Hello,

Over the years I have read, like all of you, the various hypothesis concerning what Bigfoot "Actually is". Since all but two of the Bigfoot books I have read are borrowed from the library, and I never took notes like I probably should have, I remember bits and pieces of what I have read, but then forget where I read it.

One of the more interesting theories I have come across is the Sasquatch=Neanderthal theory. I'm not sure I agree with it, but some are leaning that direction.

I was wondering what everyone else thought on this line or any other supposedly extinct homonid line/theory that is being kicked around?

Jon

Neandertal's are human beings. They could clearly live amoung us easily today without a gape of horror. Neandertal's had a culture, and in all probablity a language. Neandertals didn't exist far outside Europe, southern Russia and the Middle-East. To assume they migrated across Asia into the New World is a big leap. 30,000 Years ago is about when Neandertals died out. There is no proof that as a population they survived much past that. Neandertal's also were not 7 feet tall and 400 pounds. They were quite robust and the average Neandertal teen might have been as strong as a trained weight lifter, but still that doesn't match supposed bigfoot features. So there is no chance of this theory becoming accepted by the scientific community.

I would agree with EO on that one. Ain't no 20 in prints by Neandertals either. From what I hear he was a short fellow and possibly one of us depending on who you believe. Squatch aint one of us. Too big.
Too different. If that changes, I can think of some sports teams who could use some decent tackles on both sides of the ball. But I just dont see em signing autographs.

Neandertals were of modern size. They were not short per se. They were just more massively built and they also had a bigger brain than us modern people.

Cranial capacity does not mean large brain.
Large brain does not mean intelligence.
Intelligence does not mean smart.

I know alot of "smart" , "intelligent" people who couldnt figure their way out of a wet paper bag.

Hye, where's Chronic? Someone go tell him the whole Neanderthal thing's come up again...

Hey, some of those wet bags are really hard to get out of!

The Almasty, or Alma…or…anyhow, this might be a Neanderthal…if they made it. Bigfoot is not a Neanderthal, more than likely it would be a branch of Gigantopithecus that has survived until today. There is also the Yowie and the Asian variety that are not as tall but I still don’t think they are Neanderthals, most likely another branch of the Gigantopithecus…I have read other reports that sorta say the same thing…or came to the same conclusion…
http://www.unmuseum.org/alma.htm
http://www.occultopedia.com/a/almas.htm

Is Bigfoot a Neandertal ?

No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No. And once more, No.

well aren't you great at stating the obvious.

Well, many consider me to be Neandertal, but I only leave size 11 prints, so that leaves Squatch out of it!

I think that the traits of BF are too distinct and way too robust to be Neandertal-related. Most reports indicate more of a sophisticated animal intelligence, rather than a human or proto-human behavior. I think BF's are bipedal apes, albeit very smart and very elusive.......

I would have to agree with the rest, I don't think Neanderthal is a Sasquatch.


But I do like the reference to the Almasti. That could very likely be a Neandertal, all reports say the Almasti has a "Caveman" like appearance.

ooooh. This one looks like fun. Except the paper bag part. That can have complications sometimes especially where fibrous threads are involved.
Q's I'd like to know:

1) Just how big were the BIGGEST Neandertal ? EO? Got a reference for me here ? The latest I recall on them was a reference to an average height of five feet six inches tall, a bit over 200 pounds. With that build, a five foot ten inch tall Neandertal man would have made for some serious power. Did they reach that height? If so, can someone give me a reference?
2) Has ANYBODY gotten decent footprint casts of the Asian hominids?
(Jimmy Chilcutt quality)
(Rick, you might have a comment on this one ??)
3) What is the largest size for the Almasti or the manlike reference over there?

I remember seeing a foot design in G Krantz's book. I will refer to it again. I am curious about what is real over there and the differences between what we have on Neandertal evidence. Foot variance of course could be extreme in the same species. Look at ours. But do NOT smell them.

*IF I erred in overlooking some of the references previously posted, perhaps I could get a reference to what and where. Thanks.

Neandertals grew to around 6 feet as an outside figure (off the top of my head without looking). Your average is right though.

In another Post I menioned cranial capacity, I made no mention of intelligence. However I did say bigger brain than the us. I doubt if cranial capacity would be taken up by dead air space so something filled it or there would not have been the physical need to evolve a large cranial capacity.

The theory that a Gigantopithecus remnant evolved into Bigfoot is even less probable. Gigantopithecus became extinct several 100,000 years ago. Well that long ago it was not possible to cross from Asia to America beacuse of the Sea Level. If we make the supposition that a population did survive and migrate all the way from China to Siberia during an Ice-Age to cross into America. The question still begs where is the fossil evidence? If they made it to America before us big brained intelligent humans then why did they choose such a remote difficult area in which to survive. If they had passed over after humans had gotten here they would have been sitting duck invaders on an exposed land-bridge. It's fun to speculate on the presence of bigfoot but you have to keep it in perspective. Right now the lack of facts do not support the case for Gigantopithecus being a Bigfoot. In fact there are no facts to prove the existance of Bigfoot.

