Hypothetical Question, Regarding True Ancestor Of Bigfoot Options

[moregon]

Some of you may remember the picture I posted in the not too distant past regarding a forensic scientists recreation of what a Neandertal may have looked like based on their skull and techniques used to identify what remains of people may have looked like in life. The thread was Here.

Here is the picture the thread was based upon once again.


This recreation was based on known measurements of flesh thickness of modern man, so by basing those measurements on the Neandertal Skull there is room for error since we don't have the actual measurements of those areas on a Neandertal. Although our own skulls are very similarly shaped, unless we know the race of the modern man we are trying to recreate we can't accurately estimate things like width and size of nose, thickness of the lips, fullness of cheeks etc. We also can't look at a skull and say this person weighed 120 pounds or 450 pounds, and at both extremes their actual physical appearance will be considerably different.

Another point to consider is hair growth and hair patterns, this is another thing we can't tell simply by the skull. To the best of my knowlege there is no surviving pieces of soft flesh from a Neandertal that would define what their hair pattern was nor the type of hair they actually had. Was it long, fine and straight like a caucasian, or more wirey and curly like other races. We can't tell if when they were living if they were clean shaven, had a beard or were a specimen of a person with hisutism. What IF the picture is wrong, what if they didn't have defined eyebrows like modern man, nor a hairless forehead?

One thing that struck me was the shape of the nose in the recreation above. I realized it was very similar in appearance to the nose in the blow-up of Patti in the Patterson-Gimlin footage, albeit a little bit longer than Patti's. Here is a blow-up of I'm referring to.




There's been a lot of discussion in regards to what appears to be a sagittal crest on Patti, but for one moment let's consider that what we are seeing is not actually a sagittal crest, but nothing more than her natural hair growth and pattern. If the hair was very wirey could it not stand up and create a similar appearance on top of someone's head if left uncut/untrimmed?

Using the picture of Patti above, and my Windows Paint program I found what the dimensions of her eye appears to be. Top to bottom in the center as well as dimensions from corner to corner. Using those dimension I found what the dimensions, percentage wise would be in the fleshy unhaired sections that appear in her photo. I also found the dimension from the top of the eye to the top of the alleged crest. Then taking the picture of the recreated Neandertal, I found the dimension of his eye and used the same percentage differences to map out where the hairline would be as well as the top of the crest based on the dimensions of Patti. I realize this is all highly speculative, and very possible if I used the same dimensions on a modern human I'd get similar results, as it's similar to simply putting a disguise or make-up on someone to make them appear as someone else. Would the end result show this is even a possibility, or rule it out completely? I apologize I don't have any really good computer drawing programs nor am I a computer artist. What do you think?

Could THIS:



Be THIS?


Or is this not even a possibility?

(Edited to add)
If the hair is curly/kinky/wirey and of sufficient depth it would explain why there are no ears apparent, they would be hidden under the hair if the length was sufficient to cover them.

If this is nothing more than hair growth, this is approximately what Patti would look like with a haircut based on the same measuring technique I used only using the dimensions of the Neandertal transferred to Patti.



This post has been edited by moregon: May 19 2007, 08:24 AM

[mkianni]

Is there any way , in computer wizardry, that the hair can be cleaned away from the "patty" pic you posted?

[moregon]

I suppose there would but without knowing where the actual ends of her flesh would be you'd simply come out with a chubby looking Patti that probably wouldn't give you a really close match anyway.

[Gigantofootecus]

I always thought Peiltch's hairless Patty looked pretty accurate. I don't think he'd mind if I post his pic.



This post has been edited by Gigantofootecus: May 19 2007, 11:05 AM

[Hairy Man]

Very cool! I really don't think Patty is a Neanderthal, but it's an intriguing theory (and picture). I just don't think what we know of body size (shape, height, and weight) makes a Neanderthal a good candidate (the species would have to go UP in all categories).

[BobZenor]

Neanderthal apparently evolved for 500,000 years in the cold. I don't know how anybody could argue that they couldn't possibly be an ancestor of Bigfoot. Personally, I doubt that because it doesn't seem that 500,000 years is enough of a separation. I don't believe that my knowledge of the subject is very reliable because it is based on differences between races of modern humans separated by a few tens of thousand of years which doesn't seem to amount to much. 500,000 years separation is clearly beyond anybody's frame of reference.

