Abominable snowman and the Great grey Man

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
Do the Yeti, Big foot, Abominable snowman and the
Great grey Man of Ben MacDhui, exist? I think
some one on these forums may have some idea. :wink:
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
Why not? There are lots of proof. :biggrin:
 
  • #3
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,185
5
Lisa! said:
Why not? There are lots of proof. :biggrin:

For example?
 
  • #4
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
Once, as a kid, in the woods of NH, I heard an unearthly shriek from about 30 feet behind me. It sounded like a woman demonstrating a scream. When I turned around, I couldn't see anything but trees. Needless to say, though, my friend and I left the spot just about instantly.

We were, in fact, trespassing on someone's private property, so my thought at the time was that it was the owner out to scare us.

A couple/three years ago I read reports that bigfoot produces a scream like that.
 
  • #5
Lisa!
Gold Member
639
97
matthyaouw said:
For example?
Their footsteps! And people who claimed they saw Yeti. :tongue: Anyway I don't believe them! :cool:
 
  • #6
Mk
2,037
4
wolram said:
Do the Yeti, Big foot, Abominable snowman and the
Great grey Man of Ben MacDhui, exist? I think
some one on these forums may have some idea. :wink:
What does a Zoobie look like? Doesn't it fit the description well?

I'm a Yeti myself. People tell me my self-confidence is too low. I think it is because no one belives in me. :frown:
 
  • #7
djeipa
46
0
Mk said:
What does a Zoobie look like? Doesn't it fit the description well?

I'm a Yeti myself. People tell me my self-confidence is too low. I think it is because no one belives in me. :frown:
i think it completely fits because it is an elastic Zoobie.
 
  • #8
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,397
559
Mk said:
What does a Zoobie look like? Doesn't it fit the description well?

I'm a Yeti myself. People tell me my self-confidence is too low. I think it is because no one belives in me. :frown:

Some think the Yeti is the," missing link", of human evolution, so unless you
are skulking around some isolated region trying not to be seen i guess your
not a Yeti.
 
  • #9
It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that a giant primate can be undetected for so long in this century.
The footprints that were found are the work of pranksters. The viewings are always from a distance and under poor illumination. It can be a bear or a prankster in a monkey outfit. There are no droppings, no hair samples, nothing that could be evidence of their existence.
 
  • #10
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
Mk said:
What does a Zoobie look like? Doesn't it fit the description well?
It does fit the description. Perfectly.
 
  • #11
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
SGT said:
The viewings are always from a distance and under poor illumination.
Actually, the reports of sightings include some very close-up views.

You might also find the book Ishi: The Last of his Tribe of interest, since it proves that bigfeet could evade detection indefinitely if they wanted to. Ishi was a member of a band of California Indians who went underground fearing that whites would kill them, and they lived undetected for twenty or thirty years. When the rest of Ishi's band died off, he approached the whites to reveal himself out of sheer loneliness.

Bigfoot is often described as having something very human about him. People don't sense they're seeing an ape or primate. The term "wild man" often crops up.
 
  • #12
zoobyshoe said:
Actually, the reports of sightings include some very close-up views.
Can you cite some of those sightings?
You might also find the book Ishi: The Last of his Tribe of interest, since it proves that bigfeet could evade detection indefinitely if they wanted to. Ishi was a member of a band of California Indians who went underground fearing that whites would kill them, and they lived undetected for twenty or thirty years. When the rest of Ishi's band died off, he approached the whites to reveal himself out of sheer loneliness.
Never heard of that. When did this happen?
Bigfoot is often described as having something very human about him. People don't sense they're seeing an ape or primate. The term "wild man" often crops up.
Bigfoot supposedly leaves footprints, but never a hair sample, that could be tested for DNA, even being a hairy animal that moves between bushes and trees. Even if it belongs to the genus homo, its DNA must be different from that of the homo sapiens.
 