I thought that was why we are here is to try to prove the existence or disaprove the existence of bigfoot. I get the idea you are here to try to prove he isn't. Am I right? I doubt that you even believe in bigfoot at all! Have you ever had an encounter? I really think you are here to put us all down for believeing in him to start with. If I am wrong then please tell me and I will certainly say I am sorry. That is the way you are coming off here to me though and like I say I will apologize if I am wrong.

So.... You've been to K-Mart, have you ?

Science can prove existance but not non-existance. No I don't believe in Bigfoot, but it would sure be real cool if there were. To believe in something that hasn't been proven to exist is faith not science. All the speculation in the world is not going to make Bigfoot a reality if he doesn't exist. There just is no evidence and that evidence must be first hand genetically verifiable biological evidence anything short of this standard is not science.

Eo, First, thanks for visiting because your presence is going to sharpen us and that is a good thing. Please do hang as well because inevitably you will learn some things to add to your knowledge. BTW, I would like a reference that does indeed suggest that Neandertals may have reached six feet. I understand that the average is way shorter than the average sapiens at present, especially with the average height going up from decade to decade.
A six footer would be an incredibly large person, according to what I have read. What book/reference can you suggest that makes reference to heights with regard to footprints/skeletal remains ?? Anyone?

Secondly, regarding sas, you are going to have to dismiss all the visuals, all the measurements, and all the history. Most of it is very poorly verified, agreed, but the more you look into it, which I suspect you haven't, the more substantial it becomes. What remains is an incredible situation that appears to be increasing with regularity which makes biological sense when all aspects of the situation is considered. Does it prove sasquatch? Of course not. Is there a lot of parallel bandwagon "I like the Chupacabra thingy" attitude ? Sure. We WANT the sasquatch to be real.
What the earlier reports(not all) and the present online reports (significantly less) suggest is it IS real. But that doesn't weigh in with regard to verification, agreed. But it iincreases the chances for it, and as people catch on and begin to document, continued advances WILL be made. They are now.
What exactly IS verified? There are others more familiar with this than I.
But I will say that the footprint study is important. The cytological work will continue to increase. That alone is the step that provides more of an open door to people who can make a difference.
Annecdotal first, partial acceptance, and finally a thrust of proper combos of people and equipment. Exciting time.

That's a great argument! I haven't found it yet, so it must not exist! Brilliant! That means at some point in history, North America did not exists because Eurpoeans did not know of it. Excellent logic.

How about all that dark matter everyone's talking about? Has to be there because we can see evidence of it all over the place. No one has found it yet, though. According to you it must not be there. Well, that's a relief. Imagine all the money we'll save looking for it. Good thing, too, 'cause there's a lot of people who want to be using the Hubble telescope...

['There just is no evidence and that evidence must be first hand genetically verifiable biological evidence anything short of this standard is not science. ]

so we are right back to square one. It will Take a body to prove the existence of BF. Now tell us something new.

Peg

Let me see if i'm reading you correctly , your saying that, even if one of us "bumbling amatuerish researchers who contaminate sites" came in with a flesh sample, because it wasnt collected within the "scientific boundries" (even with a chain of evidence documentation) and the DNA came back as "unknown" (because it would, theres no reference at this point to compare it to), you would STILL not "believe" in the existence of this animal?

Like peg said, it'll take a body. Eopithecus isn't telling us anything we don't already know...

... which is exactly why I thanked him before for stating the obvious.

OK, I am sure with Logic and all that the coelacanth couldn’t have survived, what Millions of years? Not to mention I could point out a handful of other critters that have been found in the last few years that were thought to bee extinct! Do we know our world? There are tons of new and exciting discoveries ever day, every year that defy our current understanding of how things are!!!! That is the great thing about science and uncovering our past; the only thing that gets in its way is greed, people’s reputations, and belief…
Could Gigantopithecus have made it until now…doubtful, but just maybe…
So feal free to help explain what I saw and heard….for I am looking for answers! For me….I am going to except that there is some thing out there and will look for a match?
Science works on facts. I saw, I heard. Those are facts!!! What was it….well…..

Neat sight on Gigantopithecus:
http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/C...ecus_blacki.htm

EO- By coming here, you must have an interest in this "unproven" creature, otherwise you would not be here. Or, you have huge amounts of time on your hands and you have nothing better to do. Either way, welcome to the BFF!

We need hardcore skeptics here as well as the dedicated and first hand believers. Just remember, there are some people on this board that have definitely seen a creature that defies current science and taxonomy. Can you tell them that they are all wrong and confused?