The clear picture above of Patty from the front in the first post definitely seems to exaggerate the appearance of the crest when compared to the view from the side, below. I used the skull below to compare Patty to the most complete skull from Java, Sangiran 17. One of the other partial skulls found in the region, Sangiran 27 was described as having a heavily thickened nuchal crest. A nuchal crest is basically a flange, protuberance or ridge of bone that runs vertically down the back of the skull and is used for attaching neck muscles. I gather that much of the pointed head of a gorilla is due to the nuchal crest. I cannot figure out how neck muscles attaching to a vertical ridge of bone makes a huge pointed "crest" on top of the head but that is what seems to have happened on gorillas. I would greatly appreciate an explanation of how the muscles that make up the nuchal crest of a gorilla form a crest on the top of the skull. It also seems a bit odd for a mostly upright creature to have such prominent neck support unless it is lateral.


If you were to put a bit of a nuchal crest on that Sangiran 27 skull above, you would have a very good fit as a potential Bigfoot ancestor. One of the other Sangiran fossils was estimated by Krantz, I believe, to be 9 feet tall and the teeth were 2/3 the size of gigantopithicus. Very little of that specimen was found and the size was just estimated from tooth size. We have a group of erectus that are apparently primitive if you assume that very strong jaw muscles would tend to separate them from being technological. One skull may show a prominent nuchal crest. Another shows great potential size and another, by far the most complete and shown below, has a forehead that seems to me to be a nearly perfect match for the Patterson creature. They lived in Asia in the right place at the right time. Yet somehow many scientist seem to think that a relative of Orangs is a better fit as potential ancestor.

I am confused about how many scientist can believe Giganto is a better potential ancestor. Do scientist really believe these theories as fact:
1. People became hairless millions of years ago because of overheating in Africa.
2. Humans developed large brains only after using stones as tools and breaking into marrow because plants don’t have enough fat to form a large brains. That is why vegetarians and vegans have been shown to have much smaller brains than the rest of us. (sarcasm)
3. There is a single lineage that led from habilis to erectus to humans. That is not the consensus opinion by modern paleontologists but seems particularly important to eliminate erectus.

Link
"Meganthropus I/Sangiran 27

Tyler described this specimen as being a nearly complete but crushed cranium within the size limit of Meganthropus and outside the (assumed) limit of H. erectus. The specimen was unusual for having a double sagittal crest and a heavily thickened nuchal crest [4]. A.C. Durband challenged the interpretation of the fossil, and showed it to be well within the known range for H. erectus [5].

Picture of sangarin 27"


This post has been edited by BobZenor: May 19 2007, 09:20 PM

[Hairy Man]

It depends, Bob, on exactly what it is you are suggesting. Are you saying that Neanderthal, as we know the species from Europe (including his known cultural behavior of fire, tools, artwork, burials, etc.) is a candidate for bigfoot or something that split from Neanderthal sometime during his evolutionary phase could be a candidate for bigfoot?

If it's the first one, then yeah, I'd argue very hard against it because there are just too many differences. We know from fossils that the species was still around less than 24,000 years ago. Depending on when he was able to cross the land bridge (unlikely before 20,000 years ago), how would the species have lost so much culture AND grew larger in such a short evolutionary time span? I'm not buying it. And I think there are so many better possible ancestors out there that don't have to lose fire and gain body characteristics.

[17x7]

Here is the picture the thread was based upon once again.

Not to be a pain in the butt or anything, but I know that guy. I used to go to church with him. He is more balding and has brown hair. Oh, and he doesn't wear a beard either.

Seriously, if I had a snapshot of this guy I knowto show you, you would swear they were the same guy.

17x7

This post has been edited by 17x7: May 20 2007, 12:54 AM

[moregon]

And I think there are so many better possible ancestors out there that don't have to lose fire and gain body characteristics.

Hairy Man could you provide a list of those you think might be a better candidate for an ancestor? Personally it makes a lot more sense to me to comtemplate a more human-like ancestor rather than an ape of some sort for a variety of reasons.

[bipto]

...lose fire and gain body characteristics.

Doesn't that happen to us all as we get older? Why pick on the poor Neanderthal?

[P.J.]

hmmm....I think we may be on to something here.....


I don't think BF is a neanderthal (personally I think giganto is a better pick for being a bf)....from what I recall Neanderthals were something like 5'6''- 6' and 180-200lbs (much too small to be a BF) but maybe a distant cousin.....

[P.J.]

