely it could be built to allow for such weight? I mean look at elephants or dinosaurs for example.
While it may be true that gigantos were plant-eaters, it's entirely possible that they may have migrated and adapted by learning to eat meat.

If bigfoot is neanderthal or some type of non-ape humanoid, why does it have the apelike features, such as the mid-tarsal break? Also, sorry if this was covered before as I haven't read the entire thread, but should neanderthal be covered in hair from head to toe? Also, why are they not seen in more regional areas? Are the areas of regular sightings consistent with where neanderthal should be?



Ooohh... I see. Interesting video you've posted, OP. The idea of neanderthal being an ape is completely new to me, but very interesting.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

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.

Yes, and there is evidence to support this. I remember watching both a lecture and an analysis of a video sighting, and as well as during an analysis of the Patty film, and it was discussed how they move their legs in a particular way when they walk. Perhaps this is due to having evolved away from walking on all fours? I don't see any reason why they would have evolved in such a way if they had always been bipedal, but I am not an expert on anatomy, so this is just my thoughts

I need to post this video again, has this video been debunked?
This is one scary Bigfoot.
Here it is being analyzed.

Well I'm not nuts at least 35% of the readers on Bigfoot lunch club agree with me that Bigfoot's a evolved Neanderthal.

Discovery News has an article that supports Neanderthals may have lasted longer than scientist previously thought. They may have even found the location of Neanderthals "last stand," lingering in Russia's Ural Mountains.

Link

Originally posted by flyingfish
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.

We have the Patterson footage, yes. Extensive research has been done in the very spot where the footage was taken - in fact there is a book on the reconstruction of the footage using the original location - so I think we have a pretty good idea of Patty's size - and she's big. Also we have the Freeman footage, which I believe to be genuine, which also shows a very large individual... Biologists can make pretty accurate estimates of height/weight ratios based on foot anatomy - it's not 100% fool proof - but it's usually close.

J.

Originally posted by halfoldman
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.

Somewhere on the net there are photos of what looks to be living neanderthal - yes, you heard me correctly. There are several photos of the guy, wearing just a loin cloth and holding a spear if I recall - and he's very tall too.
The photos look like they were taken in the 1920's or 30's.
Where were they taken?
In Africa.

Originally posted by jimbo999

Originally posted by flyingfish
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.

We have the Patterson footage, yes. Extensive research has been done in the very spot where the footage was taken - in fact there is a book on the reconstruction of the footage using the original location - so I think we have a pretty good idea of Patty's size - and she's big. Also we have the Freeman footage, which I believe to be genuine, which also shows a very large individual... Biologists can make pretty accurate estimates of height/weight ratios based on foot anatomy - it's not 100% fool proof - but it's usually close.

J.

Patty was 7'4" give or take about 1 inch.
I watched a video where people figured this out by the surrounding plants/trees/whatever in the original video and standing/moving in the same place as Patty while using measuring equipment to calculate the exact sizes.

reply to post by trollz

Patty was 7'4" give or take about 1 inch. I watched a video where people figured this out by the surrounding plants/trees/whatever in the original video and standing/moving in the same place as Patty while using measuring equipment to calculate the exact sizes.

I think I know what video your talking about Monster Quest? They are going by the distance and type of film Patterson was using.
There are to many problems with that method, for starters you put Patterson closer Patty grows, you change the MM settings in his camera Patty shrinks or grows.
You go by the foot prints you can measure height compared to size with a better degree accuracy.

Recently, in a Monster Quest program (7/8/09), Bill Munns, using sophisticated software, came to the conclusion that Patty (PGF subject) was 7'4" ± 2". He didn't say if this was her height in walking posture or standing erect. Which ever, I believe this is impossible, given known, measured or calculated facts. It is a matter of elementary math. Fact one; Patty's foot (track) is ~14½" as reported and cast at the scene. Fact two; Patty's walking height is 4.56 times her own foot length as measured in frame 72. You can check this yourself. Fact three; It is impossible to add more than ~6" to overall height by standing erect from Patty's walking posture in frame 72. Test this yourself. Fact four; If her foot length is ~14½" as reported, then her walking height is ~66.12" or ~5'-6" (14.5"*4.56=66.12"). Adding ~6", makes Patty ~6'0" standing erect. Fact five; If Patty is ~7'4" walking posture, then her foot must be ~19¼+" long (88"/4.56=19.298"). But this is not what was reported from the scene. Below is proof of this elementary math using CAD and two frames of PGF (one frame 72 and the other unknown number in profile). Perspective error is addressed below as well. A test of this method is near the bottom of this page. I have the greatest respect for Bill Munns and his work on the PGF, but I do believe his assessment of her height is in error.

The math does not lie.
6'1 puts Patty well within Neanderthal territory, now all we need is DNA


Now keep in mind the 14.49 foot print cast was taken from Patty her self.