Too much supporting evidence to rule BF out.


........ Just like the times before the gorilla was discovered.

GG, don't leave out the third option of just flat out saying that these witnesses are nothing more than liars.

I am not a troll I did not start the discussion or name calling nor have I participated in it. This is an anonymous forum and I don't owe anyone personal details so deal with it.

Since I am not an expert in North American primatology perhaps someone can provide a few references to look at.

KinR That was an EXTREMELY well regarded post disagreeing with me. I now have a better understanding of the position held by most of the people posting on this board. I disagree with you of course, but I respect your choice to defend that position. Though I will make an exception in that scientific standards in regard to things that aren't discovered. My question then does the search for Bigfoot end in 50 more years if only casted footprints are recovered? You know as well as I do Bigfoot research is not going to live forever based on footprint casts. So what standards are going to be used to determine an end to the merit of Bigfoot research. If Bigfoot doesn't exist then he is not going to be found despite all proof otherwise. If Bigfoot exists then it's time for the evidence. This is not 19th century Africa, there are roads and transporatation anywhere, communication is instantaneous. So my question is where is the evidence as it stands right now at the beginning of the 21st century? I will listen.

Thank you. That statement told me everything I needed to know.

... or primatology in general

To b2 That is where you are wrong.

So you say...but since you're the one bringing up the point of unverified facts and theories.......As far as that goes whos to say by the same reasoning that I'm not a Paleontologst ?

Eopithecus, where exactly do you get your information? I realize it's hard to swallow that a large primate it roaming around the woods of North America and other countries for that matter, but science doesn't prove everything. Science sure as hell can't prove the existence of a higher power, but a large percentage of the world believes in one. Does that mean that most of the population on this planet are in a state of delusion? I doubt it.

I have never seen one, but I believe they exist. No, there isn't a body to offer "hard" evidence but there is quite a bit of other proof that simply can't be tossed away as a hoax. Dermal ridges from foot castings, hair samples, scat samples, credible eye witness reports etc..

You tell someone who has seen one in person that they're a liar, you're treading on thin ice.

Someone educated in primatology has no real advantage over people like us because this creature is unknown scientifically. What you know about primates could change greatly if a sasquatch is ever researched.

My question then does the search for Bigfoot end in 50 more years if only casted footprints are recovered? - Eo

Eopithecus, You do need to know that other things are being done.
Things that are repetitive. Some of it is behavioral, some of it has to do with things that I am sure you wouldn't allow for since you didnt see the source. Just bear in mind that if it was just footprints, and there was an easy answer to what made them, no one would take it serious.
I would suggest you look past the footprints. Good luck in your endeavors.

Here is what I wrote in an earlier (two-weeks-or-so-ago) post ("tell-tale photos") about what could/should be done to strengthen the case for BF even in the absence of a body. I believe these areas, rather than the accumulation of more reports and footprints, are where BF-believer resources should be put. Of course, these rely on people implicitly accepting a "shades-of-grey," percentage-of-likelihood way of evaluating evidence. I think that recent advances have made BF more likely on this scale (e.g., the Skookum leg cast and the way analysis of an alleged BF audiotape withstood skeptical sound-expert analysis on the Sasquatch--Legend Meets Science TV show). But even formerly skeptical scientists are beginning to take BF seriously as a result of these (and of the continuing stream of witness reports). Here is a link to an article on increasing (there's another relativistic term!) scientific interest: http://bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=328

Incidentally, if you want to read the lie detector article, go to "tell-tale photos", page 6, page down 10 times, and click on the underlined title of the article.


As for a summary of the evidence at this point in time, here is what I wrote in a one-page article I hope will appear in the next Bigfoot Co-Op.

Actually, I never thought BF/Sas were neandertal/thal, I just asked a simple question that derived from past readings.

But, thanks for the input.

Jon

EO,
I forgot to mention one further new possibility that might (almost!) "make the case" for BF even in the absence of a body. (It's something I posted here about 2 weeks ago, so regular readers please forgive me for repeating myself.) Namely, police cars are gradually adopting on-dashboard videocameras to document encounters with suspects. Within five years, given the rate at which cops spot Bigfeet, one of these should capture a tape of a BF. Hopefully it will be a "good" tape, with an 8-foot tall creature (too big for a guy in a suit, unlike Patty) doing some non-human stuff, like taking long strides across a road. Something like that would have a credibility no other photo evidence would have.

Ditto Fish

Knurd, seeing is KNOWING, no "faith based knowledge" here

Whos to say I'm not a PNW anthropologist studying bigfoot (I'm not, obviously)
eopithecus, if your a primatologist, put your money where your mouth is and let us know.
So far all you have done is stated obvious facts, 99% of the population knows.