"Meet the Mystery Man

Five foot five inches tall…
One hundred eighty pounds…
Eight percent body fat…
Prehistoric guys want to be him and chicks want to be with him…

Who is he? Why, he’s Neandrethal man. The biggest, baddest, bipedal evolutionary ancestor on the block. Check him out"


http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?art...=05-127-feature

[moregon]

hmmm....I think we may be on to something here.....
I don't think BF is a neanderthal (personally I think giganto is a better pick for being a bf)....from what I recall Neanderthals were something like 5'6''- 6' and 180-200lbs (much too small to be a BF) but maybe a distant cousin.....

Only one small problem with that P.J. at the time Neanderthals were around Homo Sapiens Sapiens were not as tall as they are today either. Granted it's suggested that our increase in average height has been claimed to be due to better nutrition, but what if it isn't. What if our increase in height is actually due to a natural progression of the evolvement of the species? In 1900 the average height of a male adult in the UK was 5' 5" (I used the UK as an example because that's the only verified data I could find off the bat). So in the last 100 years the average height has increased 4" from 5' 5" to 5' 9". That's just over a 6% increase in average height in the last 100 years. I've also seen data but not everyone agrees that the early Homo Sapiens Sapiens averaged about 5'3" which would then be a 9% increase in height during the reign of our species.

I think I read that Neandertals were around 5' 7" average in height, which if they were still around and followed the same trend we have, at a 6% increase would be around 5' 11" and at 9% around 6' 1". Another possibility that has been mentioned is Homo Ergaster/Homo Erectus based on the Turkana Boy who may have reached 6'1" at adulthood. If one of these also gained a 6% increase in height over the last how many thousands of years, we'd be talking of one around 6' 5" tall.. aren't there a number of reports that estimate between 6 and 7 feet tall? An increase of 9% would bring it up to around 6' 8" also within the scope of reported heights.

[dogu4]

This is an interesting discussion. I wonder if the reason we seem to have actually gotten smaller (more gracile) morphologically speaking might not be due to the idea that as highly socially structured primates, we might have self-selected for "tameness" and as a result saw our morphology change much like the foxes that were selected for tameness that began to show the exact kind of changes that must have taken place between the wolves and dogs. For that matter maybe that's why h.sapiens began to retain these characteristics of early stages of developement (like the growth period for the brain just extending for a few weeks beyond what primates had done prior to this). I think the term is neotony or paedomorphy.

I can imagine that considering our accute instinctive sensitivity to social context, any male member of a population that retained the ancestral drives and instinctive behaviors of a pre-socialized erectus, habilis or austalopithicene would not be as likely to successfully mate with a female for whom sex is both cryptic (consensual) and within the context of a sustaining social structure (bonded) over a long period of time. I mean, they'd tolerate it as long as he brought back abundant food, but at somepoint the social structure recoginzes that the ones least comfortable with being in proximity to a larger number of its kind(does not play well with others), would find its genetic component become scarcer.

On the other hand, erectus, presuming they wouldn't have been as instinctively social as humans and maybe neanderhals, as they began to acquire the adaptive characteristics that would enable it to singlehandedly become a population of wide-ranging primated adapted to take advantage of the migrating grazing animals of the steppes; becoming gigantic would make a lot of sense.

[Hairy Man]

In 1900 the average height of a male adult in the UK was 5' 5" (I used the UK as an example because that's the only verified data I could find off the bat). So in the last 100 years the average height has increased 4" from 5' 5" to 5' 9". That's just over a 6% increase in average height in the last 100 years. I've also seen data but not everyone agrees that the early Homo Sapiens Sapiens averaged about 5'3" which would then be a 9% increase in height during the reign of our species.

I think I read that Neandertals were around 5' 7" average in height, which if they were still around and followed the same trend we have, at a 6% increase would be around 5' 11" and at 9% around 6' 1". Another possibility that has been mentioned is Homo Ergaster/Homo Erectus based on the Turkana Boy who may have reached 6'1" at adulthood. If one of these also gained a 6% increase in height over the last how many thousands of years, we'd be talking of one around 6' 5" tall.. aren't there a number of reports that estimate between 6 and 7 feet tall? An increase of 9% would bring it up to around 6' 8" also within the scope of reported heights.

Except, you have to realize that this increase is completely human manufactured...it's due to the use of hormones in our meat and milk and overall better nutrition (medicine, vitamins, etc.). Had those NOT been a factor, you would not have seen a 6% increase. Therefore, it's not at all comparable to hypothesize that a Neanderthal could have increased from an average of 5'7" to 7 feet an higher in less than 24,000 years. Unaided evolution needs more time than that.