How accurate is this CAD method? To answer that question, I took a photo of a ladder at 105 feet from the camera. This is the approximate distance of Patterson to Patty in frame 72 according to reports. The piece of plywood is exactly 15.25" long (tall) and placed on the second step of the ladder. The photo is loaded into my CAD program and scaled to the piece of plywood (aspect ratio is locked). Then I took CAD vertical* measurements of various points on the ladder and compared them to actual measurements which I put in parenthesis alongside the CAD measurements. Even though the plywood is not on the same plane as other measuring points, the CAD measurements are extremely close to the actual measurements, proving that error due to perspective is negligible at 105 feet and that this method is very accurate. Patty's walking height is 5'-6" in frame 72 if her foot is, indeed, 14.5" long. Adding ~6" would make her ~6'-0" standing erect. There is a margin of error, but that error is in the placement of the measuring points, not in the CAD program. CAD is very precise. You can readily see the measuring points to make your own judgments as to margin of error.

Link

You guys need more?
Here is a new leaked article revealing Bigfoots are halfway between Homo sapiens and Neanderthal.

Privately funded since 2005, The Erickson Project is actively researching sasquatch at various study sites in North America. The goal of Adrian Erickson and his team is to have the collected evidence validated by science and the sasquatch officially recognized as a species or sub-species. New leaked article revealed Bigfoots are halfway between Homo sapiens and Neandertal. We say it was leaked because this ground breaking information was expected to be announced by Dr. Melba Ketchum on the Erickson Project documentary. Dr. Ketchum is leading the DNA project, and she's not happy about the leak. Not letting Stubstad steal her thunder, Dr. Ketchum states in an email, "Richard Stubstad is misinformed about the results and outcome of the project."

Link
What say you?

reply to post by flyingfish


I don't know, I'm having a hard time believing that foot size is a reliable indicator of height. I mean people have different sizes of feet, and this has nothing to do with their height, or am I wrong?
I am still inclined to believe they are Giganto though; the neanderthal thing is interesting, but there are too many pieces of evidence that don't fit into that, while fitting perfectly with the Giganto theory.

I just wish someone would get undeniable proof once and for all. I just want to KNOW what they are. There is so much we can learn from them.

reply to post by trollz

I don't know, I'm having a hard time believing that foot size is a reliable indicator of height. I mean people have different sizes of feet, and this has nothing to do with their height, or am I wrong?

This measurement has little to do with foot size dictating height per say.
The data is made by using the known foot size(14.49) as tool to compare the creatures size in the video, a measuring stick of sorts.

reply to post by flyingfish


Man, that post has more "evil ape" than any Robert E. Howard book.

Could sasquatch be a relict neandertal? Probably not; there doesn't seem to be any evidence that neandertals lived east of the Black Sea, much less North America.

if Bigfoot is real (and that's a pretty large "if," in my opinion) I would guess, if anything, it is descended from Homo erectus, and has become its own "thing" in the last million years or so. Erectus was the first human species to migrate out from Africa, and it managed to get all over the damn place, so a crossing to North America wouldn't really surprise me.

That said... You can't hide a population of large creatures for too long - especially not when lots of people are specifically looking for them. If we can find miniature antelopes in the highlands of Vietnam, it's my view that we should easily find giant hominids in northern California.

Originally posted by auraelium

I hate to burst your bubble but there is absolutly no evidence that Neanderthal clashed with modern man, In fact recent DNA evidence shows that they interbred... alot. Also Neanderthal was nothing like what is reported in Bigfoot sightings.Neanderthal was = in intellegence to man at that time, did not have hair all over its body,was skilled at crafting elaborate tools such as axes and arrows, wore stitched clothing, and painted ornate cave paintings in caves all over Europe. so with that in mind i have to say that your theory is completly barmy.

Neanderthals were equal in intelligence to modern man. Of course, given the nature of their existence, they had an entirely different skill set, and probably an entirely alien mindset, but no less intelligence. The application of that intelligence is where the difference was.

No evidence remains to show whether Neanderthals were particularly hirsute or not.

Elaborate tools, yes, arrows, no. Ditto for the cave paintings. I know of a few instances of Neanderthal art works, but no paintings. It's mostly jewelry, sculpture, and musical instruments, all developed late in their tenure on Earth.

The reconstructions shown in the OP are wrong. They remind me of the reconstructions of Boulle, which gave us the shuffling, lumbering apish image of Neanderthals that have stuck in the popular consciousness. The skeletal morphology and remaining evidence of muscle attachments do not support such a reconstruction. A powerful being, yes, but apish, no.

Also, the image showing a comparison of the skeletons of Neanderthals and modern man is off. Neanderthals were considerably shorter, not taller. They stood around 5'6" tall for males, compared to an average of 6' for modern man.

Myra Shackley makes a good case for a surviving population of relict Neanderthals in her book "Still Alive?". Her argument concerns Bigfoot-like creatures called "Almasty" or "Almas" in the Altai and Caucasus mountains, but not the North American Bigfoot. Bigfoot reports from North America concern a creature that is far too large to be identified as a Neanderthal.

I've seen bits and pieces of the "research" that the bulk of the illustrations in the OP came from, and it's bunk. It's nothing more than a fanciful, but cute, story to try to explain why some modern people are afraid of the dark. Neanderthals figure into it apparently prominently, but in reality only in a peripheral way as a vehicle to try to explain that irrational fear. In short, it relegates Neandethals to mere "boogey men", and demotes them from humanity. The "theory" is really all about US, and our irrational fears, and not about Neanderthals at all.