Neanderthals And Bigfoot

[CMcMillan]

Many people have yet to understand that Neanderthal DNA in humans is most likely from interbreeding rather than evolution and science now holds Neanderthals as a different human species than we modern humans. Additionally, Neanderthal evidence has not been found in North America or east of the Altai Mountains in Asia. In Africa, "modern" humans are evidenced at least 160,000 years before the present which predates the Neanderthals.

http://cfz-canada.blogspot.com/2012/10/spooky-sasquatch.html

[Dobbsquatch]

Everything we know about neanderthals is nothing like sasquatch.
Neanderthals use of tools, fire, their stature(on average shorter than modern humans, although having a much more robust skeleton), and where we find evidence of where they inhabited (listed in the post above) are completely inconsistent with sasqutch sightings and reported behavior.

[Tzieth]

See that is what gets to me "Neanderthal stature". They were actually taller than humans of the time. Homo Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Us) were almost as different from sapiens-sapiens vs Neanderthal. I just recently found that H. Heidelberg is still being debated on weather or not it/they were also Neanderthals.

But what gets me are the assumptions. The tools, for example were found among Neanderthal bones. But other animal bones were also found along with them. This could just as easily been some sort of offering to someones God. On the other hand, there is that large pink elephant called "Human History" sitting right there in the living room.

But for the sake of argument, say these tools were from Neanderthals and say that they indeed buried their dead and this was not a Homo Sapiens or Sapiens Sapiens offering... Why on Gods green Earth would ALL Neanderthals have the same tech when Sapiens Sapiens did not? We can track different stone aged people simply by the tech they used as none of them used they same tools. For example the Clovis People of North America did not use the same tools nor design as the stone aged people of Europe and Asia and we have no idea how many people we using tools made completely out of wood as the wood would have long rotted by now.

Even in the Bronze age up until the Roman Empire, you can tell who was who by the weapons and armor they used. This only changed at Romes Peak as everyone was using Roman items in the west, But then continued to go back to the ethnic level during the Dark Age when everyone was forced to start from scratch. But even during the full brunt of the Roman Empire at it's peak, tools from India, China, and Japan were still unique to them.

But back the the Neolithic stone age... Another possibility is tool sharing as a form of early trade. There are just too many factors for me to firmly accept that these supposed Neanderthal tools were Neanderthal made

[Dobbsquatch]

This is getting off the topic of neanderthals and bigfoot, but I thought I'd at share with you some basic facts.
Neanderthals lived in Europe well before we did, as long as 300K years ago Anatomically modern humans, Cro Magnon, arrived in Europe approximately 35k years ago.
The stone tools are found with neanderthal remains throughout this period prior to Cro Magnons arrival.
These tools are called Mousterian and are not as advanced as the tools that the Cro Magnon brought with them.
In fact Mousterian tools are dated to be found in association with the earlier Heidelbergensis and even Erectus.
It is only after we find Cro Magnon remains in Europe that we see neanderthals using more advanced tools.
But neanderthals made and used stone tools.

[Tzieth]

This is getting off the topic of neanderthals and bigfoot, but I thought I'd at share with you some basic facts.
Neanderthals lived in Europe well before we did, as long as 300K years ago Anatomically modern humans, Cro Magnon, arrived in Europe approximately 35k years ago.
The stone tools are found with neanderthal remains throughout this period prior to Cro Magnons arrival.
These tools are called Mousterian and are not as advanced as the tools that the Cro Magnon brought with them.
In fact Mousterian tools are dated to be found in association with the earlier Heidelbergensis and even Erectus.
It is only after we find Cro Magnon remains in Europe that we see neanderthals using more advanced tools.
But neanderthals made and used stone tools.

Okay Again not to jump off topic.. But I do feel that at least one type of Bigfoot is Neanderthal. But for the record so that we are on the same page. "Homo Sapiens" AKA Cro Magnon. Are yet another candidate for Bigfoot. I know people say they are us, but they weren't Their Skulls were much smaller, and though they were shaped more like Sapiens Sapiens skulls, they were still much different from ours in the way they were plated together.

But here is the smoking gun. How do we KNOW that Neanderthals lived in Europe before Sapiens Sapiens? There is all kinds of hard undeniable evidence out there that Sapiens Sapiens are much older than science wants to believe.. And yet it is not spoken of and swept under the rug. Because we found no fossils? We have found what is seemingly mass Neanderthal graves that suggest that they buried their dead. This could be likely but there is still the possibility that WE buried their dead. All these "Graves" had other Animal bones mixed in with them.. If they were so "respectful" of their dead, why would they bury their dead with their trash? I will buy that it was some sort of ancient ceremony unique to them.