  • #13
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
SGT said:
Can you cite some of those sightings?
: : skookumQuest.com : :
Address:http://www.skookumquest.com/sasquatch/skookum_encounters_ostman.htm [Broken]

1924 - Ape Canyon
Address:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

Argosy 1971
Address:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy71.htm

There are lots more like this. Not that they prove anything at all, except that there are many reports of seeing them close-up.
Never heard of that. When did this happen?
Encyclopedia of North American Indians - - Ishi
Address:http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_017600_ishi.htm [Broken]
Bigfoot supposedly leaves footprints, but never a hair sample, that could be tested for DNA, even being a hairy animal that moves between bushes and trees. Even if it belongs to the genus homo, its DNA must be different from that of the homo sapiens.
I've heard of many hair samples being found and tested, some with inconclusive results, meaning they couldn't positively identify what the hair came from.

One main theory someone proposed was that bigfoot was a remnant Neanderthal. I started a thread about it a few months ago, but no one was much interested.

My main point is not to try and prove anything, but to point out that a lot of the casual skeptical debunking arguments aren't really on target. My sister and brother in law dismissed it by asking why no one had ever reported bigfoot women and children. The answer is that, of course, they have. There are reports of sightings of what appear to be family units along with everything else. There are reports of people having killed them and having gotten a close look at the body, but there is no one who openly claims to have such a body for examination now.

Th stories are better than you thought, but they prove nothing and there is still no definite evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,459
2,906
zoobyshoe said:
Once, as a kid, in the woods of NH, I heard an unearthly shriek from about 30 feet behind me. It sounded like a woman demonstrating a scream. When I turned around, I couldn't see anything but trees. Needless to say, though, my friend and I left the spot just about instantly.

We were, in fact, trespassing on someone's private property, so my thought at the time was that it was the owner out to scare us.

A couple/three years ago I read reports that bigfoot produces a scream like that.
Did it make the hair on the back of your neck stand up? Sounds like a cougar to me.

Regards
 
  • #15
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
dlgoff said:
Did it make the hair on the back of your neck stand up? Sounds like a cougar to me.
That's what most people suggested when we told them. I have since heard recordings of cougars and leopards and such, and this was completely different.

A cougar would have been way, way out of it's territory in N.H. so I'm more inclined to think it was the property owner trying to spook us. Whatever it was, screamed, then hid (probably ducked behind a tree), which doesn't sound like a big cat to me.

The image that came instantly to mind when I heard it was of a woman imitating a movie scream, that is: it didn't seem to have any real fear behind it, it was just meant to be loud and surprising.
 
  • #16
zoobyshoe said:
: : skookumQuest.com : :
Address:http://www.skookumquest.com/sasquatch/skookum_encounters_ostman.htm [Broken]

1924 - Ape Canyon
Address:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/beck.htm

Argosy 1971
Address:http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy71.htm

There are lots more like this. Not that they prove anything at all, except that there are many reports of seeing them close-up.
The stories are very long, so I glanced quickly though them. The first story goes against everything that is said about Bigfoot. Why would a humanoid, that tries to go undetected, abduct a man?
As for the Yeti stories, if they lived and died among humans quite recently, why there are no remains buried near the villages?
Encyclopedia of North American Indians - - Ishi
Address:http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_017600_ishi.htm [Broken]
This happened between late XIX and early XX centuries, in a sparsely inhabited area and nobody was looking for the indians. If someone saw one of them, could not distinguish him/her from other indians. It is different with the Sasquatch. Cryptozoologists are actively searching for them and each reported sighting attracts a lot of researchers to the region.

I've heard of many hair samples being found and tested, some with inconclusive results, meaning they couldn't positively identify what the hair came from.
If the reports of interbreeding reported in Argosy are true, Yeti must be a very close relative, so the hair samples should have little difference to human hair.
One main theory someone proposed was that bigfoot was a remnant Neanderthal. I started a thread about it a few months ago, but no one was much interested.
Neanderthal was shorter then homo sapiens, so a 2.4 m tall hominid could not be one of them. The only primate this tall was the gigantopithecus, more closely related to the orangutang than to humans and chimps.
My main point is not to try and prove anything, but to point out that a lot of the casual skeptical debunking arguments aren't really on target. My sister and brother in law dismissed it by asking why no one had ever reported bigfoot women and children. The answer is that, of course, they have. There are reports of sightings of what appear to be family units along with everything else. There are reports of people having killed them and having gotten a close look at the body, but there is no one who openly claims to have such a body for examination now.

