Are Humans the Only Modern Hominid?

Fossils-Wikipedia:
Because of the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a small percentage of life forms can be expected to be represented in discoveries, and each discovery represent only a snapshot of the process of evolution.

• Fossils species are fossils found that fossilized millions of years ago and thought to be extinct but found to be a species alive and living on earth.  An example of this is the coelacanths which is a fish.
• Mythical species that have been reported by natives for hundreds of years to be discovered as a true species.  Three species that are examples of this are the giant squid, mountain gorilla and the Bili ape.
• Another mythical creature was the little people of the south Pacific Ocean.  There have been fossils found that they now call the hobbit.

Do you see where I am going with this post?

Fossils are rare and not a true indicator of all the species that have lived on earth for millions of years.  They are only a snapshot of what was living millions or even thousands of years ago.  To expect that only the few fossils found are the only living things to live on earth is not a true indication of the diversity of our earth.  Just look at the diversity and how many different species we now have should tell you that our world is more dynamic than what many think.  Even when you factor into the equation of species off shooting from a common ancestor should still point to a much more diversified earth.  We do know that many people have Neanderthal ancestry through DNA findings.  They have also have said that Homo Erectus and Homo Habilis and other are in our DNA.  The scientists are finding that the Homo Sapien (modern & us) interbred with other hominids.  As we learn more about DNA, it will show a clearer picture of our ancestry than fossils. 

The first thing that popped in my mind was that these hominids were around when there was Homo Sapiens (us).

Have you looked at the renderings of these early hominids?

Have you read about their physical characteristics?

• Protruding jaw
• No chin 
• Thick brow
• Some found with sagittal crest
• Robust frame
• Short legs
• Long arms

How is Bigfoot described by people who had seen one?

• Protruding jaw
• Thick brow
• Some with pointed head
• No neck
• Robust frame
• Long arms

I think we need to look into the possibility that we have a primitive hominid that had not interbred with humans or on a limited scale still living on earth as a distinct species.  Many of the ape-like characteristics and human characteristics have been reported about Bigfoot by many people may point to a modern version of Homo Erectus or another early hominid .  For hundreds of years Native Americans and First Nations talked about a tribe of people that was a person but a different person.  Maybe it is time for us to look at the possibility that we have other hominids besides Homo Sapiens living in our woods and forest here in North America.

   

Let me tell you about the Loess Man of Nebraska:

In 1894, a skull was uncovered that could not be identified.  Then 12 years later Robert Fletcher Gilder from the University of Nebraska found a similar skull.  Both were found in mounds about 4 feet deep.  The first skull was sent to Robert Gilder.  After examining both skulls he said they were the remains of  the Neanderthal Man.

In the November 16, 1906 issue of Science Magazine, Robert Gilder said the skulls are of the Neanderthal type.  With protruding brows, low forehead, devoid of frontal eminences, large parietal eminences, narrow temple, thick skull wall and small brain capacity.

Then in 1907, another book was written by an anthropologist Ales Hrdlicka called Skeletal remains suggesting or attributed to Early Man in North America, tried to discredit Robert Gilder's finding on the skulls he found.  He claimed that they had to be modern skulls and not Neanderthal because:  

1. Shallow depth of 4 feet of the mound.
2. Bones had not fossilized
3. Mice had chewed the bones because of the found rodent bites.  He surmised that the mice took the bones and dragged them to their burrow, the burrow collapsed which made the bones appear deeper.
4. Then he said that it was common for the contemporary natives to have sloping foreheads and pronounced brow ridges.
5. He also mentions other mounds that had similar Neanderthal-like skulls.  ?!? 