But why no Human bodies? (Sapiens Sapiens). While Anthropologists are all following the rules of evolution, they are discounting the obvious while intentionally sweeping hard evidence of Sapiens Sapiens presence going back millions of years under the rug. (Yes I said Millions). There is one thing that early human civilizations did that nothing else did. ESPECIALLY in Europe. Burned their dead.

Near where I grew up, there is a Park i have been to many times. "Dinosaur Valley National Park." Along the Paluxy River bed, there are 100's of well preserved dinosaur tracks. And along side them, Human tracks.

Here is what wiki says about it as if this was a determined fact: "The Paluxy River is a river in the U.S. state of Texas. It is a tributary of the Brazos River. It is formed by the convergence of the North Paluxy River and the South Paluxy River near Bluff Dale, Texas in Erath County and flows a distance of 29 miles (47 km) before joining the Brazos just to the east of Glen Rose, Texas in south central Somervell County.[1]
It is best known for numerous dinosaur footprints found in its bed near Glen Rose at the Dinosaur Valley State Park. The Paluxy River became famous for controversy in the early 1930s when locals found dinosaur and supposed human footprints in the same rock layer in the Glen Rose Formation, which were widely publicized as evidence against the geological time scale and in favor of young-Earth creationism. However, these anachronistic "human" footprints have been determined to be mistaken interpretation and even some outright fakes.[2] The family of the original man, George Adams, who made the claims, later admitted it was a hoax.[3] "My grandfather was a very good sculptor," said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family who found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks.[3] She explained that in the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by making moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils.[3] The fossils were bought for $15 to $30 and when the supply ran low, George Adams, Zana's grandfather, "just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in."[3]"

What it is not saying is that this is still heavily debated and new evidence has recently been found that debunked the whole "Faked" theory/story. about four years ago a shelf of the cliff wall was excavated and removed as there were foot prints (dinosaur) leading into the wall, so they knew they continued. When the shelf was removed, more human prints were found in perfect shape. These could not be hoaxed and the older argument of them being dinosaur prints that were eroded to look human also did not apply.

Here is a supposed unbiased argument with the new data inserted. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm Notice how all the evidence is viciously attacked.

Anything that threatens "Evolution" is scrutinized. However anything that supports Evolution is readily accepted.. Such as "There were no Humans (Sapiens Sapiens) living in Europe during the Ice age, when we know for a fact that many primitive civilizations cremated their dead. Sapiens Sapiens foot-print evidence is quickly dismissed as being faked, or natural erosion of other creatures prints. (Like Bigfoot today) But Neanderthal Prints and Erectus Prints are without a shadow of a doubt Neanderthal or Erectus (Even though we do not have complete skeletal remains of their feet.)

By the way, they "Unbiased" topic stated that even creationists were no longer backing the tracks. That in it's self was a flat out lie.. Here is their side of that issue lol http://www.icr.org/article/paluxy-river-tracks/

No it was not my intent to turn this into "That Argument" I am neither are Darwinian, nor a hardcore Creationist. I am someone who thinks that religion and philosophy altogether has no place in science. When you become one sided, you are ruled by one side and you turn a blind eye to the other. This is exactly what is going on with Bigfoot. This is why I brought this up.

[CMcMillan]

Well said TZ,

The issue is that Science has been know making mistakes Identifying things all the time. Then when they discover they did its Oh well science is always changing on the evidence we find.
If i recall they made a dino from fossiles they found not realizing that the fossiles came from several dinos.

[Tzieth]

Well said TZ,

The issue is that Science has been know making mistakes Identifying things all the time. Then when they discover they did its Oh well science is always changing on the evidence we find.
If i recall they made a dino from fossiles they found not realizing that the fossiles came from several dinos.

Yep lol.. The Late Brontosaurus.. RIP Bronto

[Green911]

Well said TZ,

The issue is that Science has been know making mistakes Identifying things all the time. Then when they discover they did its Oh well science is always changing on the evidence we find.
If i recall they made a dino from fossiles they found not realizing that the fossiles came from several dinos.

Or how about ancient humans finding elephant skeletons and putting them together ALL wrong, believing they were giant monsters. It's all in individual perception.

[CMcMillan]

Well said TZ,

The issue is that Science has been know making mistakes Identifying things all the time. Then when they discover they did its Oh well science is always changing on the evidence we find.
If i recall they made a dino from fossiles they found not realizing that the fossiles came from several dinos.