Th stories are better than you thought, but they prove nothing and there is still no definite evidence.
Agreed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
SGT said:
The stories are very long, so I glanced quickly though them. The first story goes against everything that is said about Bigfoot. Why would a humanoid, that tries to go undetected, abduct a man?
There is a similar story from Bhutan (I think) where a retarded woman often wanders away from her village for periods of weeks. During her absenses she lives with the local version of the yeti, who bring her stuff to eat. The implication is that the bigfoot don't see it as an abduction, but the rescue of a lost creature.
As for the Yeti stories, if they lived and died among humans quite recently, why there are no remains buried near the villages?
There are supposed to be such remains buried near that village.
This happened between late XIX and early XX centuries, in a sparsely inhabited area and nobody was looking for the indians. If someone saw one of them, could not distinguish him/her from other indians. It is different with the Sasquatch. Cryptozoologists are actively searching for them and each reported sighting attracts a lot of researchers to the region.
These expeditions are very short, full of people encumbered by equipment, and who don't know the woods. Any wilderness-savvy creature or human could hear them a mile away and avoid them.
If the reports of interbreeding reported in Argosy are true, Yeti must be a very close relative, so the hair samples should have little difference to human hair.
That seems logical (but I don't know anything about hair identification).
Neanderthal was shorter then homo sapiens, so a 2.4 m tall hominid could not be one of them. The only primate this tall was the gigantopithecus, more closely related to the orangutang than to humans and chimps.
The Neanderthal suggestion was made in reference to Russian, Chinese, and Asian reports which don't ascribe great height to it. Gigantopithicus was an ape, and is pretty much out of the question since it walked on all fours like a gorilla. Neanderthal had the right foot size to leave oversize footprints, so it fits that criteria, anyway.
 
  • #18
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
By way of illustrating another "up close" view, here's the story of the 1941 captured "wild man," from Mysteries of the Unexplained:

Stationed in Dagestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic during the last three months of 1941, a Soviet Army lieutenant colonel named V.S. Karapetyan was asked by local authorities to examine a man captured in the mountains near Buinaksk. A strange-looking individual, the captive was suspected of being a disguised spy. It was hoped that Karapetyan, a medical officer, would be able to determine wether or not the suspect was wearing a disguise. As the colonel reported:

"I can still see the creature as it stood before me, a male, naked and barefoot. And it was undoubtably a man, because the entire shape was human. The chest, back, and shoulders, however, were covered with shaggy hair of a dark brown colour...
The man stood absolutely straight with his arms hanging, and his height was above the average-about 180 cm [about six feet]. He stood before me like a giant, his mighty chest thrust forward. His fingers were thick, strong, and exceptionally large. On the whole, he was considerably bigger than any of the local inhabitants.
His eyes told me nothing. They were dull and empty - the eyes of an animal...
When kept in a warm room he sweated profusely. While I was there, some water and then some food was brought up to his mouth; and someone offered him a hand, but there was no reaction. I gave the verbal conclusion that this was no disguised person, but a wild man of some kind."

P.158
 
  • #19
zoobyshoe said:
There is a similar story from Bhutan (I think) where a retarded woman often wanders away from her village for periods of weeks. During her absenses she lives with the local version of the yeti, who bring her stuff to eat. The implication is that the bigfoot don't see it as an abduction, but the rescue of a lost creature.
It's a very different situation. In the story in the US, the guy was sleeping and carried away by the Bigfoot. This is abduction and not rescue.
There are supposed to be such remains buried near that village.
And why don't investigators dig for them?
These expeditions are very short, full of people encumbered by equipment, and who don't know the woods. Any wilderness-savvy creature or human could hear them a mile away and avoid them.
Agreed relative to finding an actual Sasquatch. But they would not have time to clean up their camp, leaving no remains.


The Neanderthal suggestion was made in reference to Russian, Chinese, and Asian reports which don't ascribe great height to it. Gigantopithicus was an ape, and is pretty much out of the question since it walked on all fours like a gorilla. Neanderthal had the right foot size to leave oversize footprints, so it fits that criteria, anyway.
Agreed about the Gigantopithecus, that is supposed extinct for a million years and could not be called a wild man.
Do you have any citation about the oversized Neanderthal feet? I always believed that they were not bigger than a human's.
 