Now I would like to point out a few things:

1. Within the mounds many of the skulls were fragmented and dispersed.  Which would be unexpected for a controlled burial.  So the assumption it must be mice that made the skulls and bones be deeper seems far fetched if there were no remains of mice since he is assuming the burrow collapsed.
2. Were all the mounds found be contributed to mice and their burrow collapsing?  Does that even make sense?  Is this an actual fact about the mounds?  Were there rodent bites on all the skulls found?
3. It is not common for the contemporary natives to have sloping foreheads and pronounced brow ridges.  It wasn't a common characteristic like he claimed. 
4. The thickness of the skulls point not to human but to something else.
5. Have all the known Neanderthal remains that were found before these skulls in other parts of the world been fossilized remains?  Were any found like these skulls?
6. Could they be something else if not Neanderthal? 

I will state right now that I am not an expert but I do have a brain and can analyze what I have read.  It seems to me that there are some questions that our science community is not sharing with the general public.  Until recently I have never been taught, or had read or watched anything about mounds or remains that look human-like but are not.  Why?

Either the history of when humans came to North America that is perpetuated to us is wrong and they are hiding the truth from us

or

There are other human-type species living here in North America.  That are big, with thick skulls, with sloping foreheads and pronounced brow ridges.

So if those bones were actually not ancient but from a modern species then either we have Neanderthals running around in North America or maybe they could be Sasquatch.

   

Never Say Never in Regards to Our Mysterious World Especially Bigfoot

The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance-

it is the illusion of knowledge.

~Daniel J. Boorstin~

The Bili Ape found in the northern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo in the late 1990's seemed to be both a chimpanzee and gorilla.  It has only been seen by one scientist Shelly Williams.  Has it suddenly morphed into a newly discovered species because a primatologist has seen them?. The locals have always talked about them but they were not "discovered by science" until 2001. Does that mean they did not exist until now?  Not much is known about them but if you talked to the locals they seemed to know all about them. They are capable of killing lions and are considered ferocious.  How can they be a new species when there is local knowledge and oral history about them?

For me the premise that without scientific discovery there is no such thing as a Bigfoot doesn't make sense. Discovery of living things don't just become real because science has made the discovery. The oral history of Bigfoot by Native Americans and First Nations is rich in facts and details about them. This was a known creature of their world. Does that mean that since Europeans came to America that what was a fact becomes a myth because the white man hasn't used their science to discover them? That is being a bit arrogant and close minded. To me it makes sense to try to find out rather than dismiss something that has a long history here in America. Closed minds don't make discoveries. Only the ones who dare and are open to discovery are the ones who discover.

I truly think that our premise that unless someone who is officially from the science community has made the determination that a species is real is being arrogant.  Thinking they know everything.  When in fact our science community has been reminded so many times over history that they are wrong or ignorant of our world and all that lives there.  They continually have to retract their facts or premise trying to word it in a way that still makes them sound intelligent.  Even when they have to completely do a 360 such as saying many years ago that life can't happen unless there is light.   Now they are saying there has to be some type of energy.  This is thanks to the discoveries made in the deep, dark depths of our oceans.  Making absolutes and saying they know everything is setting up the science community to being closed minded and arrogant.  It should not be part of the science community.  Being a skeptic but using imagination and problem-solving to approach our world and the mysteries should be more of an appropriate approach.  Saying that what they have found for now indicates what they know.  There is nothing wrong with saying that what facts known for now indicates certain premises and also lead them to educated guesses on other things.

I know I have sounded a bit harsh and seemed a bit anti-science but in reality I am not.  I love science.  It has done so many things to help us learn about our world and have had many wonderful discoveries.  Its the manner or the way the science community has been about of the many mysteries that regular people have talked about for a long time.  Some have actually been proven real such as the giant squid.  SCIENCE TRIES TO EXPLAIN OUR WORLD IN A RATIONAL MANNER BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.  It never will.  Why?  Because we are part of the mystery.  We still have questions about the how and why of our world starting with the beginning.  If you have heard otherwise then you were told wrong.  It is all educated guesses and beliefs.  That is what makes our world so fascinating.  We don't know everything.  Only a tiny fraction and its there for us to discover more.

I have never made one of my discoveries

through the process of rational thinking. 

