Could Neanderthals still be alive ?

[Rusty2]

I recently came across a video with recent reports of neanderthals .
I had a bit of a look around and found this eyewitness account from a Polish exile who described the being as "stone age man" .
Maybe In The Dark can help us with his background in mental health .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BtQ33tnP84

Here's another couple of reports from Deborah Hatswell .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrdLHYm1AGw

[inthedark]

Hi Rusty!

Good question!

Given that we've only fairly recently learned that Neanderthals actually survived a lot longer than initially thought, it's not unreasonable to suggest that they may even have survived up until a few thousand years ago - in remote areas not subject to pressure from human tribes. It's probably not quite so reasonable to suggest that they are still with us today, but given so many of our wilderness areas were never really frequented by humans, it's not a completely crazy idea. The key fact is that almost all of our remaining large forest wildernesses have simply never been inhabited by homo sapiens. We just never wanted to be in forests in number. So there has never really been any competition for such territory. It has always belonged to 'the animals'.

One of my issues with current wisdom, is the belief that for a 'variety of reasons', we are the only species of hominid currently in existence. To my mind, this feels more like a quasi-religious position, than a reasonable scientific conclusion. I can't help suspecting that it's a preferred conclusion, since it is literally impossible to determine something like that conclusively. We can only reach a likelihood. Obviously, the likelihood is that we are alone in the upright ape world, but we can't possibly know that.

Finally, from a purely clinical point of view, there is the human psyche factor. When we are not looking for something (which is hard to see in the first place), we are very VERY unlikely to see it. Of course they opposite is also true .. if we are looking for something, we may well see it when it isn't there. This last is the reason I'm not entirely comfortable with the 'researcher' thing. I would really like to see more science and tempered skepticism (not skepticism for its own sake, which is no better than mindless belief) applied to this question.

Upshot, I think it's highly likely that if BF exists, he is indeed, Mr Neanderthal.

PS: We can safely ignore these artist impressions and extrapolation models of Neanderthal. We really have no bloody clue how much hair they had, or what they really looked liked. These are simply approximations, heavily influenced by our knowledge of primates.

[Rusty2]

You make some good points there ITD and I'd agree that it's more of a " quasi-religious position, than a reasonable scientific conclusion " because it's impossible to tell . It's so difficult to communicate to the scientific commuity that something is actually out there and that we are also aware it isn't supposed to be there regardless of what any scientific literature may say . Someone once said that "science is exquisitely informed speculation" .

I was more interested in what you thought about the first video and your interpretation of the witness and the way he acts when telling the viewer about his encounter . Is he telling the truth ? Does he believe he saw something ? Can you tell ?

I've been watching a channel where the channel owner interprets the body language and facial expressions of the people or person in question to "tell" if they're deceptive or believe what they're actually saying .

What I noticed from the witness is that he looks to his left 4 times . After watching many of the body language videos it would appear (I'm not sure) that he is accessing his memory . In other videos you see people looking to there right to access the creative part of their brain .
He actually looks stressed , maybe even scared but also looks like he's telling the truth , which means that he believes he saw a neanderthal .
??????????

[Wolf]

I haven't watched the video yet but feel the need to comment on the BF is Neanderthal concept.

Archeology demonstrates that Neanderthal used fire, made complex wood, bone and stone tools and clothing from animal hides, BF does neither of these things.

Neanderthal skeletons also demonstrate a propensity for shorter statures than modern humans, BF is mostly reported as massive with juveniles around seven foot tall and adults as tall as 10 or even 12 feet (leaving aside reported Mountain Giants up to 16 or even 18 foot tall).

[Rusty2]

I'm not a scientist Wolf but defintely agree .
One has tools and wears clothes and BF doesn't which is interesting in itself .

[Simon M]

There's also the fact that some modern human populations feature Neanderthal DNA (as well as Cro-Magnon & Denisovan DNA). It seems increasingly likely that Neanderthals were absorbed into Cro-Magnon (and other) populations, just as the Denisovans were. Again, we know so little about the facts and have so little solid information to go on.