  • #20
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
SGT said:
It's a very different situation. In the story in the US, the guy was sleeping and carried away by the Bigfoot. This is abduction and not rescue.
We haven't interviewed the bigfoot about its motives.
And why don't investigators dig for them?
They have dug. I can't remember if they found them or not. Regardless, there is a good photograph of the son (or grandson?) of this "yeti" woman, and he looks very hominid-like to me. I saw this on a TV special and haven't been able to find this photo on the web.
Agreed relative to finding an actual Sasquatch. But they would not have time to clean up their camp, leaving no remains.
What camp?
Do you have any citation about the oversized Neanderthal feet? I always believed that they were not bigger than a human's.
No, I read it in a Library book. Try googling Neanderthal Feet and see what comes up.
 
  • #21
Mk
2,037
4
zoobyshoe said:
a retarded woman often wanders away from her village for periods of weeks.
Story of my life.

the yeti, who bring her stuff to eat.
The Yeti is female!
 
  • #22
zoobyshoe said:
We haven't interviewed the bigfoot about its motives.
You should.
They have dug. I can't remember if they found them or not. Regardless, there is a good photograph of the son (or grandson?) of this "yeti" woman, and he looks very hominid-like to me. I saw this on a TV special and haven't been able to find this photo on the web.
Children with abnormalities are born frequently. This does not mean they are hybrids.
What camp?
The report from the supposedly abducted man cites a camp. Anyway, every animal group, intelligent or not leaves remains when settles in the same place for some period. I can understand if a group of intelligent beings, that try to go undetected, could hide those remains when leaving at their own will, but not if they are running away from potential enemies.
No, I read it in a Library book. Try googling Neanderthal Feet and see what comes up.
I found several references, none of them on the size of the feet. Since you made the claim it is up to you to provide the references.
 
  • #23
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
SGT said:
Children with abnormalities are born frequently. This does not mean they are hybrids.
True, but that doesn't debunk this photograph. If a hybrid existed, it ought to be able to be photographed, and that is what people are saying this picture depicts. The photograph, and their saying so, doesn't prove anything, except that the stories are much more elaborate than you realized.
The report from the supposedly abducted man cites a camp.
Here you are extrapolating alleged bigfoot behavior from a story I presented simply to prove that stories of "up close" sightings exist, contrary to your assertion that it was always seen at a distance and indistinctly.
Anyway, every animal group, intelligent or not leaves remains when settles in the same place for some period.
This is probably true, but without knowing if bigfoot actually ever settles anywhere, or what kind of signs he might leave if he did, then your assertion that bigfoot researchers would have found a camp by now hold no water. If bigfoot makes camps, then no doubt some person has come upon one at some point. Would they recognize it for what it was? How could they since there are no known bigfoot camps to compare it to?
I can understand if a group of intelligent beings, that try to go undetected, could hide those remains when leaving at their own will, but not if they are running away from potential enemies.
If they are real, actually make camps, and have survived this long then you can assume they know how to escape detection when they feel threatened.
I found several references, none of them on the size of the feet. Since you made the claim it is up to you to provide the references.
You're right. I can't find anything on the web that supports the notion they had extra big feet. I'll have to re-check what I read next time I go back to the library here.
 
  • #24
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
zoobyshoe said:
You're right. I can't find anything on the web that supports the notion they had extra big feet. I'll have to re-check what I read next time I go back to the library here.
OK, I found the book that gave me this notion. It is one of a series of Time-Life books on Early Man, this one called The Neanderthals.

In it, they make note of the suggestion that had been made that the Yeti might be a Neanderthal remnant, and present photographs of a fossil Neanderthal footprint alongside an alleged Yeti footprint. The point is to show that the Neanderthal footprint is quite different as far as toe placement.

However, no size is given for either footprint, and in the photos they look to be the same length. In the text, yeti footprints are described as "huge". This creates the impression that Neanderthal footprints must also be huge.

It says: "Heresay about outsized footprints in the snow or giant figures disappearing behind crags is suspect." But it goes on to give reasons why the yeti doesn't match Neanderthal man, without ever saying the footsize is wrong. Instead, the reason given is that Neanderthal stood erect, and wore clothing. This, and the photo, left me with the impression that Neanderthal had very large feet compared to us. They neglect to refute any notion he had large feet.
 