~Albert Einstein~

Hide-n-Seek Champion-The Sasquatch

I have in the past blogs have talked about how it is possible for our bipedal primate to be able to successfully hide from our society.  I would like to talk a bit more on how it is possible even in modern times.  There are many who feel our modern times are so "modern" with our technology that there is no more mystery.  We have all the answers.  That in itself tells me that our modern times have more in common with the dark ages of the past. 

Why?

I feel that with this mindset it has closed our minds to learning and the possibilities of anything and everything.  Which sounds a bit like the mindset of the dark ages.  The only difference I can see is the fear factor but it may also play a factor in our modern time along with arrogance.  The reality is that we do not have all the answers and never will.  It is all about opinions and science's educated guesses.  Our earth and the living beings living on the blue planet will always be mysterious.  That includes us.  We still don't know how and what with life beginning and when it ends.  How will we be able to find the answers to the mystery when we are part of it?

With that said I would like to talk about how it is possible for a large bipedal primate to live successively here in North America right under our noses.  I will point out that they have been known for hundreds of years by Native Americans and others but since they are only people and not the science community their insight and knowledge has been disregarded as myth or superstition.

How is that possible?

I suspect that this primate is intelligent and savvy in regards to human behavior and have adapted accordingly.  Why not promote the idea of being a figment of someone imagination and hide in plain sight?  I am thinking some of the urban legends and haunted stories of certain forest/woods/ravines could be linked to Bigfoot.  Many of the sounds and sightings sound a lot like some of these legends and stories.  How about the wildman or woman who everyone says is a hermit but no one has never seen but heard about?  Sound familiar?

How about moving around mostly during the night time?  Shadows?  Weird sounds?  Unexplained happenings?  Animals behaving weirdly?  Stories have been passed down through families who live by swamps/woods/forest.  These stories have enough details that point to an unknown wild species here in America.  If these wildlife savvy people know how to track and hunt to survive, how can you dismiss the stories and their knowledge?  How do you explain how Native Americans knew how to react/deal with one and how to avoid it? 

When you stop and look at some of what people have shared over the years many of the details are compelling enough to point to something big, hairy and walking on 2 legs here in North America.  Many have shared the small details that even seems more compelling to me.  Most stories may seemed to be based on fear or imagination will not have the details or descriptions unless it is based on something real and seen and experienced.  When you have similar details that need to be seen in person and shared before modern times and could not shared like it would today speaks volumes to me.  Its all about the details.

Now I would like to point out how it is possible for them to hide even in modern times with all our technology.  Just the point of them using forested, wooded, rugged terrain makes it possible.  Our technology still has problems with our woods/forest and rugged areas.  Even our outlying areas of our urban locations are possible for them.  We have many parks and designated wild areas for them to successfully remain hidden from us when needed.  Then we have our remote wilderness areas.  Just the sheer size and inaccessibility make it a perfect place for them. 

Their ability to hide is not perfect.  How do I know this?  Because we have continual sightings of them on a consistent basis.  The system works but its not failsafe.  The main reason they are successful is our continual premise that they are a myth and not real.  So even if seen it is dismissed as misidentification or an illusion. 

How perfect is that for an intelligent primate to live successfully just out of reach of our society?



   

We live in a world that is mysterious and ever changing.  There have been many times that our science community has made definite statements about living beings and how our earth functioned.  Then they had to revised their findings because they were not correct.  One perfect example that illustrates this is when I was growing up I was taught that life cannot happen without light.  Then the exploration of our deep oceans had our science community restate that in order for life to happen you need energy.  I will add that this statement should only be apply to our earth.  Expecting this to be true on other planets is a bit short-sided and arrogant is my thought.  How can we be expert on something we know nothing about?

I have never thought of how the stories that we were taught or told from long ago may have some truth to them.  I have been taught that they were superstition-based stories from people who did not know anything.  They had a wild imagination and were not real.  Now older and wiser I am wondering who is being closed-minded and short-sided?  I am thinking our educated and profound experts have missed the opportunity to learn more about our world.  Similar and persistent stories from ancient times through modern time have been found throughout our world.  Not just here in North America.  Could those stories about knights of old from the medieval times fighting monsters and unknown beast be based on fact?  How about the stories about sea creatures?  One such sea monster the giant squid turned out to be true.