Or how about ancient humans finding elephant skeletons and putting them together ALL wrong, believing they were giant monsters. It's all in individual perception.

Yes, Of course it is now like you said Ancient people. Don't forget they didn't know what an Elephant was.
This is why I believe in some of the science that is contained in ancient myths and legends. People saw things. The described them the best they could so a Dinosaur became a dragon. Or a Bigfoot became a Troll. A Dogman became a werewolf.

[Green911]

Good point. It's not that I don't believe the ancient tales, I just think that some of them may have different explanations. I have always believed that ancient tales have basis in truth.

[Dobbsquatch]

The argument that science has made mistakes in the past, therefore it is inherently flawed or mistaken now is an argument for people who cant discern one situation from another, or they don't like/trust what science tells them. Common sense would prevent this but here's basically what these people are saying:
"I burn my hand on a pot on the stove, therefore all pots on stoves are hot."
Of course this isn't true. Common sense tells us so.
Does science make mistakes, yes, and definitely more so in the past as scientific rigor wasn't nearly as strict as it is today. And I think a little doubt is healthy, however creating a dialogue where science is flawed because its not perfect only promotes narrow thinking.

[Tzieth]

The argument that science has made mistakes in the past, therefore it is inherently flawed or mistaken now is an argument for people who cant discern one situation from another, or they don't like/trust what science tells them. Common sense would prevent this but here's basically what these people are saying:
"I burn my hand on a pot on the stove, therefore all pots on stoves are hot."
Of course this isn't true. Common sense tells us so.
Does science make mistakes, yes, and definitely more so in the past as scientific rigor wasn't nearly as strict as it is today. And I think a little doubt is healthy, however creating a dialogue where science is flawed because its not perfect only promotes narrow thinking.

Not the same... "Modern Science" is just as narrow minded as it was in the Renascence. To say that something of the past and having no Historical record (That is why we call it "Pre-Historic") Is solidly "THIS" and give no thought to it being "THAT" is just absurd. Science is flawed.. BADLY. The proof is science in it's self. Every Base Science is a contradiction of another.

Paleontology HAS to follow the rules of evolution because that is what they are looking for. Archaeology does not. Archaeology is the study of Civilization. So when Archaeologists find something that Paleontologists do not like, crap hits the fan such as with here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/592435/posts

The very same stuff is turning up in Both Alaska and Siberia now. But this discovery which has not just Archaeology backing it, but also Geology was found in the mid 90's and yet no one seems to have heard about this? We found the oldest skeleton ever found in the Americas, Kennewick Man, also in the mid 90's. He is only 14.000 years old, but the Clovis tools date back 20,000 years. Where are the Bodies from back then?

My Point is that if you have evidence that here in the Americas of civilizations exceeding actual Anthropological findings, then why would Europe be any different? Again, we may not have bodies due to how we disposed of our dead. Oh and as for http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/592435/posts Did you read the argument against it? They are saying the tools could simply be natural rock formations, yet they look just like the stuff that Neanderthals supposedly made... Kind of one-sided, don't you think?

[CMcMillan]

The argument that science has made mistakes in the past, therefore it is inherently flawed or mistaken now is an argument for people who cant discern one situation from another, or they don't like/trust what science tells them. Common sense would prevent this but here's basically what these people are saying:
"I burn my hand on a pot on the stove, therefore all pots on stoves are hot."
Of course this isn't true. Common sense tells us so.
Does science make mistakes, yes, and definitely more so in the past as scientific rigor wasn't nearly as strict as it is today. And I think a little doubt is healthy, however creating a dialogue where science is flawed because its not perfect only promotes narrow thinking.

Scientists argue with each other with who is and who isn't correct.
Science is flawed This is a FACT
this doesn't promote Narrow thinking it expands the thinking since Science can and does make mistakes It allows others to think outside the Boundries of what we consider we know.

[Dobbsquatch]