  • #25
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
I found this today by the Russian who dug for the Alma bones:

Hominology in Russia: Personal Observations, Problems, Perspectives
Address:http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Burtsev.htm

About six paragraphs down he discusses this expedition, and the fact he found the bones of one of the sons, though not of the mother. (Persued a red herring) It talks about the tests done (not much).

Here are pictures of the son' skull. You can see especially in the second one (more of a side view), how sharply his forehead slopes back from his brow:

Pangea Institute - Cryptozoology/Khwit's Skull
Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=51

Pangea Institute - Cryptozoology/Khwit Exhumed
Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=52
 
  • #26
zoobyshoe said:
I found this today by the Russian who dug for the Alma bones:

Hominology in Russia: Personal Observations, Problems, Perspectives
Address:http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Burtsev.htm

About six paragraphs down he discusses this expedition, and the fact he found the bones of one of the sons, though not of the mother. (Persued a red herring) It talks about the tests done (not much).

Here are pictures of the son' skull. You can see especially in the second one (more of a side view), how sharply his forehead slopes back from his brow:

Pangea Institute - Cryptozoology/Khwit's Skull
Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=51

Pangea Institute - Cryptozoology/Khwit Exhumed
Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=52
I am not a paleontologist, so my opinion lacks authority, but the cranium does not seem similar to a Neanderthal's. See http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~lbem/aulas/grad/evol/humevol/extra/hominideos.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
matthyaouw
Gold Member
1,185
5
SGT said:
I am not a paleontologist, so my opinion lacks authority, but the cranium does not seem similar to a Neanderthal's. See http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~lbem/aulas/grad/evol/humevol/extra/hominideos.html [Broken]

I'm going to agree with you, but look at the similarity between that and Homo sapiens arcáico (on the page you linked to.) I'm particularly looking at the cheek bones and area between/above the eyes. It still has its share of differences however.

Homo sapiens arcáico is the spanish. I'm not sure what that is in English. I'll look it up later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
matthyaouw said:
I'm going to agree with you, but look at the similarity between that and Homo sapiens arcáico (on the page you linked to.) I'm particularly looking at the cheek bones and area between/above the eyes. It still has its share of differences however.

Homo sapiens arcáico is the spanish. I'm not sure what that is in English. I'll look it up later.
It's Portuguese, not Spanish. It means archaic homo sapiens. I think it refers to Cro-Magnon man. And I have noticed the similarity too. But archaic homo sapiens was very like ourselves, with short hair except at the head and not a hairy thing like Yeti and Bigfoot are supposed to be. By the way, I don't think that Neanderthal was that hairy either.
 
  • #29
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
Here's a better selection of Neanderthal skulls:

neanderthal skull - Google Image Search
Address:http://images.google.com/images?q=neanderthal+skull&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

A rather large variety of skulls seem to be classified as Neanderthal. I can see a lot of obvious differences between a lot of them that make me wonder what features they have in common such that they're all classified as Neanderthal.

What is intriguing to me about the alleged hybrid skull is the distinctly un-homo sapiens sapiens brow and sloped-back forhead. This is consistent with the notion of a human/homonid hybrid.

What that means, at the very least, is that his guy somehow got hold of a properly configured skull with which to perpetrate a hoax. Let's not forget Piltdown Man. The guy is also Russian, and Russian science is traditionally riddled with pseudo-science.

It would be nice to get this skull to the US and have it tested and examined by forensic pathologists and forensic anthropologists.

Bourtsev's site also says that some of the grandchildren are still alive. It would be nice to be able to fly some of them to the US and have them thoroughly examined: DNA and MRI's, and whatever else might reveal anything of interest.
 
  • #30
zoobyshoe said:
Here's a better selection of Neanderthal skulls:

neanderthal skull - Google Image Search
Address:http://images.google.com/images?q=neanderthal+skull&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images

A rather large variety of skulls seem to be classified as Neanderthal. I can see a lot of obvious differences between a lot of them that make me wonder what features they have in common such that they're all classified as Neanderthal.

What is intriguing to me about the alleged hybrid skull is the distinctly un-homo sapiens sapiens brow and sloped-back forhead. This is consistent with the notion of a human/homonid hybrid.

What that means, at the very least, is that his guy somehow got hold of a properly configured skull with which to perpetrate a hoax. Let's not forget Piltdown Man. The guy is also Russian, and Russian science is traditionally riddled with pseudo-science.