Look at Chris Stringer for an example of the danger inherent in making assumptions - throughout his long career (which started in 1973) he championed the premise that Neandethals had no grasp of language and were simply wiped out by invading Cro-Magnons (he was a strict adherent to the 'Out of Africa' theory). It's why he went from being the 'go-to' interviewee about Neanderthals for decades to...well, very very quiet indeed about the whole topic. Watch any documentary about Neanderthals from the 80's and 90's and he's usually there offering his expert opinions...all of which turned out to be based on erroneous assumptions rather than solid evidence.

He's now 'conceded' that 'some' interbreeding occurred between ancient human populations...but only because the evidence directly contradicted him. His ″coalescent African origin″ theory is a re-fangled version of the Multiregional theory which he argued against for decades.

Based on the eyewitness accounts we've all heard/read, I don't think there's any way I'd be convinced that Yowies (or whatever you want to call them) could be remotely human. I'm not even convinced they're necessarily apes, much less that they're hominids.

All this is speculation, of course. I freely admit that and I always have.

[Boab Bob]

Extremely unlikely besides the human-neanderthal genetic flow. Both humans and neanderthals evolved more or less parallel from a shared earlier ancestor although later homo sapiens had certain skill and physical advantages through better torsos for the then climate change, hunting with dogs and other issues - i think neanderthals had problems with overhand throwing and couldn't drill holes (because of their anatomy?). There is Zania - the early human purported to be from a relic population in the Caucasus mountains, and that all seems to be based on one Daily Mail article and a fake/one issue 'science journal'.
Although there is a possibility, i'd argue, of the Yowie being another isolated human population eating raw meat and running like a horse like Zania, i think the neanderthals were rather limited to a particular climate and couldn't run much because of their specialized bodies. Most of the descriptions of the yowie have it much taller than any neanderthal and generally point to it either being gigantopithecus varieties or a hominid currently unknown to the scientific community. All neanderthal finds show them to be well advanced of any early hominid. Language, tools, fire, surgery, art were all traits far removed from what we understand of the yowie and sasquatch.

[Boab Bob]

There is this probably hybrid human-neanderthal population claimed to have lasted isolated,, but this is an evolutionary world away from the yowie. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wale ... od-2315896

[Boab Bob]

Even that article has nothing solid at all on neanderthal DNA - the professor talks of the possibility but mainly seems to discuss early homo sapiens populations going back just 12,000 years.

[Boab Bob]

Even that article has nothing solid at all on neanderthal DNA - the professor talks of the possibility but mainly seems to discuss early homo sapiens populations going back just 12,000 years.

The 'Tregaron neanderthals' name of the two brothers is something coined in the 1950's by the locals.

[Wolf]

Reports of Sasquatch throwing rocks, etc appear to be an underarm or sidearm motion too.

Is this why they never made the progression to spears?... which then resulted in no further development tool-wise?

But then Neanderthal used spears but did not throw them. They used them for thrusting apparently.

IMO Sasquatch/Yowie MUST be hominid because of one reason... foot structure. Their feet (leaving aside the ridiculous three or four toed reports) are very much like ours, hence they have to be hominid.

[Simon M]

The reason I don't like to assume they're hominids is because we don't have enough evidence to make that claim.

Convergent evolution might explain all their physical similarities (and differences) to us. Look up the work of Erik Trinkaus or Thomas Berger for more detailed info about Neanderthal anatomy and injury patterns. Here's one brief example -

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0395900136

It seems they were often in close proximity to large ungulates (while hunting) and their injuries were similar to those of present-day rodeo riders.

This doesn't mean they didn't use throwing spears or that they couldn't - just that we can be reasonably sure that they used heavy spears for getting in close to their prey and stabbing it. In order to do so they'd have needed organisational skills, teamwork, and the use of language to communicate strategy and ideas as well as the skills to make the tools.