Tzieth and CMillan
It's not my attempt to dissuade you of your beliefs. It's places like this forum that allow people of different beliefs to come together and discuss where they lie on issues.
So, I guess I'll just articulate where I'm at in regards to science in general and paleo-anthropology.
Most of science is is verifiable through repeated experiments where results are verifiable and that I don't question. And I believe in the scientific process on the whole.
The issue with paleontology and especially paleo-anthropology in the search for our ancestors is that if you took every single hominid fossil and artifact and piled it up, it would barely fill a small room. So what we get are huge sweeping theories based very little evidence. And, any new discovery essentially forces a restructuring of what science believes to be true. What this creates is a ton of conjecture based on very little evidence. And, as a result the individual scientists who stake their reputations on their hypotheses often contradict and argue with each other. A great example of this is the two paleo-anthropologists Donald Johanson and Richard Leakey. Both of whom claimed they had found our earliest ancestor. Leakey discovered "Lucy", australopithicus afrarensis, while Johanson discovered A. Africanus. They were both publicly critical of each others conclusions concerning their finds.
Personally I find this completely frustrating.
However impatient I am for answers, I have to take a step back and allow the process to take place. Because amid all the arguing and contradictory finger pointing more finds means more information. And, over time we do get closer to the truth because as we get more information we have more to base our theories on.
Granted we have very little evidence/findings at the moment but we have so much more than 50 years ago. And please hear me when I say that I don't see current theory as fact, I do believe today's theories are more accurate than 50 years ago. Will it change again, yes! But that is the scientific process. Paleo-anthropology is not a chemistry experiment where results are defined and certain. It is a process of discovery and hypotheses. And there is uncertainty in this process. But this process produces dateable remains and artifacts. And it is the material finds that are important and not the arguing over it. Over time the arguing goes away but the remains do not.
Now when they discover things that don't fit the current paradigm, yes there is resistance. But I see that resistance as bump in the road and not that science is flawed. These paleo-anthropologists do good work, they don't make up dates, remains, finds,etc. these are the facts of science. It's theory they attach to these facts that causes the disputes. Leakey never disputed what Johanson found and vice versa, but rather what it meant. And today, neither are considered as important to our proposed "tree" as either of them thought. And that is science doing its job. Letting the smoke clear and seeing it for what it was: two upright Australopithecines.

My apologies for making this long.
Looking forward to your replies.

[Tzieth]

No need to apologize, Dobbsquatch This is exactly where that sort of Science is flawed... No dialog or room for alternate opinion. Here is a prime example from the blog. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/10/heres-what-early-man-really-looked-like.html

This aroused all the trolls, thus I have no clue why it was allowed in but it is pure B.S. and a prime example of what happens when you base a science on a theory. Those models were created by Experts? lol Then why are they so anatomically incorrect? The agenda is to promote Evolution as a solid fact so lets use a little brainwashing. These models are no different from the artwork in our elementary school text-books that also show purported human ancestors looking more human(Homo Sapiens Sapiens) than ape. "We can't find a missing link, so lets just place a square peg into a round hole and morph the facts to make a better case for ourselves."

The other problem, you already stated. Competition.. Human greed and ego stand in the way of progress. In making a different point on another thread a while back, I researched all the Hominids on record and when they were found. To my shock, I found that the number is debated as some of the "Different Hominids" might be the same thing discovered by two different people but each wanted their name on the discovery. One was found in Asia the other Africa and they are now labeled as two different creatures even though the differences could be ethnic. This would be like two future beings a million years from now, dug up a Caucasian from America and another dug up a Negro from Africa and labeled us as two different types of Hominids.

Though I personally do not believe in evolution, (One thing becoming another) I also cannot deny the possibility that this could be the case. But if you have founded a science such as Anthropology and based it off of this theory, then you have completely shut the door on other possibilities. What if Evolution is the fact, but not the way we thought? How would we know, if we are searching for what we want to make our case, and at the same time turning a blind eye to things that say differently?

This effects Sasquatch research. What if Sasquatch is indeed Neanderthals? This sounds silly because everyone has this artwork programmed into them of what they were brainwashed into thinking Neanderthals were like. But do we know for sure? What anyone with common sense should know for sure is that Neanderthals DID NOT look like we were lead to believe. The bone structure alone proves this.

This agenda makes me wonder just how many Neanderthals we have found intact and frozen that we do not know about. If we never found a preserved Woolly Rhino or Mammoth frozen in ice, would we have assumed that they looked just like modern Pachyderms? Yet we supposedly have not found one single frozen Neanderthal?

[Starz]

[quote
Paleontology HAS to follow the rules of evolution because that is what they are looking for. Archaeology does not. Archaeology is the study of Civilization. So when Archaeologists find something that Paleontologists do not like, crap hits the fan such as with here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/592435/posts [quote]

Exactly Tzieth!!
Currently the Neanderthal's brains are approx 100cc's larger than ours. Look at Bigfoot's head, something's in there and I'm guessing it isn't salad. LOL. No one's doing a lot of digging into anthropology to wrap their head around what we might be dealing with. The more you do dig into it, the more fascinating the evidence we know about Bigfoot is.

btw, thanks for the links T-MAN!

[Sponsored content]