• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
A

Anonymous

Guest
As is proposed in Cryptozoology A to Z (if you don't own it I recommend it) I believe the neanderthals remain in existance in small throngs or 'tribes'. They were a successful species, very intelligent, and rumors of 'wild men' are prevalent worldwide.
Would anyone know of any related media? This takes more than a google search...
Thanks!
PS Yes I've seen the new fiction Hominids. :) Looks good! :D
 
What I think:

The wildman being among us would be cool, but neanderthals possesed tool making capabilities, so it would see like we would have seen fires in the woods of national parks or notice effects of their hunting. Or they might feel our threats to their enviroment from killing all their game & destroying habitats and come out from hiding looking for food.

I think that Bigfoot and other wildmen would probably be a less advanced type of primate, maybe a giganipithisis (pardon the shoddy spelling). I think Neanderthals bred into the normal "human population" and COULD ACTUALLY BE READING THIS BOARD (or at least their decendents).
Check your occipital ridge, folks!

A cool sci-fi book on ancient man suddenly found to be existing with our own is Michael Bishop's "Ancient of Days".
 
Myra Shackley's a good source: she searched for the Almas of the Caucasus, and speculates that they're more akin to relict Neanderthals (or poss cro-magnons) than Yeti.

From here comes this quote:

As mentioned above, Big Foot like creatures have been sighted throughout the world in wilderness areas. Dr. Myra Shackley, a professor of archaeology at Leiscester University is convinced that Big foot is a pre-hominid Neanderthal man, a predecessor of modern man*, who supposedly was exterminated by Cro -Magnon man.

In the Altai Mountains of Mongolia, wild men known as Almas have been seen and known about by the area people for years. When people first settled this region, it is told how they drove the "WILD MEN" out of the immediate area. Dr. Myra Shackley actually went to the Altai Mountains and gathered evidence of the existence of these wild men known as Almas.

A Professor Porshnev investigated the case of a female Alma, described as having ape-like features and covered in hair, who was captured by the Altai Mountain people in the mid-nineteenth century. Called Zana, she eventually was domesticated and could do simple tasks such as grind corn. She loved grapes and wine, and after drinking heavily, would crash out for hours, which explains how she became pregnant several times. Her children, being half modern man, could talk and were rational human beings. The last of her children died in 1954. Professor Porshnev however interviewed her grandson, who had dark skin and Negroid features. His jaw was so strong that he could pick up a chair with a man sitting on it with his mouth.


*actually not: Neanderthals are generally accepted to have been a parallell species with a common root to Cro-Magnon. Stu

Also this has some good info on relict Neanderthal theories.

There's more out there: I believe Dr Shackley's book is called "Wildmen".

Stu
 
Re: What I think:

MrRING said:
I think Neanderthals bred into the normal "human population" and COULD ACTUALLY BE READING THIS BOARD (or at least their decendents)

Yeah, I'm doing that right now.
 
Re: What I think:

OldTimeRadio said:
MrRING said:
I think Neanderthals bred into the normal "human population" and COULD ACTUALLY BE READING THIS BOARD (or at least their decendents)

Yeah, I'm doing that right now.

Good to hear from you OTR.
 
The almasty is more likley to be an early offshoot of Homo erectus. It is far taller than a neanderthal and more primative. Almasty use rocks and clubs but do not make fire. They may be decended from the first wave of erectus that left Africa.
 
I recall women were lineing up to tryy and get frozen sperm from the Itallian Ice Man when he was uncovered.
 
There's a few round my way who seem to have managed that already
 
Sounds like the banns for my first marriage.
 
lordmongrove said:
The almasty is more likley to be an early offshoot of Homo erectus. It is far taller than a neanderthal and more primative.

I've been hearing about neanderthal survival for a lot of years, and reports of wild men seem to be the main evidence. I'd be open to the idea that late surviving neanderthals inspired legends of trolls, dark elves and subterranean dwarfs, certainly. But most reports of mystery man-like creatures seem to describe almost entirely hair covered, tall entities, at odds with descriptions of neanderthal I've read. Also, reconstructions of neanderthals are commonplace in our society, and people describing seeing neanderthals are not. I think another type of hominid, perhaps one not described, is more likely.

Having said that, I don't know whether this has any bearing on the neanderthal identification...

lordmongrove said:
Almasty use rocks and clubs but do not make fire. They may be decended from the first wave of erectus that left Africa.

I'm sure there are modern humans in the world who wouldn't know how to use a smart phone or laptop the way I (fool myself I) can. Such things can be cultural. We know that some neanderthals used fire, but we can't know all neanderthals have always used fire.
 