Neanderthals were uniquely adapted for the cold, as modern Inuit people also are to some extent, but they weren't the muscle-bound brutes of modern folklore. They weren't physically incapable of running, for example, or throwing overarm. They were heavily built and had larger brain cases, but there's not much we can infer from those facts about their behaviour. We just don't know.

During the Mousterian period, the same tools were being made by anatomically modern humans and by Neanderthals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousterian

There's so little we really can conclude - beyond the fact that people continue seeing Yowies. As to their exact nature...I wouldn't want to make any definite claims. If a mongoose can evolve to look and behave like a big cat (the Fossa of Madagascar), then another type of mammal could evolve to walk upright like we do. They could even evolve human-like intelligence.

It's long been suggested that the reason humans became avid tool users and builders of structures is a direct result of our physicality - having developed dexterous hands which we didn't need to use to walk, we began using them to make things which stimulated intellectual development, etc. There are those who argue that intelligence came first...but Chimps and Orang Utans use very basic tools and Chimps use a very basic form of verbal communication when they hunt. They also have hands like ours. They still walk on all fours, however.

If a creature evolved bipedal locomotion, as our ancestors did, then they might also evolve comparable intellectual abilities. They wouldn't need to be apes, though, in order to do so. Every time an alleged Yowie hair sample is analysed the results are 'inconclusive' or 'unknown'. That could be an indication that these creatures aren't even remotely similar to anything else we know of.

By assuming they have to be apes, or related to humanity, we're giving in to hubris, I feel. There's no way at present of knowing whether or not they're apes of some variety. We know they're hairy so they're most likely mammals...beyond that, I'm not sure we can say too much of anything.

[inthedark]

To clarify ... I don't think BF is the Neanderthal of Anthropologists' extrapolation and artists' rendition. I mean that Neanderthal is the closest known approximation. It could be a Neanderthal hybrid, or Neanderthal may not have looked and lived as we think they did. Also, I'm not convinced that the tools/fire thing is important enough to dismiss any theories. BF may well use tools. BF may even have fire (used only intermittently or for rituals or some such). There are just so many variables and unknowns .. both in regard to BF, AND Neanderthals.

Essentially though, if he exits, he's probably a relict. I don't give any credence at all to the 'supernatural' thing. It's already a difficult field, adding the absurd does not help ... at all. Apologies to anyone who thinks BF is supernatural.

[inthedark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BtQ33tnP84

Here's another couple of reports from Deborah Hatswell .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrdLHYm1AGw

The first bloke seems reasonable, though nervous and not entirely comfortable describing his experience in English. More importantly though, the region he referred to would be prime territory. Also, he's the wrong profile (and demographic) entirely to make up something like that.

The Finnish bloke's story seems very believable, for similar reasons. He's not the right demographic or profile (educated, and not American) to be perpetrating hoaxes. And while it's easy enough to dismiss the story on his failure to produce the hair samples .. that would be a failure on our part, to think it through. If you had a hair sample, what would you do with it? Would you immediately contract a dedicated lab to analyse it? Would cost a bomb, and take some time. Would you do it? I know I wouldn't. So, if this Finnish guy said he didn't know what to do with the hair, I would take him at his word.

The Portuguese story, while possibly loosely true (they were kids at the time, and it was decades ago), didn't convince me. It's more likely that they simply came across some primary type indigenous group. There are still some quite 'rustic' peoples in Europe, and it's not hard to imagine that in the earlier 20thC, there were still peoples living the primitive life in isolated pockets.

[Rusty2]

I appreciate everyones response to this and your analysis ITD . I've never seen an eye witness account of neanderthals let alone knew they were being reportded so I was completely suprised .

I suppose the title of this thread could have been , could neanderthals have made it to Australia or are they or were they here ?

I did see a report on here quite a while ago ( can't find it ) about 2 guys fishing on a remote part of a river and coming across a human like being . Can't remember the details but got the impression it wasn't a yowie but more human . From memory it/he was hairy but not very hairy .

