Is Bigfoot a remnant of Neanderthal?

Originally posted by Versa
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.

True.
I don't dispute the spiritual angle. I believe both were happening. I theorize that maybe cannibalism started during a period of environmental stress where the normal food supply dwindled then cannibalism took place out of necessity for survival then later carried on afterward in some ritualistic manner.

Some only want to see black or white with no middle ground on the subject.
I am flexible enough to envision a Grey area.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Well the predation theory doesn't deny that we interbred with them.
The people in your post (I assume they are an interpretation of Neanderthals) would have looked nothing like Neanderthals by the skeletal evidence.
They are probably not even robust enough to look like Cro-Magnons.
The classic Neanderthals had no forehead, and enormous eyes where our forehead would have been.
It's probably Jean M Auel and her novels of prehistoric hank-panky that created this romanticized vision of the Neanderthals. They are based on human models and certainly not scientific.

reply to post by halfoldman


Well that's why we should keep strictly to the evidence as it comes to light.

1.) We find neanderthal graves which appear to show some sort of "ritual burials"
2.) We find evidence of "Cannibalism" but we don't know the "Context" of this activity.
3.) We [Modern Humans] for the most part, all carry Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA.

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by auraelium

forensic reconstruction of the La Ferrassie neanderthal One of the world's foremost digital sculptors, Madrid based Arturo Balseiro (below) was commissioned to create a forensic reconstruction of a Neanderthal based on Vendramini's NP theory.

Please tell me that last quote is a joke?? lol Obviously has just discovered zbrush or mudbox lol.


Wayne...

reply to post by flyingfish



OK...

I've re-read through the entire thread to make sure and haven't found any reference to the [Almas, Almasti, Almati and Albasti] This/these supposed creatures and the tales of their existence have always fascinated me. They are supposedly "Neanderthal-like" and could be what you're looking for.

Almas

Mongolian for 'wild man, is the name given presumed hominid reputed to inhabit the Caucasus and Pamir Mountains of central Asia as well as the Altai Mountains of southern Mongolia. As is typical of the unknown hominids throughout central Asia, Russia, and the Caucasus, Almas are generally considered to be more akin to "wild people" in appearance and habits than an ape, unlike other hominids such as the Yeti of the Himalayas which is said to be more ape like than man.

Almas are typically described as human like bipedal creatures, between five and six and a half feet tall, their bodies are covered with reddish-brown hair, and they have anthropomorphic facial features including a pronounced brow-ridge, flat nose, and a weak chin. They are usually described as unclothed, although a handful of sightings refer to primitive clothing, made from animal skins, most likely used to keep warm. Many researchers have been struck by the similarity between descriptions of the Almas and modern reconstructions of how a Neanderthals might have appeared.

When one considers the shear size and vastness of the area in question it's not hard to imagine an isolated group/groups of something resembling "Neanderthals/Denisovans" existing into recorded history and may still do, Why not? It's not like there isn't enough room there for a group to survive through the mass die-offs/extinctions of their relatives in other locals.

In 1420 the first known printed reference to the Almas was documented by Hans Schiiberger as he traveled through the Tien Shan mountains as a captive of the Mongols. During his imprisonment wrote the following in his journal:

“In the mountains themselves live a wild people, who have nothing in common with other human beings, a pelt covers the entire body of these creatures. Only the hands and face are free of hair. They run around in the hills like animals and eat foliage and grass what ever else they can find. The Lord of the territory made Egidi a present of a couple of forest people, a man and women, together with three untamed horses the size of asses and all sorts of other animals which are not found in German lands with I cannot therefore put a name to.”

The above report to me is probably more credible than many of the more recent sightings and or grainy images simply because the gentlemen in question was not out to prove anything. As a matter of fact, he was taken prisoner. Now why would somebody who had been taken prisoner and not sure about his future not to mention the possibility of losing his life write such a fanciful tale about "Wild men"

I think there could still be a tribe of Neanderthal/Denisovans living in isolated pockets which when seen by people [Because of the nature of Modern Media] get tagged as being "Russian Bigfoot" this shouldn't be confused with the Yeti or any other such creatures, that I do believe to be the regions unknown type of "Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yowie" etc.

There are more stories about how the Red Army took one prisoner during WWII and then later executing it because of fears of it/he being a German spy. Or how a village in the area in question captured a female and some of the men in the village mated with her and there were offspring etc.