It would be nice to get this skull to the US and have it tested and examined by forensic pathologists and forensic anthropologists.

Bourtsev's site also says that some of the grandchildren are still alive. It would be nice to be able to fly some of them to the US and have them thoroughly examined: DNA and MRI's, and whatever else might reveal anything of interest.

I fail totally to see in Khwit's skull the prominent brows that characterize Neanderthal. The forehead seems a little lower than normal, but I don't see it receding either.
 
  • #32
zoobyshoe said:


I still fail to see any remarkable difference between Khwit's skull and a classical human skull.
I have seen a documentary about a Mexican family that presents Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa. It is probably at the origin of werewolves myth and may be also correlated to Yeti tales. It is possible that the alleged Yeti woman suffered from that abnormality and was driven away from her home village, being taken by other villagers.
 
  • #33
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
SGT said:
I still fail to see any remarkable difference between Khwit's skull and a classical human skull.
I am an artist and can draw very realistic portraits of people. I pay attention to facial proportions, and khwit's skull just doesn't have the right amount of head above the eyebrows for a normal modern human.

I think if you were to print this one out:

Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=52

and carry it around with you out in a public area where there are lots of people to compare it to, you would see what I'm talking about.

My only point here, is that the forehead of khwit's skull is not normal at all. That being so, doesn't prove anything about why it isn't normal.
I have seen a documentary about a Mexican family that presents Hypertrichosis Lanuginosa. It is probably at the origin of werewolves myth and may be also correlated to Yeti tales. It is possible that the alleged Yeti woman suffered from that abnormality and was driven away from her home village, being taken by other villagers.
Yes, I know about this disorder. It would explain the alleged hairiness, but not Zana's alleged great physical strength.

{Off Topic: the werewolf myth has nothing to do with this disorder either. It derives both from Transylvanian superstitions about the unquiet dead returning in the form of a wolf, and also from incidents in France involving a deranged person, or people, who claimed to be turning into wolves and attacking people. There is also a report by some early explorers (can't recall who) of Native American Shaman demonstrating the ability to take the form of wolves for them.}
 
  • #34
zoobyshoe said:
I am an artist and can draw very realistic portraits of people. I pay attention to facial proportions, and khwit's skull just doesn't have the right amount of head above the eyebrows for a normal modern human.

I think if you were to print this one out:

Address:http://www.pangeainstitute.us/photogallery/displayimage.php?album=15&pos=52

and carry it around with you out in a public area where there are lots of people to compare it to, you would see what I'm talking about.

My only point here, is that the forehead of khwit's skull is not normal at all. That being so, doesn't prove anything about why it isn't normal.
I have noticed that the forehead is lower than a normal human's, but it is not receding like a Neanderthal's. Also the brows are not prominent and the jaw is not strong and protruding.
I agree there is an abnormality, but I find no similarity with a Neanderthal's skull.
 
  • #35
zoobyshoe
6,551
1,287
SGT said:
I have noticed that the forehead is lower than a normal human's, but it is not receding like a Neanderthal's. Also the brows are not prominent and the jaw is not strong and protruding.
I agree there is an abnormality, but I find no similarity with a Neanderthal's skull.
Well, as long as you see that it doesn't look normal. The jaw looks unusually massive to me, but from the face back the skull doesn't look Neanderthal at all: it lacks the proper length, front to back, and there's no hint of the classic Neanderthal "bun" at the lower rear. What struck me as distinctly "homonid" was the slope of the forehead.

The two experts that Bourtsev quotes who have looked at the skull both found it to be extremely interesting and unusual, but neither brought up the subject of Neanderthal. I've been told that the skeleton would be a much better place to look for distinctive Neanderthal features. I imagine Bourtsev left it in situ and that could be done at some future point.

Neanderthal or not, anything that corresponds to a longstanding band of "wild men" with different features than us, and very hairy, like the thing described in the Russian Officer's story, would be fascinating to me.
 

Suggested for: Abominable snowman and the Great grey Man

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
328
Replies
8
Views
393
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
451
Replies
3
Views
340
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
278
  • Last Post
4
Replies
108
Views
3K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
89
Views
9K
Replies
343
Views
12K
Replies
70
Views
4K
Top