Two years ago a very interesting skull was found here in Australia . http://forgottenorigin.com/before-their ... -australia
Scroll down the page .
It surely isn't human , so was it a Neanderthal ?

Here is a simliar looking skull from a museum .
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/w ... teway=true

Just throwing this out there . Regardless of scientific opinion or literature could neanderthals have made it here ?

[inthedark]

I appreciate everyones response to this and your analysis ITD . I've never seen an eye witness account of neanderthals let alone knew they were being reportded so I was completely suprised .

I suppose the title of this thread could have been , could neanderthals have made it to Australia or are they or were they here ?

I did see a report on here quite a while ago ( can't find it ) about 2 guys fishing on a remote part of a river and coming across a human like being . Can't remember the details but got the impression it wasn't a yowie but more human . From memory it/he was hairy but not very hairy .

Two years ago a very interesting skull was found here in Australia . http://forgottenorigin.com/before-their ... -australia
Scroll down the page .
It surely isn't human , so was it a Neanderthal ?

Here is a simliar looking skull from a museum .
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/blogs/w ... teway=true

Just throwing this out there . Regardless of scientific opinion or literature could neanderthals have made it here ?

The thing is, they needn't have 'made it to Australia', since there were land bridges. The would probably have moved to most corners of the world in the same way we did.

Are you talking about the Kowmung River sighting? If so, yes, that one is interesting. Could have simply been a 'Mountain Man'. A good number of them living in National Parks etc.

[Rusty2]

Are you talking about the Kowmung River sighting?

I believe that could be the one I was thinking of . Yeah the land bridge between Australia , Antarctica and South America could have let anything in .

What gets me is that if we are getting reports and sightings of yowies , what else is out there that isn't being reported ?

A woman once approached me and told me about the small rural community she lived in and how the hairy man was well known and most in the vilage had seen them . She then mentioned that coming home late one night on a forest road an animal she'd never seen before and couldn't indentify had crossed in front of here vehicle . Here and her daughter witnessed the animal .

I think we're only hearing half or less of what's really happening in our forests and remote rural areas .

[TheBlackStump]

It was only some 15 years ago approx deep in the Congo that white man first saw tribes of giant chimpanzees which are reported by the natives to kill and eat lions and other large cats. Off course the natives always knew they were there.
Sadly once the gold mining companies moved into the area the population of these chimps has reduced due to the chimps being killed and sold in the villages as bush meat.

[Rusty2]

Sadly once the gold mining companies moved into the area the population of these chimps has reduced due to the chimps being killed and sold in the villages as bush meat.

What is it with humans killing everything ?

[Rusty2]

Sadly once the gold mining companies moved into the area the population of these chimps has reduced due to the chimps being killed and sold in the villages as bush meat.

What is it with humans killing everything ?

[rowdy]

Thanks Rusty for posting that link about the very unusual skeletal remains that were found recently. It’s a fascinating read! My initial thought is that the first skeleton may be closely related to one of the modern day yowies because of the large eye sockets and long arms. From their description, it doesn’t really fit into what we know about Neanderthals. And apparently there are plenty of neanderthal skeletal remains that have been found in Europe so we can be pretty sure they were short and stocky. In contrast we know very little about what the Denisovians were physically like so perhaps that could be a possibility too. The picture of the Neanderthal skull you posted does look quite similar though. I suspect these skeletons are more primative than our recent evolutionary relatives.

It is very interesting that two quite different skeletons were found buried together in the same ritualistic manner. That is a bit of a puzzle but one thought that came to mind is that someone (for instance ancient aboriginals) discovered these remains of different species in different places and reburied them together. They also make mention of fur like a kangaroo discovered with the remains. I had my doubts as to whether that fur was going to survive the estimated 100000 years age of the skeletons so maybe the reburial idea does make sense.

I hope that eventually these remains get the scientific scrutiny they deserve. I would be very interested in what carbon dating and DNA analysis turns up!