Now if it's closer to a Neanderthal/Denisovian than a Giant Bigfoot/Yeti then the possibility of mating is much more plausible IMHO. So these creature could be a Neanderthal or a close offshoot that sometimes get's thrown into the "Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti" bin undeservedly.

Just saying is all

reply to post by SLAYER69

The DNA smattering is compatible with Vandramini's theory, as explained in the OP's clip.
Whether the so-called Neanderthal burial sites were intentional mortuary disposals has always been disputed, and is also interpretative evidence at best, and thus not clear evidence of ritual behavior.
Without other evidence of ritual behavior it appears like the cannibalism occurred in a context that was purely nutritional or aggressive.
It will be interesting to see how the archeologists who have created the whole "noble savage" popular idea of the Neanderthals will respond. They will certainly have to bring more evidence to the table of how they came up with stitched clothing and shoes (a fabrication created completely out of nothing but the assumption that Neanderthals were hairless), and some dodgy shells. From that we get the picture of a quintessentially indigenous European, that people now claim as their ancestor 30 000 years ago. Taking a hominid with clear primate-like features and inventing a whole native culture around them is somewhat insulting to modern indigenous peoples. But inventing a whole culture around a single tooth is nothing new to Paleontology (as was the case with "Nebraska Man").
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and since careers have been made by dreaming up "Neanderthal culture", the battle for the popular image is bound to get ugly.

reply to post by halfoldman



I'm getting the feeling that you still hold to the idea that "Neanderthal = Apish brute" stereotype held over from the early days of Darwinism when the Academic Community of the period tried to shoe horn him into a "Supposed Missing" link [more ape than man]...

Meanwhile, all the verifiable evidence [Physical remains and now more recently DNA] has since moved forward and the idea of them being a "Missing Link" has been tossed out. Yet we still see the outdated misrepresentation of the "Apish Brute Neanderthal" still lingering.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Wow good stuff guys, any one feel like opening a can of worms?
As more evidence comes to light I believe these matters in question will come. I don't believe we have all the answers. There is a lot of speculation with these new theory's coming to light, things are bound to get heated.

Just for the record; I don't subscribe to the "Neanderthal = Apish brute" at least as it was interpreted in the early days of Darwinism. I think we are looking at a dynamic,intelligent,creative but yet very hostile primate. That is far from apish, at least in a social way.

I also feel that interbreeding was much more complicated than we are being led to believe with many off shoots and variations yet unknown. With this in mind I don't think my hypothesis is that far fetched. All one needs to do is look at the wide variation of modern men that has occurred over a relative short period of time
.
Anyway thanks everyone for your comments! Very interesting topic.

reply to post by toreishi


I was not not ignoring your post.
I guess my opening post was vague in the suggestion that Neanderthal may have bred with humans.I should have noted the DNA evidence.
My bad, I'm not much of a writer.
Thanks for the links

reply to post by the secret web

Please tell me that last quote is a joke?? lol Obviously has just discovered zbrush or mudbox lol. Wayne...

Whats so funny?
Do you not like the art?
Maybe you like this one yes?

reply to post by halfoldman


Thanks for your input.
I got a good response with links for the evidence of the stitched clothing ,shoes and ritual behavior, but all those links are based on interpretative assumption with nothing concrete.
I like Vandramini's theory simply because it confirms much the physical evidence, and I like a good monster story.

reply to post by SLAYER69

I suppose labeling Neanderthals as "apish brutes" is just as anthropomorphic as forcing them into human casts that bear no resemblance to the fossils, and giving them a historic hunter-gatherer culture.
I suppose saying they contributed to European DNA does make them a kind of contributing "missing link", even if it means we didn't slowly evolve from them.
I'd say the "brutish ape" view came from a time when Neanderthals were considered a separate line from Homo Heidelbergensis, and they were considered neither our ancestors by evolution or interbreeding.
They were a distant cousin and evolutionary dead-end.
It seems the recent scramble to absolutely humanize these hominids came with the realization that they may have contributed to European ancestry, and no matter how long ago in prehistory, Europeans can only come from a well-dressed, spiritual artist (hilarious really)!