PaulTaylor said:
I'm sure there are modern humans in the world who wouldn't know how to use a smart phone or laptop

Or for that matter, know how to start a fire without some sort of lighter or matches.

Things can fall from cultural memory pretty fast, there are probably a lot of teenagers who wouldn't know how to refuel or reflint a zippo lighter.
 
PaulTaylor said:
reports of wild men

Can someone point me to these reports of wild men? I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that a wildman sighting would consist of a bigfoot creature with less hair, and I don't recall reading of any sighting like that, ever. Would be happy to be pointed in the right direction. Maybe just a Google search will do..
 
The only one that comes to mind is the cave sighting somewhere around WW2 by a military group in the Caucuses mountains.
 
Look at the almasty stuff, especially the bits that's intended for the Russian market as it's different to what's written for export.
 
Human_84 said:
PaulTaylor said:
reports of wild men

Can someone point me to these reports of wild men? I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that a wildman sighting would consist of a bigfoot creature with less hair, and I don't recall reading of any sighting like that, ever. Would be happy to be pointed in the right direction. Maybe just a Google search will do..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/alma-zana.htm


see also

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hominids/redheads.htm

and

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures.htm
 
dreeness said:
Human_84 said:
PaulTaylor said:
reports of wild men

Can someone point me to these reports of wild men? I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) that a wildman sighting would consist of a bigfoot creature with less hair, and I don't recall reading of any sighting like that, ever. Would be happy to be pointed in the right direction. Maybe just a Google search will do..

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/alma-zana.htm


see also

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/hominids/redheads.htm

and

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/creatures.htm

Thanks. A good read.
 
PaulTaylor said:
I've been hearing about neanderthal survival for a lot of years, and reports of wild men seem to be the main evidence. I'd be open to the idea that late surviving neanderthals inspired legends of trolls, dark elves and subterranean dwarfs, certainly. But most reports of mystery man-like creatures seem to describe almost entirely hair covered, tall entities, at odds with descriptions of neanderthal I've read. Also, reconstructions of neanderthals are commonplace in our society, and people describing seeing neanderthals are not. I think another type of hominid, perhaps one not described, is more likely.

Having said that, I don't know whether this has any bearing on the neanderthal identification...

Well, probably none. If you mean that people are not influenced by descriptions and reconstructions of Neanderthals, ok. But if you meant that these sightings could not be of Neanderthals because these reconstructions do not show them as hair covered, it would be pointless, because we don't know how accurate they are. I know it is more fashionable to depict them as glabrous since they have been 'rehabilitated', but I often wondered about the accuracy of these hairless Neanderthals. They lived in a cold environment, and probably did not have at their disposition clothes as performant as ours. We know that there were wooly rhinos and wooly elephants, so there could very well have been wooly humans.

That being said, survival of Neanderthals is extremely problematic.
 
Analis said:
PaulTaylor said:
I've been hearing about neanderthal survival for a lot of years, and reports of wild men seem to be the main evidence. I'd be open to the idea that late surviving neanderthals inspired legends of trolls, dark elves and subterranean dwarfs, certainly. But most reports of mystery man-like creatures seem to describe almost entirely hair covered, tall entities, at odds with descriptions of neanderthal I've read. Also, reconstructions of neanderthals are commonplace in our society, and people describing seeing neanderthals are not. I think another type of hominid, perhaps one not described, is more likely.

Having said that, I don't know whether this has any bearing on the neanderthal identification...

Well, probably none. If you mean that people are not influenced by descriptions and reconstructions of Neanderthals, ok. But if you meant that these sightings could not be of Neanderthals because these reconstructions do not show them as hair covered, it would be pointless, because we don't know how accurate they are. I know it is more fashionable to depict them as glabrous since they have been 'rehabilitated', but I often wondered about the accuracy of these hairless Neanderthals. They lived in a cold environment, and probably did not have at their disposition clothes as performant as ours. We know that there were wooly rhinos and wooly elephants, so there could very well have been wooly humans.

That being said, survival of Neanderthals is extremely problematic.

Perhaps they spend a good part of their lives in one or more remote caves, and bask in the warmth, reproducing with one another time and again. But then, where does the food come from? Problematic indeed..

If we can correctly assume that their clothes are just as warmth bearing as ours and they can hunt year round, I'd venture to guess that the last big Mystery is how they remain so elusive. Then, it might just come down to a math equation. Is there any way (with any degree of accuracy) to estimate how many square miles of food bearing land are on this planet which are totally untouched by modern man year around? EG: No sled-dog mushers, no hunters, no close Cessna flyovers, NOTHING except maybe jets at 30,000 feet. Anyone want to take a shot?
 