Now we are hearing about mounds with giants with double row of teeth with 6 fingers found here in America.  How about in South America those skulls with elongated skulls?  What else has there been found but hidden from us since it does not fit our perceptions of our history and the living creatures?

When you look at the new primates found recently within the last 5 years, it makes it easier to think of the possibility of a North American bipedal primate.  The remoteness and wild areas here in North America is still here.  When you add an intelligent bipedal primate it makes it a real possibility.  The primate species other than humans on our continent is missing that is found elsewhere.  We have the climate and right environment.  Where are they?

I have gone from being someone who is trying to discover Bigfoot to actually knowing they are real and alive here in North America.  I am secure in what I have found and seen.  What frustrates me is the way our experts refuse to even look into this primate.  Just because it has been sensationalized and yes, even hoaxed by stupid people should not hinder them from dispelling this persistent mystery.  This is a perfect opportunity to prove once and for all that this mystery is just people's imagination.

The main reason I think they won't do this is because they don't want to be proven wrong.  Our woods and forest will never be the same when they are officially discovered.  It may open a can of worms. 

How Do You Explain the Prints?

I had gone to a friend's location that has active Bigfoot activity.  What was nice about this location was it being void of people and rained all night until 4:30 in the morning.  The 19 inch print with track way was found at night in the rain.  It was gone the next morning because of the rain.  That was a lucky find.  I am glad we took pictures right then and did not wait for the morning.  We also found where this 19 inch one walked along the tree line.  We also found 9 1/2 inch prints.  All washed away in the rain by the next morning. 

Saturday morning we had explored the location and found several more prints.

How do you explain the prints found Saturday morning?  They could not have been made on Friday because of the rain.  The ones found Friday night were washed away.

This is a perfect example of how rain actually played a positive factor for me this weekend.  It gave me a time frame of when the prints were made and eliminated other possibilities.

Yes, there is a bipedal primate out there in our woods and forest.  There is no doubt.  This rainy weekend was a clear indication that points to this.

If Bigfoot is so Shy and Elusive, Why are they seen?

Why are Bigfoot seen by people?  They are reported to be shy and elusive.  Would this be a reason not to believe people?

This would make for a solid reason if we lived in a perfect world and people do not visit or live in areas that may have some Bigfoot.  Statistically there will be some type of report about them if they are real.  In other words the reports and physicals evidence such as prints are statistics augmenting their existence.  All living things on earth leave some type of signs of their existence.  This also applies to Bigfoot being a bipedal primate living in the woods and forests of North America.  We have ongoing indications of them now for over 400 years and they keep coming.  Even in our modern world.    You cannot disclaim reliable and reputable eye witness accounts.  What about the physical prints found that are outside the human size range or in cold climates where bare feet is a detriment to survival? 

Why would a primate that has been reputed to be shy, elusive and wary of people be seen by people?

That actually is easy to answer.  They are curious and territorial.  They are primates and show primate behavior.  In other words they will come look because something about the person or their actions has triggered their curiosity or they don't want the person in that location.  Sometimes a hunter or person is in a location before a Bigfoot and will catch the Bigfoot unaware.

Does this sound like something a real primate or person would do?  Yes, it does.

So a primate that is wary and shy of people will have the curiosity to go take a look or check things out.  They will also respond to perceived infringements if they feel the need.  That is why the reports and sightings are so important.  Having people explain what they were doing and what they experienced will give further clues about this bipedal primate.  Much of the sightings have similarities but differences.  Which would be expected when you have different situations, people and bipedal primates.

Just thinking of statistics and coincidences in regards to this primate does point more to the reality of them.  Not the other way around.

So when you are walking one evening on a pathway in the woods...
that rustle or footsteps you hear may be a curious bipedal primate watching you.