[Simon M]

The giant chimpanzees are the Bili Apes -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape

[inthedark]

Thanks Rusty for posting that link about the very unusual skeletal remains that were found recently. It’s a fascinating read! My initial thought is that the first skeleton may be closely related to one of the modern day yowies because of the large eye sockets and long arms. From their description, it doesn’t really fit into what we know about Neanderthals. And apparently there are plenty of neanderthal skeletal remains that have been found in Europe so we can be pretty sure they were short and stocky. In contrast we know very little about what the Denisovians were physically like so perhaps that could be a possibility too. The picture of the Neanderthal skull you posted does look quite similar though. I suspect these skeletons are more primative than our recent evolutionary relatives.

It is very interesting that two quite different skeletons were found buried together in the same ritualistic manner. That is a bit of a puzzle but one thought that came to mind is that someone (for instance ancient aboriginals) discovered these remains of different species in different places and reburied them together. They also make mention of fur like a kangaroo discovered with the remains. I had my doubts as to whether that fur was going to survive the estimated 100000 years age of the skeletons so maybe the reburial idea does make sense.

I hope that eventually these remains get the scientific scrutiny they deserve. I would be very interested in what carbon dating and DNA analysis turns up!

I'd be very interested to know why the archaeology hasn't yet been done on what would be a very significant find. The fact that it hasn't, tells us something important. While it would be great to think an important piece of a puzzle has been located, I suspect it's either a hoax, or a misinterpretation. There is just no way that such a find would be ignored by science.

[TheBlackStump]

The Smithsoneon Institute is the best example of science worldwide that for many decades now either ignores , destroys , hides any evidence of the true past history of our planet. The global elite completely control what we can and can not know as part of their global control agenda. Hopefully these elite will become extinct soon.

[Simon M]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Archeology

That book is extremely interesting. I don't agree with everything in it, but I like that they highlight some of the bias that exists within the mainstream scientific community.

I think part of the problem is that most large organisations (like Universities) are hierarchical by their very nature - whoever is in charge has the final say, and if something contradicts their pet theory, it's going to be ignored or downplayed, if not hidden entirely. Chris Stringer is a good example of this; he decided the Neandethals couldn't speak and were genetically divergent from other groups of humans (therefore unable to interbreed with Cro-Magnons) and ignored all the evidence that suggested otherwise...until it became obvious he was wrong, and he had no choice but to 'concede' that things were not as he'd always believed. He allowed belief to outweigh evidence and his career suffered for it.

I'm not sure there are as many conspiracies surrounding this as people assume - I think it's mostly the case that people don't speak up so as not to 'rock the boat', and that leads to larger scale systemic failings - because a lot of tiny silences create a cumulative effect, and lead to a blanket of ignorance. It's less of a conscious effort to deceive on a grand scale and more a case of lots of people simply not mentioning certain "inconvenient" pieces of information for fear of running afoul of the relevant hierarchy. That's my take on it.

[Rusty2]

I would be very interested in what carbon dating and DNA analysis turns up!

Yeah , I'd like to know what has happened or is going to happen with this skull . It may be dismissed .

I suspect it's either a hoax, or a misinterpretation. There is just no way that such a find would be ignored by science.

I'm not so sure . Not trying to argue but if the skull is a fake then it's a bloody good one . I can't see how you could misinterpret a skull . The skull in the link looks like it's been there a while . ??????????????

a blanket of ignorance.

I think you hit the nail on the head there Simon . Although I do believe in scientists general idea to get to the bottom of the truth , some truths may never see the light of day because of that ignorance or because the truth may be inconvenient to someones career . I've experienced it myself directly from scientists although some scientists do look at the evidence before assuming your a loony .

[inthedark]

I would be very interested in what carbon dating and DNA analysis turns up!

Yeah , I'd like to know what has happened or is going to happen with this skull . It may be dismissed .