A creature doesn't have to look like us to be intelligent.
Other animals seem to show signs of grieving for their dead.
We don't have to push a species into a "primitive man" mold to say they could have done these things.
We know they were intelligent hominids who made stone tools and had some use of fire.
They were top-level predators in a very challenging environment, and just like much of the Ice Age fauna they evolved physical adaptations to that environment.
One fails to see any of those adaptions in the popular reconstructions (and even the artists and paleontologists would acknowledge that these are highly speculative, but popular culture often accepts such artistry at face value).
Of course it's all highly speculative, and that's why it will be good to have two views because it will challenge the scientists to provide concrete evidence for their interpretations.
But hey, I've already seen pictures of Denisovans and their clothes, and all that based on a finger and tooth discovered in 2010!

Ultimately they are extinct and we survived, so somewhere along the line we proved the most "brutish ape" of all, and that's a central point of the predation theory.
It seems that the Neanderthal "researchers" are so intent on their humanized construction of Neanderthals that it took an outsider (a film-maker) to rock the boat.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I suppose saying they contributed to European DNA does make them a kind of contributing "missing link", even if it means we didn't slowly evolve from them.

Not just "European DNA" but all others who are not of Sub Saharan African/Australian aboriginal descent carry either Neanderthal or Denisovian DNA. We might want to dispel with the sole "Euro-centric" view of mankind's history and recognize the rest of the planet and their individual and as well as their collective histories.

This isn't a discussion of a "Missing link" I believe that supposed issue from my perspective happened eons previously at a much earlier period than we are discussing. I believe this is a major stumbling block for some when discussing the topic [Not saying this is the case with you]

I'd say the "brutish ape" view came from a time when Neanderthals were considered a separate line from Homo Heidelbergensis, and they were considered neither our ancestors by evolution or interbreeding. They were a distant cousin and evolutionary dead-end.

A dead end only as far as "they living the way they had" however, They technically are not extinct. They are us, we are them. For locked away in most of the worlds populations genetic makeup can be found their contribution to who we are. Some people speak of or defend either Creationism or Darwinism, each seemingly adhering to very "strict beliefs" and "Opinion" on many individual aspects of these long held beliefs.

This is a newer version of events.
I and many others are fully aware that there will be resistance to this newer theory from all sides for varying reasons.

It seems the recent scramble to absolutely humanize these hominids came with the realization that they may have contributed to European ancestry, and no matter how long ago in prehistory, Europeans can only come from a well-dressed, spiritual artist (hilarious really)!

Again, it might help if we dispel with the "Euro-centric" point of view and think Globally. Besides, it was mostly the early "European Scientific" community who got the whole Neanderthal-Brutish-Ape scenario wrong in the first place. If anything they could be "Scrambling" to correct one of their most glaring collective scientific blunders.

A creature doesn't have to look like us to be intelligent. Other animals seem to show signs of grieving for their dead.

How many of those "Other Animals" bury their dead in a prepared grave site and further, how many of those "other Animals" bury their dead with "Trinkets"?

We don't have to push a species into a "primitive man" mold to say they could have done these things. We know they were intelligent hominids who made stone tools and had some use of fire.

Let me ask you a question here....
How many other species on the planet routinely make use of fire other than man?

They were top-level predators in a very challenging environment, and just like much of the Ice Age fauna they evolved physical adaptations to that environment.

I have no issues with this belief. They were some very Tough SOBs.


Interesting perspective... How strong would a Neanderthal be compared to a human

"Try these physical characteristics on for size:

• For starters, massive, broad shoulders are indicated by a scapular breadth that is about 8% larger than their modern human contemporaries. (Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans did live side by side for several millennia.)

• Muscle attachments for the pecs were enormous, up to twice the size of today’s average.

• Neanderthals had shorter, wider humeri (upper arms), which combined with the shoulders, suggests substantial rotator cuff muscularity. And, get this; the bones in their forearms were actually bowed from muscles that must have powered a grip that could crush stone.

• All of this upper body musculature was anchored on a solid foundation of massive quads that specialized in explosive power and side-to-side movement."

"This would have made Neanderthal fingers and thumbs upwards of twice the strength of modern humans" Lumely-Woodyear 1973;

"Thus Neanderthals were probably better at throwing (Debenath and Tournepiche 1992) than their modern contemporaries"

One fails to see any of those adaptions in the popular reconstructions (and even the artists and paleontologists would acknowledge that these are highly speculative, but popular culture often accepts such artistry at face value).

So....

We should instead rely on an archaic earlier flawed academic view of them? After all, they were the origins of the idea that Neanderthal was simply a primitive hominid rather than a closely related cousin whose line migrated out of Africa from a much earlier period than Homo Sapians. You earlier mentioned the Mega fauna they were confronted with.