Human_84 said:
Then, it might just come down to a math equation. Is there any way (with any degree of accuracy) to estimate how many square miles of food bearing land are on this planet which are totally untouched by modern man year around? EG: No sled-dog mushers, no hunters, no close Cessna flyovers, NOTHING except maybe jets at 30,000 feet. Anyone want to take a shot?


Maybe some maps, just to get a rough idea.

Canada:

link


Siberia:

link


Mongolia:

link
 
Population levels can be a bit of a red herring, a better way to understand impact is to look at the conservation status of large animals in an area.
 
dreeness said:
Human_84 said:
Then, it might just come down to a math equation. Is there any way (with any degree of accuracy) to estimate how many square miles of food bearing land are on this planet which are totally untouched by modern man year around? EG: No sled-dog mushers, no hunters, no close Cessna flyovers, NOTHING except maybe jets at 30,000 feet. Anyone want to take a shot?


Maybe some maps, just to get a rough idea.

Canada:

link


Siberia:

link


Mongolia:

link

That's really interesting. Anyone happen to know if there exists a population density map not per square mile, but per 20 square miles, or 50 square miles? It might more accurately identify vast areas of barren land, where-as the maps above (granted they are awesome) wouldn't take into account regions with homes scattered out several miles apart (unlikely places for said beings to roam at ease).
 
As is proposed in Cryptozoology A to Z (if you don't own it I recommend it) I believe the neanderthals remain in existance in small throngs or 'tribes'. They were a successful species, very intelligent, and rumors of 'wild men' are prevalent worldwide.
Would anyone know of any related media? This takes more than a google search...
Thanks!
PS Yes I've seen the new fiction Hominids. :) Looks good! :D
http://ukwildman.blogspot.co.uk/ i collect sightings from witnesses of the uk wildman
 
"I'd love to see a Neandertal"

Taken individually, the Neanderthal traits are within the range for modern homo sapiens. Shouldn't really surprise us, when we may carry up to 20% of the Neanderthal genome:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/humans-one-fifth-neanderthal-according-shock-3092118

So, in other words, if you really wanted to, a little selective breeding between the Inuit (short, stocky build), Australian Aborigine (large nose, hefty brow ridges and robust jaws), Southern Europeans (hairiness), Scots or Irish (frequent ginger hair gene) and maybe a dash of the British aristocracy (weak, receding chin) could produce some very convincing "neo-Neanderthals" within a few generations.

In fact, although it's not politically correct to say so, the Australian Aborigine has a higher proportion of denisovan (extinct race of homo genus, contemporaneous with Neanderthals) genes than any other extant race. So these people with their extremely ancient lineage are perhaps the last extant link to earlier versions of the genus homo.
 
In fact, although it's not politically correct to say so, the Australian Aborigine has a higher proportion of denisovan (extinct race of homo genus, contemporaneous with Neanderthals) genes than any other extant race. So these people with their extremely ancient lineage are perhaps the last extant link to earlier versions of the genus homo.
Although probably not politically correct, I reckon it is probably scientifically correct.
I've mooted this idea a few times to various people and been told off for saying it! I was just being rational and objective.
 
Last edited:
homo ergaster or homo heidleburgensis was something i looked at when i first had my sighting, but they were close but not exact, the nearest i can find that looks like "it" was the peking man picture by zurian
zurian.jpg
 
Well, probably none. If you mean that people are not influenced by descriptions and reconstructions of Neanderthals, ok....... That being said, survival of Neanderthals is extremely problematic.

A tandem (or at least resonant) proposition to the concept of latter-day survival of isolated breeding colonies of Neanderthals being archetyped by co-contemporary homo sapiens as being the supernatural trolls/goblins/ bogeyman of myth, is the universal paleosociatal monster/dragon meme, and it's close cousin, the dinosaur.

Conventional evolutionary timelines insist that lineal separations of millennia separate 'modern' man from all viable species of living dinosaurs, but surely the widespread instances of prehistoric and tribal artworks, and even the collective primal fear thereof itself, points to some possible degree of overlapping existence. I am meaning at a level perhaps less tangible than saying that depictions of dragons and griffins were actually misrepresentations of group oral historical recollection of living dinosaurs, but I feel especially since these early pre- medieval representations existed long before the science of paleontology was even vaguely considered, there is some degree of tenuous corroboration (even just via the universality and pervasiveness of such legends and fears)

The golem, the bigfoot/sasquatch, the dark lumbering shadowman of collective myth, was there long before the first paleoanthropologist scraped their first fossilised bone from the dirt. Arguable linkage through seperacy of conceptualisation and discovery: or, just false similarity via observation and conflation?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top