The Paradox of
Neanderthals And Bigfoot
Is
Bigfoot More Human Than Neanderthals Were?
By
Dorraine Fisher -TCC Team Member
From
what I’ve read lately, it may be time to scrap most of our old beliefs about
human evolution and open our minds to MANY new ones. As rumors swirl of Bigfoot
being a primate that is more human than ape, new ideas develop about the human
story every day. But I found none more interesting than theater and film
director Danny Vendramini’s theories about Neanderthals that challenge some of
the greatest minds in the scientific and anthropological communities in their
traditional views of what Neanderthals must have looked like.
Vendramini
claims humans use anthropomorphism (the tendency to attribute human features to
other animals) as the reason science has “humanized” the appearance of
Neanderthals so much over the years. Neanderthals are usually depicted in
magazines and on TV as hairless like us, light skinned, and often fairly
attractive from a human perspective. They’re shown to look mostly like us
outside of a few prominent facial features such as flat, short foreheads and
heavy brow ridges.
But
Vendramini, in his book, Them and Us, in his background and working with movie
makeup artists, has taken a new look at neanderthal skulls from a more theatrical
point of view and has come to some interesting conclusions by using an
old-fashioned human super-power: imagination. And an open mind.
According
to Vendramini, science has no basis to believe that Neanderthals looked much
like humans at all. Neanderthals skulls have very large eye sockets, so they’re
eyes had to, he says, have been much larger than a humans, possibly for the
purpose of hunting in the dark of night. And like other primates, their eyes
may have been completely dark with no whites, since there is no evidence to
prove they had whites in their eyes. And he maintains we have no reason to
believe they had light, smooth skin like humans either. With only fossil
records to go by, we’re only assuming they had skin like ours.
And
Neanderthals are believed to have evolved in the colder northern climates of
Europe and Asia, so complete hair loss like that of humans, believed to have
evolved in the hot climate of Africa, would have been a huge mistake of
nature...which doesn’t generally happen. There’s a very good chance
Neanderthals were completely covered in hair just like any other primate except
humans. And when we look at a side view of a Neanderthal skull vs. a human
skull, we find the Neanderthal skull to look more like an ape than any human.
So their profile would have looked much different than ours.
So
when Vendramini revealed his version of what a Neanderthal likely looked like,
the picture was very different and, in my opinion, much more menacing than the
more humanized, National Geographic version. And I was shocked to see what
looked to me like a shorter, more fearsome relative of what Bigfoot is believed
to look like today. In fact, in photos of Bigfoot, I believe Bigfoot as we
understand him, appears much more human in that context than Vendramini’s
Neanderthal.
So
in light of new DNA evidence of a sister species that lived alongside
Neanderthals and humans tens of thousands of years ago, and all the
interbreeding between theses species’ that is now believed to have taken place, it only gives us another idea to ponder as we
wait for Dr. Ketchum’s DNA results. Is Bigfoot actually more human than
Neanderthals were? There are so many
questions that need to be answered here. And granted, Vendramini is NO man of
science, but his theories do make a lot of sense. And all we can do is
speculate anyway. ******
Here is Vendramini's Youtube video
DF
©The Crypto Crew
©The Crypto Crew
facebook.com/TheCryptoCrew
Send us an Email
Now you can get our blog on your Kindle!
It seems to me much of our cultural references, that have lasted thousands of years, point to our need to distinguish us from them.
ReplyDeleteOur obsession with body hair, and the desire to rid ourselves of it, point to this. As do comments like, "low brow"..the list is long of ways we try and elevate ourselves above Neandertals and other hominine living concurrently.
We know now, at least as recently as 17,000ypb, H. florensis was around, and since you and I know BFs are living today, seems that pressure to elevate and distinguish never went away... cave men!
To Taylor: actually H. erectus was taller than H.sapien back 200,000 years ago.. Turkana boy is a good example.
I think BFs are an evolved H.erectus, perhaps via H.hidelbergensis. H. erectus was in Asia even before the shrink back and re-expansion of modern humans 75,000 years ago from Africa. H.erectus was also ubiquitous, an extremely successful species. With little evidence of material culture or art.
