Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread

Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: Brad posted Tue, Feb 5 2008, 7:27am  I can look at the two pictures above and see that the Zana skulls maxilla clearly juts further than the neanderthal skull. The chin is clearly receding further than the neanderthal skull. The maxilla in Zana's skull does jut out reasonable far. However you are failing to listen (and its not the first time). It is within the variation of homo sapiens! Even so, its only ONE trait out of many that are used to distinguish neandertal and sapiens! I gave you a list of these traits which you left (for some reason) unacknowledged. The chin does not recede further in Zana. I posted a pic comparing the two. The red dot indicates the bottom tooth. The green line shows the recession. That chin is clearly sapiens. I'm not sure why you won't listen. Besides, you are using ONE example of a neandertal skull profile. And you're comparing it to Zana's skull which is NOT at the same angle! Stop grasping at straws here. Do you maintain that a receding chin and protruding maxilla (prognathism) are purely sapiens traits? That doesn't accord with the general school of thought on the subject. When did I say this? The chin doesn't recede as much as you say. And sapiens can be progathic. Bottom line. Admittedly, the bulging forehead on the skull above is not what one would expect on a neanderthal, but you'd hardly find it on a typical human either. Actually you can and do find this in sapiens. Its not common, but its not rare either. Or perhaps a neanderthal or hybrid of neanderthal? The only reason I go with neanderthal over any of the other hominids is that several respected people in the field speculate that neanderthal might have been around as little as 20,000 years ago - an eye-blink in terms of history. All of the others go back millions of years. This skull is clearly not neandertal. You going with neandertal simply b/c it existed 20,000 years ago is weak. The traits of the skull are sapiens, regardless of when neandertal went extinct. That date is irrelevant. Also its not true that every other species goes back millions of years. Erectus didn't. Floresiensis didn't. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: KodiakKeith posted Tue, Feb 5 2008, 9:52am  First of all, don't presume to lecture me since your background as a "brain scientist" strikes me as improbable at best, and certainly far removed from any specialty that I might accept as an authority on the subject at hand. I'm not calling it a neanderthal since unlike you, I acknowledge my amateur status. I can only point out what appear to be some similarities to the neanderthal skull, without drawing any conclusions. Clearly, the skull in question has some odd features, while the story behind the skull is even odder. I am looking forward to what others (those without degrees in "Brain Science") have to say about the skull. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: Brad posted Tue, Feb 5 2008, 10:35am  First of all, don't presume to lecture me since your background as a "brain scientist" strikes me as improbable at best, and certainly far removed from any specialty that I might accept as an authority on the subject at hand. Are you serious!?!?!?!?!? Wildphotgrapher asked me, sarcastically, if I was a "A rocket surgeon". I replied, sarcastically, saying "Brain Scientist". Do you get it yet? Rocket surgeon or Rocket scientist? Brain scientist or Brain surgeon? See the pattern? We switched words? See? A joke? I have advanced degrees in Anthro. No jokes now. Is that easy for you? I'm not calling it a neanderthal since unlike you, I acknowledge my amateur status. Sorry to rain on your parade. I'm not an amateur. I can only point out what appear to be some similarities to the neanderthal skull, without drawing any conclusions. The keyword being "appear". And in your eyes. Its homo sapiens. Clearly, the skull in question has some odd features Not really. I am looking forward to what others (those without degrees in "Brain Science") have to say about the skull. Well they don't have the knowledge, but listen anyway. p.s. thanks for not responding to the other points I made in the post. ------- To change topic a bit.. since you selectively ignored my other post, here are the traits that differ between sapiens and neandertal: In terms of the differences between neandertal and sapiens it would be these markers: -Chin -Maxilla -Overall jaw robusticity -Teeth (front teeth wear) -Zygomatic shape -Brow Ridge -Orbital shape -Nasal opening -Cranial slope -Forehead shape -Occipital bun -Cranial thickness The picture you provided only showed 3 areas, all of which are in the sapiens variation. Even though the picture isn't great quality it looks to me like the orbital shape is in the Zana skull is like sapiens, as well as the zygomatics. Both are much more sapiens than neandertal. How about that? Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: KodiakKeith posted Tue, Feb 5 2008, 2:50pm  Of the three areas visible on the picture, the chin is recessive and the maxilla protruding, both more like neanderthal than typical homo sapiens. Anybody can see that just by comparing the pictures. The forehead isn't typical of either species. And yessssssss, I accept that a receding chin and protruding maxilla could also be present in homo sapiens, but so what? We have only these three traits to work with. Link all of that up with an opposable big toe, a body covered in hair and the fact that the individual was captured naked in a mountain remote area living large on grubs and berries, and you have an interesting situation well worth investigating. Now, you can simply dismiss all of this and characterize her as a deformed hirsute human of African descent (black skin) who somehow ended up dropped naked into the middle of the Caucasus mountains in the 19th century, but I think that would be a bigger stretch than anything I'm suggesting here. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: Sarcastic Skeptic posted Tue, Feb 5 2008, 4:27pm  There is no documented information from the time other than that she was strong and couldn't speak th local language. Everything about her black skin and fur was made up later, mostly by nutters on conspiracy sites. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: Brad posted Tue, Feb 5 2008, 8:49pm  Keith, you are really getting on my nerves here. You are selectively ignoring most of the points I make, instead falling back on the same old lines that are totally incorrect. Stop while I'm still in a good mood. Of the three areas visible on the picture, the chin is recessive and the maxilla protruding, both more like neanderthal than typical homo sapiens. Anybody can see that just by comparing the pictures. The forehead isn't typical of either species. You obviously ignored the picture comparison I posted. The Zana chin is small, but doesn't recede to a high degree. What expertise do you have that allows you to say otherwise? She is prognathic. So what? A lot of humans are. It looks like most of the prognathism is due to her bad teeth. Her actual maxilla is not out-of-human-variation prognathic. What expertise do you have that allows you to say otherwise? The forehead is clearly sapiens. Have you held skulls in your hands that had similar foreheads? No. Have I? Yes. But you know the answers, right? Please. What expertise do you have that allows you to say otherwise? Want to see a human with a bigger forehead? Click Here And yessssssss, I accept that a receding chin and protruding maxilla could also be present in homo sapiens, but so what? We have only these three traits to work with. What about the zygomatics and especially orbital shape, Keith? What about that? Huh? Link all of that up with an opposable big toe, a body covered in hair and the fact that the individual was captured naked Because the opposable big toe and body COMPLETELY covered in hair are facts that are 100% correct, right? No exaggerations passd down through the years, right? in a mountain remote area living large on grubs and berries, and you have an interesting situation well worth investigating. Why is that interesting? Its a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which was practiced throughtout humanity more than agriculture. Its also a healthier lifestyle than agriculture. Are you trying to say hunter-gatherers are more primitive or something? Don't ignore it this time: Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: KodiakKeith posted Wed, Feb 6 2008, 2:54am  Keith, you are really getting on my nerves here. You are selectively ignoring most of the points I make, instead falling back on the same old lines that are totally incorrect. Stop while I'm still in a good mood. Oh, really? What will you do tough guy? Put your insults into bold text? I've looked at your points. Most of them don't apply since the picture doesn't display much. On your points about what the picture does display, I disagree. The chin IS smaller and more receding than either the human or neanderthal skulls. The maxilla DOES jut out more than the either the human or neandethal skulls. The forehead is bulging out more than either. This is not a typical human skull. Could it just be an extremely ugly individual with a oddly shaped skull? Of course it could. The difference between you and everyone else in this thread, is that the rest of us are discussing these points without insults and threats. Why is that interesting? Its a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which was practiced throughtout humanity more than agriculture. Its also a healthier lifestyle than agriculture. Are you trying to say hunter-gatherers are more primitive or something? Uh yeah, in fact I would maintain that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is more primitive. For example, I see few hunter-gatherers participating on Internet forums since a couple of coconuts and some vines do not a laptop make... Don't ignore it this time: Or what, you'll get even more frenzied? Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: Brad posted Wed, Feb 6 2008, 3:30am  I've looked at your points. Most of them don't apply since the picture doesn't display much. On your points about what the picture does display, I disagree. The chin IS smaller and more receding than either the human or neanderthal skulls. The maxilla DOES jut out more than the either the human or neandethal skulls. The forehead is bulging out more than either. This is hopeless. You have some vested interest in this story for some reason, and refuse to listen to logic or credentialed opinion. If you think the chin is non-sapiens I don't know what to say, other than you are wrong. Look at my picture comparison. If you think the maxilla juts out too far for sapiens, once again you are wrong. The ALVEOLAR prognathism is what is throwing you off here. But hey, you know everything. If you think the forehead is too big, even though I posted a picture of a singer with an even bigger forehead. More power to you. *rolls eyes* The difference between you and everyone else in this thread, is that the rest of us are discussing these points without insults and threats. When/where did I insult or threaten anyone? Sensitive because you've been through the ringer? Uh yeah, in fact I would maintain that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is more primitive. For example, I see few hunter-gatherers participating on Internet forums since a couple of coconuts and some vines do not a laptop make... Thats an insulting comment. Hunting-gathering is not anymore primitive than agriculture. Its more healthy. By saying H-G is primitive you are saying that H-G people are primitive. Thats not true, and its an insulting comment. There are no "primitive" peoples on earth. Or what, you'll get even more frenzied? No, you'll just look more like a topic evader. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: KodiakKeith posted Wed, Feb 6 2008, 3:42am  Thats an insulting comment. Hunting-gathering is not anymore primitive than agriculture. Its more healthy. By saying H-G is primitive you are saying that H-G people are primitive. Thats not true, and its an insulting comment. There are no "primitive" peoples on earth. Oh Gawd! Now we see what happens when Political Correctness becomes a law of science. If it's more healthy, then you'll be able to show me some stats on how the remaining hunter-gatherer cultures have longer lifespans than modern western cultures. I'm waiting... Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: Brad posted Wed, Feb 6 2008, 4:04am  Do a little research on the nutritional health of early agriculturalists. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: KodiakKeith posted Wed, Feb 6 2008, 4:19am  Do a little research on the nutritional health of early agriculturalists Why? The subject is hunter-gatherers and I'm waiting for you to show me the data on their long and healthy lifespans. We'll get to early agriculturalists afterwards. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: Brad posted Wed, Feb 6 2008, 5:36am  "In general, the health of the hunter-gatherers was better than the agriculturalists. Hunters had superior nutrition, especially in childhood. Child mortality was especially high in farming villages around the time of weaning, ages 2-4, probably due to higher rates of disease, both nutritional and infectious." http://pluto.fss.buffalo.edu/classes/apy/mcelroy/medapy01/ex ercise5.html Thisis only one study. I've seen others. Subject: Re: Bigfoot bones. From: KodiakKeith posted Wed, Feb 6 2008, 6:08am  Are you going to address the point or not? Who cares how the health of hunter-gatherers fared against that of early agriculturalists? I'm still waiting for you to prove your point about hunter-gatherers having longer, healthier lives than modern westerners.

Close Window