Having said that, I am not of the opinion that bigfoot couldn't be in the homo line or an ancestor. I could provide a list, but I'm afraid it would not be as good as that of Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who will be discussing this very concept on the "Let's Talk Bigfoot" radio program on June 6th. That is one of the questions Melissa and Teresa will be asking Dr. Meldrum, so tune in...or better, call in and ask, cause that would be a great chance to talk to him!

[BobZenor]

You cannot argue that humans cannot change actual size very quickly. If you compare Pygmies to Masai then it is obvious that change in size is not a difficult thing to accomplish. Our immediate ancestors, according to National Geographic, were much larger than any modern humans.

The only way that you can eliminate Homo from the list of candidates is to make assumptions well beyond what is even assumed by science. There were at least two species of Homo when the crudest technology was thought to have started by some groups of Homo. It was more than a million years before fire was known to be used. One of those species that didn't become modern humans could easily have been less technological than a chimp, which is ridiculous to assume as necessary since the technology of a Sasquatch is very likely far beyond a chimp. I don't assume that all cultures of a particular species of hominid are the same. Some probably live vastly more "primitive" lifestyles than others even within the same species. You would also have to make the dubious assumption that extreme pressure from modern humans couldn't have a negative impact on technology which is not particularly rational.

There could have been something that split off of early Neanderthal or Heildelbergensis that gave rise to Bigfoot. The technology argument is not very persuasive to me but it just seems that Bigfoot is likely not that close to a human. Still, over 500,000 years is quite a lot of time if something were evolving quickly to withstand a cold environment.

To argue against all Homo you have to assume a single lineage, which is not supported by the vast majority of paleontologists. You would also have to assume a single culture that is species specific which is certainly not supported by modern humans. I don't think it is reasonable to argue against a <edit add possible> possible animal that split 500,000 years ago. To ague against one that split 5 time as far back doesn't even make sense unless you assume far more knowledge than I believe to be possible.

This post has been edited by BobZenor: May 20 2007, 04:55 PM

[Hairy Man]

I don't think you read what I wrote, Bob. At no time did I say that bigfoot couldn't be in the homo line. What I did say is that he very could well be, but that I doubt it he was a Neanderthal because there are too many inconsistencies.

[Apeman]

A nuchal crest is basically a flange, protuberance or ridge of bone that runs vertically down the back of the skull and is used for attaching neck muscles.

Bob, I think you meant horizontal here...or maybe that's why you are confused? The nuchal or occipital crest runs perpendicular to a sagittal crest, that is, it's like a ring around the back/base of the head.

I gather that much of the pointed head of a gorilla is due to the nuchal crest. I cannot figure out how neck muscles attaching to a vertical ridge of bone makes a huge pointed "crest" on top of the head but that is what seems to have happened on gorillas. I would greatly appreciate an explanation of how the muscles that make up the nuchal crest of a gorilla form a crest on the top of the skull. It also seems a bit odd for a mostly upright creature to have such prominent neck support unless it is lateral.

Maybe one of these will help, though the only real diagrams I have show young gorillas with little to no crest. I though I'd posted this already but maybe it's in waiting for the sagital crest tutorial I've been dreaming about writing for 3-4 years...





I mostly agree on the question of why a biped would have such prominent neck support, but I wonder if a heavy enough 'face' could make the physics necessary?


Apeman

[BobZenor]

Sorry HarryMan, those double negatives did confuse me.

Apeman, I assumed from reading that the nuchal crest was vertical because it was described as being occipital or rearward. Unfortunately I couldn't find a good example of what they were talking about with respect to that particular fossil.

[HarryHenderson]

Sorry HarryMan.....

<sniffin trouble> Okay, now yer just gonna piss her off!

[Hairy Man]

LOL!

Seriously, I've broken one Bob already...I can break another.



(hehehehehehe!!!)

[Apeman]

This is a little better. The skull is supposedly a female with a surprisingly large sagittal crest: I can't confirm (it's from the web) though the teeth are certainly consistent. These two aren't quite oriented the same (the skull needs to be twisted backwards on it's long axis) but they're close enough for this excercise. While the sagittal would account for part of the peak of the pointed head in this skulls position, you can see that the nuchal is critical- as I've often tried to suggest here. In the live female (who is quite sparsely haired) you can actually see that wrinkle above her ear which helps demonstrate just how solidly attached the muscles are to the nuchal crest.



AM

[monkeyears]

crazy stuff ppl/ but nothing close too proof positive.