Supposition here: To me this seems proof of their intelligence not a detraction of this new theory. They had to not only survive but hunt and out think the game of their locals. Not just Europe but ALL of the Ice age world. When we broaden our perspective to include the entire Eurasian Continent it starts to show us a much broader spectrum of events on a much larger canvas.

Of course it's all highly speculative, and that's why it will be good to have two views because it will challenge the scientists to provide concrete evidence for their interpretations.

AGAIN all based on their earlier flawed Scientific view [Recognized or not] that Neanderthal was a primitive brute?

But hey, I've already seen pictures of Denisovans and their clothes, and all that based on a finger and tooth discovered in 2010!

Yet....
Their DNA contribution shows up in modern man.

Ultimately they are extinct and we survived, so somewhere along the line we proved the most "brutish ape" of all, and that's a central point of the predation theory.

As I stated earlier I can see a Grey area and wont be boxed in by any one theory or perspective on the subject. I feel all too many hold to either black or white view only of the subject and do not consider demonstrating a flexibility in the evolving story of man which we are slowly piecing together from new evidence as it comes to light.

It seems that the Neanderthal "researchers" are so intent on their humanized construction of Neanderthals that it took an outsider (a film-maker) to rock the boat

It's all theory and conjecture based on physical archeological evidence coupled with biological evidence [Our DNA] which is showing us an entirely different possibility of our collective history [Not just a Euro-centric] view.

Also, I'm not aware of which Film or Film maker you're referring to?

big foot=neanderthal something i have wondered about as well.

the rather interesting thing that DOES make me wonder is the fact that we NEVER (at least that makes it out to the public anyway), find any evidence about big foot at all. only foot prints, hair ect. things we can't pin down so are often labeled as hoaxes. add to this of course the admitted hoaxers down through the years (wonder if some hoaxes are disinformation campaigns to point the absurdity of such a creature existing just as for alians and ufo's), really muddy the waters.

there is always the possibility that at least one "type" of big foot IS neanderthal, after all THEY do seem to have some sort of big foot all over the world especially in places with lots of wild areas that such a creature can disappear into. if not neanderthal then we have yet another set of beings that appear to be intelligent. why intelligent? well if we can't find anything more then foot prints and such, that would indicate that they are smart enough to hide, not only themselves but any dead as well. a non intelligent creature like most on the planet would just let any remains stay where they fall, leaving plenty of evidence. so lack of things like skeletal remains points to intelligence in my book.

we are told neanderthal is smart, pointing to bigger brains. (don't really know how relivent that is considering it's a well known "fact" is that humans only use a portion of their brains). they apparently use weapons, that points to being intelligent. so being intelligent and if having at least a spoken language would mean that they can pass down oral history just as humans did. we are told neanderthal is extinct, due to none being seen, we are also told big foot doesn't exist as only seen never any good pictures, no remains ect.

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.

now figure we have been doing this for centuries, we have found that the aliens find our graveyards, producing fresh hunts for us. so we would make sure that any remains are hidden, most likely by cremation and grinding up any bones left over, and spreading the leftover ashes around so that we remain hidden. we would not not be using gunpowder as that creates noise again possibly leading the aliens to us. in all honesty we would be living on an extremely primitive level, in all likelihood loosing most of our knowledge that isn't usable due to the chance of being found out. we would not leave such evidence such as books, or weapons around for THEM to find, chances are that we would actually loose or ability to read and write, as survival would be of paramount importance. any learning would revolve around survival. we would do our utmost best to ensure that no alien ever got evidence of out survival. we would become very like this big foot creature

so if neanderthal is supposed to be smart wouldn't you think that that might be exactly what they have done? as such i don't think that big foot being neanderthal is that much of a stretch. they may be stronger than us, they may even be smarter than us. but with our numbers and technology they would be no match for us. if they have intelligence i think they would know this. in fact most oral passed down knowledge would be about the extreme need to be hidden. i think we would do much the same thing ourselves if in the position of being wiped out, survival and NOTHING else would be paramount. some food for thought.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Indeed, virtually all the humanized reconstructions of Neanderthals in their clothing are racially very Eurocentric, which reflects who is traditionally most interested in the debate.
I'm referring to the film in the OP on p.1. "Neanderthal: Profile of a super-predator."
But the whole science of paleontology is often seen as Euroecntric. According to most aboriginal traditions they were created in Australia in the dream-time, and never came from anywhere else. Chinese scientists still argue that they evolved from a different kind of Homo Erectus than any other people, and didn't migrate from anywhere else. It can be a touchy subject.