I suspect it's either a hoax, or a misinterpretation. There is just no way that such a find would be ignored by science.

I'm not so sure . Not trying to argue but if the skull is a fake then it's a bloody good one . I can't see how you could misinterpret a skull . The skull in the link looks like it's been there a while . ??????????????

The thing is, if this skull was even of remote interest to archaeology, ie - was unique AND genuinely ancient - it would have been immediately studied in great detail. That is hasn't drawn ANY interest at all, nor even any comment (hasn't even made the news, in passing), tells us that it's already been dismissed. That is clearly problematic, and shouldn't really be ignored. I would also suggest that the source is carefully considered. If the individuals involved ring any wrong notes at all (ie, not scientists, and are perhaps looking to profit in some way), we really have to take that on-board.

Having said that, I don't say it must be a hoax. It may simply be an indigenous skull dating back a few hundred years. The skull of someone born with a congenital condition of some kind. Plenty of possibilities, any one of which would explain why it's not taken seriously by science.

It would be great if all of these little off-radar anomalies could be taken seriously, but they almost always can't be - for one reason or another. But that's a good thing. It reduces 'background noise', and brings focus back to the basics. Get that hair sample analysed! The problem seems to be that the majority of 'researchers' are looking for the macro (sightings, structures, footprints, etc), when we really should be looking at the micro. Get that hair analysed! Check the DNA of that poop! If this animal is so very shy, and so very difficult to locate, forget trying to. Look for the empirical evidence he can't hide (hair, poop, etc).

[Rusty2]

It very well could be a genetic anomaly or deformation .

Your right , we should be looking for the macro but that involves a number of things . An actually picture or video from a trail camera or a sighting which are rare . I can't tell you how many times I've gone back to where the camera has caught a picture of something odd , collected the leaves and spent hours inspecting leaf litter looking for hair samples only to find nothing .

I'm not sure how many people are doing it . To get something on a camera alone is damn near impossible .
Deliberate sightings are rare , clear pictures or video that are worth following up are almost nonexistent .

There is also a problem with labratories . Some people from here have blind tested labratories only to find they've been defrauded due to imcompetence , deliberate misinformation , lost samples or any number of other excuses . A guy on hear had his samples thrown in the bin . Another sent his to a labratory and after enquiring how the test went the reply was "what hair sample" .

[Yowie bait]

Well said Rusty!

Hi ITD. If you watch Rustys videos you will see a lot of the methods you mention have been tried and the scientist community is not very helpful with this subject at all.

Im sure some members would agree that it would be a bad idea to start researching in your own immediate area if you are planning to.

If you have had no issues with the hairy men at your properties then you are fortunate and probably you are not a bother to them.

[inthedark]

Well said Rusty!

Hi ITD. If you watch Rustys videos you will see a lot of the methods you mention have been tried and the scientist community is not very helpful with this subject at all.

Im sure some members would agree that it would be a bad idea to start researching in your own immediate area if you are planning to.

If you have had no issues with the hairy men at your properties then you are fortunate and probably you are not a bother to them.

Will certainly do that, thanks. Meantime, what sort of problems did Rusty encounter with the science community? Commercial labs shouldn't care one way or the other what the alleged source of a sample is ... and they don't need to know. As long as they are paid, they should be formally running it through whatever parameters are requested, irregardless. I'm curious to know exactly what happened. It's not as though they know it's BF related, after all.

Sorry, did you mean it would be a BAD idea to start 'researching'? Or NOT a bad idea? Wasn't entirely sure there :p Either way, I have zero interest in researching or searching. I'm far too gutless to wander about the forest at night (snakes, spiders, lunatics, etc), and have no reason to think that I would find anything, when so many haven't. And in answer to your question, we've had no known issues - at either property. Nor when hiking or camping. I say 'known', because until a month ago, I wouldn't have known even if we had. All 'incidents' in the forest automatically put down to prosaic wildlife and/or humans.
So, I'll be leaving the 'encounters' to those with the brass to go looking for trouble