[SquatchCommando]

From my limited 30 second encounter with a Sas it gave me no impression that it was anything but a big ape, in the way it acted. In all the reports i read you don't hear of tools being used(Neanderthals did)


To me the Patterson subject looks ape neadertals had long noses and patties is at best a flat nose similar to being human looking not the long, Roman nose of this subject.

Neandertals were big built but nothing like Patty.


Interesting Idea but in my opinion( and yes I am not a Antropologist, but I did stay at a Holiday inn once)I think Patty is pure upright walking Miocene area like ape.


Besides Neanderthals are now fighting for their rights and sueing Gieco not walking in woods

This post has been edited by SquatchCommando: May 22 2007, 06:31 AM

[moregon]

SquatchCommando how did the one you saw remind you of acting more like an ape, than a human might? Do we know if these actions might be all that much different than how a primitive man may have acted? If we are in fact descended from apes, wouldn't it seem logical that those closest to the split would still act more apelike than human?

Patti's nose looks more bulbous than anything and in my opinion not apelike at all, nor does it look flat. Although the quality of the blow-up is not that good the lips suggest much more humanlike than apelike as well.

I'm not an anthropologist either, and it's been a long time since I've spent a night at the Holiday Inn Express. Could you supply a link to some pictures of Apes who might have a more human looking nose or lips, I'm not aware of any. I wonder sometimes if the "Impression" that it's ape is more due to the amount of hair than anything else. As I've said before to the best of my knowledge we really don't know how much body hair earlier species of man had. I don't see a clean split from apes to humans and from very hairy to nearly bald occuring during the intial split or maybe not for generations and generations afterwards.

[SquatchCommando]

You made some good points.


the nose Patty nose looks wide and flat, Neanderthals have long noses andong with some width In my opinion I think they are different.


Anybody making spears and flint heads and buring their dead would not rack like a chimps and smash trees like a gorilla, in my Opinion,

And you may be right, you make some good points they are not assinine there is some thought to it and don't take it personal, please if i disagree on some things.
I love to debate ideas with people on their toes so if I keep disagreeing with you it means Ifind your talk interesting.


Also some of the funny remarks I make are for the laughter of everbody I never try to slam anyone with them

you should stay at a holiday Inn but not too much youlll get cocky

This post has been edited by SquatchCommando: May 22 2007, 10:43 PM

[moregon]

As far as the Neandertal nose, we only have an artist's recreation to go on. So we really don't know exactly how long it was or how wide, only a good guess by the width etc of the sinus openings in the skull. Then again how much difference is there really between the skulls of various Homo Sapiens? Enough to actually know what types of noses we all have? If our skulls were all exact I think we'd all have the same noses. So if it's not based on the sinus openings, do they base it on race? Is there enough differences in the skull to tell which race it comes from? Or do they assume if it's found in certain areas it must be of the race predominant in that area?

I'm not saying specifically Neandertal, but possibly one of several early men. As I said I used the Neandertal picture because of the work that went into the recreation, as well as that's the latest known variation to exist before modern man took over the crown of being the sole survivor of the Homo lineage. Latest meaning they believe there were still in existence less than 30,000 years ago. Anything else and we may be talking about an alleged absence of 200,000 years or more. Impossible no, but more unlikely. After all if the coelacanth can pop back up after 65 Million Years, what's 200,000? Then again I suppose a fish that tends to stay in 450 feet of water or deeper would be a bit less obvious than a giant hairy guy running around.

[LAL]

Neandertal reconstructions seem to change with the times, but this is one of the most haunting I've ever seen.



http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2006/11/the_n...ertal_child.php

[vilnoori]

Dang it, why didn't I see this thread?

More reconstructions by the artist who did that Neanderthal child are found here:

http://www.daynes.com/fr/accueil/accueil.php

But my guess is that sasq diverged somewhere before erectus, maybe H. ergaster, or even earlier.

The nuchal crest is a modification to support huge, powerful neck muscles. Even heavily muscled modern men can have well developed ones.

The sagittal crest is a modification to support strong, large jaw muscles in primates that have a lot of heavy chewing to do, such as gorillas, that have to process a lot of leafy, pithy vegetation, nuts, etc. We, on the other hand, don't need that kind of chewing power, so we have no sagittal crest to speak of, and the size of our teeth has become progressively smaller, also.

[wvbig]

Some of you may remember the picture I posted in the not too distant past regarding a forensic scientists recreation of what a Neandertal may have looked like based on their skull and techniques used to identify what remains of people may have looked like in life. The thread was Here.