Yeah... you said it right Fishbone!! He will have to be saying that all the people on this board that have actually seen one are flat out liars if he says they don't exist!

EO, you might want to talk to some of the people on this board. You will get more information on the subject. If you ignore the base information that is available like all those before you, doesn't that at least partially explain why the sasquatch has been swept under the rug by earlier potential researchers? Damned big rug I say.

"This is not 19th century Africa, there are roads and transporatation anywhere, communication is instantaneous."

I have been reading this sentence over and over for two days. The inference that all areas of North America are known, and regurlarly frequented by humans (non-neandertal/thal type or neandertal/thal type) is not an accurate assessment. There are many hundreds of thousands of acres that are not frequented by individuals with instantaneous communication. California is the most populated states, as we all know, but the Trinity Alps (east of the Pacific Coast) where the Patterson/Gimlin Film was shot, is still one of the most rugged wildernesses in the lower 48, if not the most rugged. The continental divide, from Yellowstone through the Canadian Rockies is also an area that is frequented by hunters, prospectors, mining companies, etc. (Along with the Cascade Range in Washington.), but the population as a whole very seldom will walk far enough from their cars at the side of the road to see what lies beyond the treeline. Then include the noise we humans make, and we often wonder where all the wildlife has gone? A fellow who fourwheels said to me once that he four wheeled all over the Island Park/West Yellowstone area and "I've never seen a Bigfoot!" Well of course not.

Also, in these not-so-19th Century African places, it is very easy to hide oneself, a few weeks ago in Teton Canyon I sat on a rock above the main trail that led to Alaska Basin, Wyoming and watched several groups of people walk by. They had no idea I was watching them, and I had no idea what might have been watching me (and me without my bear spray?!).

Finished Bigfoot 2001. Slept with the nightlite on again (I have a good imagination).

Ain't that the truth. In my travels with the military I crossed the Rockies numerous times by plane, and went back and forth from Trenton, Ontario, to Alert, N.W.T. twice. In all instances I was awed by the vast areas that appeared untouched by civilization.

I recall having read, though I can't remember where, that 73 planes have gone down in remote areas of British Columbia, all were searched for, but only one was ever recovered.

RayG

"I recall having read, though I can't remember where, that 73 planes have gone down in remote areas of British Columbia, all were searched for, but only one was ever recovered."

Hi Ray,

I think we have come across each other on other lists. I think we even disagreed on a few things, but hey, who cares, nothing a good barbecue and a coke wouldn't fix. I have an actual experience that adresses your quote above.

Back in 1987 I cut lumber in the Gros Ventre area of Western Wyoming. I was working with a fellow who's pop had gone down in a single engine plane in the wilderness between Yellowstone National Park and Teton National Park. The fellow we worked for stopped and told this guy that he had helped (he had known the pilot) with the search and rescue (he was also a pilot). They never did find the wreckage of the plane, and it went down in America's most visted National Park region.


There are lots of hiding places out there.

Jon

Good stuff Jon. Hope you dont mind me quoting you regarding fixin' differences. Jim, certainly a vanilla coke.

Regarding this country and its hiding places for wildlife. Ivan Sanderson described california like a plowed field on a giant scale. The amount of time and energy that it would take a person walking to fight through the brush and tangle and the incline would result in an incredible amount of difficulty and energy. Apes, mountain gorillas come to mind, can cut through this stuff many many times faster than a man with a machete. Seems to me sasquatch may well be more sleek and agile than apes and if so, I would expect they are faster. With that kind of physicality, heavy jungled forests ( tangle), I can see how they could be unnoticed if they wanted to be. How many of us have been seen by a cougar, bear, or bobcat?

Alama: Russian info and sightings with comparisons to the Yeti…Interesting read…
http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Tracht4_e.htm
Also …Did Neanderthals interbreed with Homo sapiens?? Was Red hair passed down from the Neanderthals?
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2001/04/17/forei...ign/REDHEAD.HTM
The full article I think was in Time magazine but I have not found it yet…..

Thanks for the heads-up, Bipto.

I don't think Sasquatch is a Neanderthal, they only lived in Europe and for a short time. Sasquatch (imho) is a H.Erectus, they lived all over the world, for a looooooong time.

re: Gigantopithecus.

I don't think so. From what I understand, he probably just sat around and ate bamboo......until the H.Erectus moved into the area and eradicated the easy/tasty target.

There you are Chronic! I wondered where you were. Can you believe all this Neandertal/thal talk? The very idea.....


(Just joshing ya there Chronic.)

I know! The nerve of some people.....sheesh.

ps- I prefer Neander't'al. The hard sounding "T" makes him sound tough, the "TH" makes him sound soft. Considering a lot of Neandertal skeletons bear broken bones similar to rodeo riders, I'd say Neandertal was quite the bad-boy in his day.