| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
The Face of Bigfoot
Friday, April 3, 2015 0:19
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
“Adahy” painted by me 2014
What do we know of the face of Bigfoot? There have been some impressive glimpses, such as the miraculously sharp vision elucidated from the PG Film by MK Davis -
There are reports varying widely about the face of Bigfoot. And, why not? Aren't Homo sapiens' faces quite varied from skull shape to coloring, hairiness, to deformities?
There are reports of very human-like faces, sometimes even nearly hairless, others who look like hairy humans, others that look like gorillas, some with a snout-like appearance that is almost bear-like, and heads that are quite pointed.
Every variation makes one wonder about the potential interbreeding of the Bigfoot with humans or potentially long ago breeding before a window of breeding-ability closed, much like it is believed Neanderthal's breeding capabilities with Homo sapiens did tens of thousands of years ago.
Could breeding within a small population or consanguinity (mating within ones own close relations), have created some oddities that have become dominant features over time? Might one family of backwoods BFs who bred among their own family over and over for generations created the creatures some people interpret as Dogman for their elongated facial area?
Stabilization performed by MK Davis of TimberGiant video
Still shot (profile face) from the video above – MK Davis procured from TimberGiant video
I've heard some talk about their profile being almost like a football. I look to some ancient skulls for ideas of how Bigfoot might have developed his interesting skull features. The truth is, Bigfoot had to have ancestors. If they are related to us, we have a common ancestor, more likely Homo erectus. Let's start with their skull.
Homo erectus
This man was here from around 1.9 million years to 70,000 years ago. That's relatively recent when you consider it takes about 100,000 years for an evolutionary change to be readily seen. They were the ancestors of Homo heidelbergensis (a tall man from long ago), Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens and possibly Homo denisova. This would be a common ancestor for us with many branches of man whose genes we know show up in our own; Neanderthal and Denisovan.
Here (below) is an artist rendition of how they might have looked. We, of course, have no clue if they had body hair that was excessive or great height. Breeding with others in the Homo genus would likely accentuate certain traits, so height of a Homo erectus and Denisovan might have produced something very unusual. I want you to take note of the space between the nose and mouth. When you get down to the White Bigfoot below, scroll back up and look at this again.
Now, let's look at Neanderthal, another potential candidate with pronounced brow, but weak jaw (not what we see in Bigfoot)
(Neanderthal skull – above)
Artist rendition of Neanderthal based on skeletal remains
I've added hair to that figure.
Neanderthal apparently carried a gene for red hair. We have many auburn-haired Bigfoot reported in the wild. But, might their people have long ago mated with Neanderthal to pick up that gene, like us humans have?
Now, let's look at a candidate that has been placed out there in the possibility pool – a hiding tribe that was prevalent in the very area where a lot of Bigfoot are seen today – East Texas.
Karankawa Tribe of Texas
The Karankawa Tribe were tall, as reported by the Conquistadors who came across them first. They have also been classified as an “otamid” head shape which archaeologists refer to as “archaic” because of the characteristics that show a strong jaw that is more carnivorous and a sloped head with os inca, aka, interparietal bones in the rear of the head causing a sort of pointed look. Notice how forward thrusting the lower part of the face is. If Bigfoot is not of a skull type like Karankawa, perhaps somewhere in our history, our ancestors met and mated, creating some telltale skull features.
The American Coastal Indians have shown to have skulls more like the Australian aboriginal people. That common ancestor could be Denisovans, though we have very little bone fragments to say much about Denisovans except their genetic makeup. We have no idea what their skulls were like, but the Denisovans genes do show up in South Pacific people and Australian aborigines, so their skull shapes might be traits found from the Denisovans. The Coastal Indians of America were tall and had unusual skulls compared to the other Native People who were of Asian descent.
The American Coastal Indians have shown to have skulls more like the Australian aboriginal people. That common ancestor could be Denisovans, though we have very little bone fragments to say much about Denisovans except their genetic makeup. We have no idea what their skulls were like, but the Denisovans genes do show up in South Pacific people and Australian aborigines, so their skull shapes might be traits found from the Denisovans. The Coastal Indians of America were tall and had unusual skulls compared to the other Native People who were of Asian descent.
Now, one more potential skull to inspire is this otamid skull (below) found in the Humboldt Sink in Nevada right near where the ancient red-haired giants were supposedly living. A university did a study based on it and compared to other large skulls with the interparietal bones and powerful carnivorous jaw. I wrote a post about this – HERE.
Humboldt Sink “Otamid” skull
This guy above's profile seems to resemble the “football” like profile we hear about. I have attempted my own rendition over top of this skull photo of what I think the otamid fellow might have looked like (below). It was interesting to see that his nose hole is up high between the eyes compared to Homo sapiens. This would make a nose that attaches on the powerful brow instead of between the eyes. It would create larger sinus areas in the cheeks and overall a “football” looking profile and even a lower face forward/flattened nose look.
Let's look at some supposed Bigfoot facial captures on video/photos. Our biggest obstacle here is wondering what is genuine and what was distorted in the process of capturing a clear image.
Pennsylvanian White
Here's the white one (above) from Pennsylvania that was so unusual and even impossible to believe for many because it was such a good capture. What intrigues me about this face is the space between the nose and mouth. It is physically impossible with Homo sapiens' proportions and if one were to make a mask that made that space, the mask's nose would have to be shorter than the human's nose and if they tried to put the space over the human's mouth, he would not be able to open the mask's mouth. The logistic's are tricky. He appears to have a prominent brow, oddly shaped eyes which are really just triangle looking by their deep-set shadow from the brown ridge. Scroll back up to see the artist's rendition of a Homo erectus above. See the space between the nose and mouth? We are looking for clues as to characteristics that show through on the skull from ancestors.
Now, let's go back to Patty (above) and see the space between her nose and mouth (nose is highlighted with light, bottom lip is highlighted) and you see a fairly good space between the two. This would show that Bigfoot very likely had Homo erectus as an ancestor, as we did. This trait from Homo erectus is one he has held onto, whereas we held onto the less prominent chin. So, what relative might Bigfoot have descended from after Homo erectus? With the interparietal bones creating a “pointed head” look and powerful jaw, I'd say he got those traits from the same ancestor who influences the South Pacific, Denisovans, or perhaps other offshoot we are not yet aware of, maybe even Java Man or Peking Man, etc.
Conclusion
There is a lot more to learn about the face of Bigfoot, but the skull will tell a LOT about lineage. We can say we have a common ancestor, but at some point we diverged. How long were we able to interbreed? That window was likely similar to Neanderthal and Denisovans. We still don't really know if they stopped breeding with us because we became genetically dissimilar over time or if they simply went extinct so there was not more breeding pool. It would seem likely that we could breed as long as they were around to breed with. Scientists believe Neanderthal went extinct about 30,000 years ago, though that figure changes regularly.
What is the face of Bigfoot? Well, lots of artists have worked on renditions – let's close today's post with these imaginative and sometimes eerily real portrayals.
And, to end it today – here's the entire video of the white Bigfoot in action – you decide -
Source: http://www.ghosthuntingtheories.com/2015/04/the-face-of-bigfoot.html