Here is the picture the thread was based upon once again.


This recreation was based on known measurements of flesh thickness of modern man, so by basing those measurements on the Neandertal Skull there is room for error since we don't have the actual measurements of those areas on a Neandertal. Although our own skulls are very similarly shaped, unless we know the race of the modern man we are trying to recreate we can't accurately estimate things like width and size of nose, thickness of the lips, fullness of cheeks etc. We also can't look at a skull and say this person weighed 120 pounds or 450 pounds, and at both extremes their actual physical appearance will be considerably different.

Another point to consider is hair growth and hair patterns, this is another thing we can't tell simply by the skull. To the best of my knowlege there is no surviving pieces of soft flesh from a Neandertal that would define what their hair pattern was nor the type of hair they actually had. Was it long, fine and straight like a caucasian, or more wirey and curly like other races. We can't tell if when they were living if they were clean shaven, had a beard or were a specimen of a person with hisutism. What IF the picture is wrong, what if they didn't have defined eyebrows like modern man, nor a hairless forehead?

One thing that struck me was the shape of the nose in the recreation above. I realized it was very similar in appearance to the nose in the blow-up of Patti in the Patterson-Gimlin footage, albeit a little bit longer than Patti's. Here is a blow-up of I'm referring to.




There's been a lot of discussion in regards to what appears to be a sagittal crest on Patti, but for one moment let's consider that what we are seeing is not actually a sagittal crest, but nothing more than her natural hair growth and pattern. If the hair was very wirey could it not stand up and create a similar appearance on top of someone's head if left uncut/untrimmed?

Using the picture of Patti above, and my Windows Paint program I found what the dimensions of her eye appears to be. Top to bottom in the center as well as dimensions from corner to corner. Using those dimension I found what the dimensions, percentage wise would be in the fleshy unhaired sections that appear in her photo. I also found the dimension from the top of the eye to the top of the alleged crest. Then taking the picture of the recreated Neandertal, I found the dimension of his eye and used the same percentage differences to map out where the hairline would be as well as the top of the crest based on the dimensions of Patti. I realize this is all highly speculative, and very possible if I used the same dimensions on a modern human I'd get similar results, as it's similar to simply putting a disguise or make-up on someone to make them appear as someone else. Would the end result show this is even a possibility, or rule it out completely? I apologize I don't have any really good computer drawing programs nor am I a computer artist. What do you think?

Could THIS:



Be THIS?


Or is this not even a possibility?

(Edited to add)
If the hair is curly/kinky/wirey and of sufficient depth it would explain why there are no ears apparent, they would be hidden under the hair if the length was sufficient to cover them.

If this is nothing more than hair growth, this is approximately what Patti would look like with a haircut based on the same measuring technique I used only using the dimensions of the Neandertal transferred to Patti.

I thought this was the recreation of the face of a man whose skull was found by two boys along a river in Washington

[WmRoy]

Gieco should revise their image of 'cavemen'............. obviously they are alittle less skinny.....


Can you imagine this guy covered in dense body hair..... even at 5'5" he would be scary looking........

Added..... I'm not saying BF is a Neandertal, because I don't think they are...... nor that Neandertal's had alot of body hair....
Just that even if BF is fairly small (6 foot or so), he could be scary enough.........

This post has been edited by WmRoy: Jun 18 2007, 11:42 AM

[BobZenor]

Something occurred to me recently about the nuchal crest. It doesn't seem that it would be as useful for an animal that is upright because the neck is not constantly under strain. BF seem to bend over some but not nearly as much as in the gorilla. Having your head balanced is very important. Some ancient hominids developed an occipital bun, apparently to balance the head to make it more stable in walking. I am just going by something I heard several years ago and don't recall where. Anyway, the thing that occurred to me was that a balancing type extension to the skull (occipital bun?) would not work well if the animal wasn't completely upright and it might just tend to add reinforcement in the way of muscles or a nuchal crest as it grows larger. Just thinking out loud.

[Texas Bigfoot]

Gieco should revise their image of 'cavemen'............. obviously they are alittle less skinny.....
Can you imagine this guy covered in dense body hair..... even at 5'5" he would be scary looking........

Added..... I'm not saying BF is a Neandertal, because I don't think they are...... nor that Neandertal's had alot of body hair....
Just that even if BF is fairly small (6 foot or so), he could be scary enough.........

The NFL is looking for that guy. Seriously, I bet if you put LaDanien Tomlinson's head on that body, it would be a picture of the real LaDanien Tomlinson.