....either is a good bet..or Denisova too.... but genus Homo seems very likely and would fit the my field data.
Homo erectus was around 5'10". While human height varies, both males and females of Homo sapiens sapiens have been known to reach over six feet tall. Turkana Boy was estimated, if it grew up, to be 6'. However, more recent studies have concluded that it would only grow up to be 5'4".*
DeleteHomo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis didn't have hair covering their bodies. They both wore clothes (which there is evidence of), constructed fires (also evidence of that) and most important of all, had sweat glands. These sweat glands wouldn't have evolved if erectus and heidelbergensis had a full coat of hair like Bigfoot. However, firstly, there must be evidence that Bigfoot exists.
* Graves R.R., Lupo A.C., McCarthy R.C., Wescott D.J., Cunningham D.L. (2010). "Just how strapping was KNM-WT 15000?". Journal of Human Evolution. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.06.007
Taylor,
DeleteDo you have evidence that the squatch doesnt sweat? We don't know how much hair erectus and heidelbergensis had--hair isn't fossilized. The use of fire could truly be irrelevant. Maybe at one time the squatch could use fire--we don't know. But what does make sense is if they evolved to be mostly nocturnal and wanted/needed to elude the destructive nature of modern humans, what good would fire do them? They can function at night! Lets say they branched off from heidelbergensis before heidelbergensis learned to use fire--I mean, its all speculation and the possibilities at this point seem endless.
Like I've already said, you need to have evidence that Bigfoot exists in the first place. However, it is believed by many researchers that the evolution of skin glands is what eventually led to hairlessness in the human lineage.
DeleteThere is evidence that fires were being made by Homo erectus/ergaster over one million years ago,* long before heidelbergensis evolved.
* Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa - Francesco Berna et al. 2012 - PNAS
I am in a desperate push to find a CRYPTO Speaker for my Paranormal Conference this weekend. 1st Annual Mid-Continent Paranormal Conference in Kansas City this weekend 8/3 & 8/4. I have not been able to find one that is able and i don't want cryptozoology to be unrepresented. Do you know anyone that may be interested? Can you put the word out. My email is jasonk@midcontinentparanormal.com my phone is 913-945-0097. Thanks. Hope to here from you.
ReplyDeleteJason Kupzyk
www.midcontinentparanormal.com/conference.html for all the details!
I think bigfoot is a branch off of H. Heidelbergensis for one reason: some populations contained individuals that were over 7ft tall.
ReplyDeleteActually evidence suggests that some H. Heidelbergensis populations in africa reached heights in excess of 7 ft and were more robust than modern humans. And since H. Heidelbergensis supposedly evolved into the neanderthals and homo sapiens, nothing says they couldn't have branched off into yet another species of man. And what would heidelbergensis look like if Vendramini's theory was correct? Also another candidate to consider may be Meganthropus Robustus.
ReplyDeleteI can only find one reference for seven-foot-tall heidelbergensis specimens: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/833/ I would actually like to see a skeleton.
ReplyDeleteNeanderthals and Heidelbergs were more closely related to modern humans than to any other primates. To suggest that they had hair all over their bodies like most primates is absurd due to the fact that humans are hairless.
Meganthropus, an invalid synonym of Homo erectus palaeojavanicus was less than 6'. How is this a good candidate for Bigfoot? (It is also hairless.)
All parties have valid arguements because of lack of evidence! And how come no one has shot bigfoot hunting or got footage of one?
ReplyDeletethere are many reports of bigfoot being shot. The guy who killed 2 in Texas,Justin Smeja recently reported killing 2 as well ..plus other reports.
ReplyDeleteThis design is spectacular! You obviously know how to keep a reader entertained.
ReplyDeleteBetween your wit and your videos, I was almost moved to start my own
blog (well, almost...HaHa!) Great job. I really enjoyed
what you had to say, and more than that, how you presented it.
Too cool!
Also see my website - mac baren navy flake