There were many hominids before the Neanderthals who had stone tools and fire, but they are hardly dressed up in stitched clothing and tribal decor. This is a projection from our culture onto them, which tells us more about ourselves. Making them fur-less thus immediately brings the problem of race and cultural styles to the reconstructions, when we don't have a clue about visual racial variation in prehistory.

"Brutish ape" is no longer the way we look at nature in a postmodern paradigm.
We know that just as there are genes for aggression, there are also genes for altruism.
There may be "brutish" behaviors depending on what relationship one has to a group of people or animals, but every in-group (especially amongst the primates) is also nurturing amongst themselves and toward their young. So even if if one argues they were ape-like, it wouldn't have the same associations of being inferior as people had in the early 1900's.

Intelligence would have been necessitated in conjunction with their physical adaptations, and we have no evidence that they lost their fur like the African hominids (or indeed didn't develop it further like other Ice Age species), so stitching clothes would not have been a necessary part of the intelligence repertoire.

The debates about the DNA and what exactly it means is certain to continue, and hopefully it will become refined enough in the future to make more accurate deductions on types of intelligence and much more.
In the meantime I think both schools could work a bit on their reconstructions.
The film-maker has some good points, but I think the glaring red pupils and toothy snarl is unnecessary (even apes can shut their traps), and white homeless-type people with brow ridges in the wrong place also seem unrealistic.
What is for sure is that they were different to the hominids that evolved in Africa, with very different environmental adaptions since both last saw each other as bipedal apes 70 000 years apart.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

True.
I don't dispute the spiritual angle. I believe both were happening. I theorize that maybe cannibalism started during a period of environmental stress where the normal food supply dwindled then cannibalism took place out of necessity for survival then later carried on afterward in some ritualistic manner.

yes I didn't mean to imply that the two reasons would be mutually exclusive, I just meant that in actual fact cannibalism can be seen as a sign of religious thinking rather than just cannibal=savage

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by the secret web

 

Please tell me that last quote is a joke?? lol Obviously has just discovered zbrush or mudbox lol. Wayne...

Whats so funny?
Do you not like the art?
Maybe you like this one yes?

edit on 19-7-2011 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)

When I see someone no bugger has heard of described as 'one of the worlds leading digital sculptors' and produce beginners standard of work like that It raises a LOT of alarm bells. There are many true phenominal digital sculoptors out there and I can say for sure this guy isn't one of them yet. As such any reconstruction would be null and void as he does not have the knowledge or skill to carry out such a recon ...especially as he obviously do not have good control of his sculpting software yet.

This is a subject I'm an expert on...and not a self proclaimed one...if you need clarification please ask Springer and I'm sure he can enlighten you. A job such as this needs a high level specalist in anatomy (both human and animal)... two names that would immediately spring to mind are Zak Petroc and Scott Eaton. In fact if I had to advise for a job such as that then those are the two names that I'd put forward, although like many of us those guys are very busy (even assuming they were free), and do not work cheap.

Wayne...

I've often wondered the same thing op!

I've also read an interesting theory from the native Americans that big foot is a spiritual creature that can be seen, more so, under the aid of certain states of mind. Supposedly alcohol is a useful tool for luring them.

I've also read research that spontaneous releases of '___' can make people have these "psychotic episodes" where they see unusual things. Meaning you could be seeing something, but it's interacting with your consciousness, "injecting itself into your field of view"' rather than you actually seeing it with your eyes.

reply to post by the secret web

There are many true phenominal digital sculoptors out there and I can say for sure this guy isn't one of them yet. As such any reconstruction would be null and void as he does not have the knowledge or skill to carry out such a recon ...especially as he obviously do not have good control of his sculpting software yet.

Arturo Balseiro has work as make up effects artist for more that 15 years, during this years he has develope the skills to create amazing creature using makeup special fx. He has translate all the "real life technics" to use on a digital enviorement(zbrush 3, Maya) to design the characters providing the character a "real life" like qualities designs,maquettes or 3D models. He´s really well know for the love to the detaills on his designes, and for the conceivible characters he finally recreate. The ranges of posibilites to display the work goes from simple pencils drawing ideas to complex 3D models that let Arturo and the client explore the design from every angle and any posbiility, giving the oportunity to make changes and options very fast.

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






Link