Hobbits have feet like Bigfoot

Bizarre foot
"My problem with that is that it doesn't speak to the rest of the skeleton," says Jungers, who also presented his analysis of the hobbit's bizarre foot at an anthropology conference last year.

For starters, the feet of H. floresiensis are far longer than would be expected of 1-metre tall H. erectus or H. sapiens. The resulting need to drag its feet back high with each step to avoid kicking the ground would have limited its ability to move swiftly. It also has unarched feet. "It's never going to win the 100-yard dash, and it's never going to win the marathon," Jungers says.

Both features also point to an ancestor that predates fleet-footed H. erectus, Jungers says. "If in fact human evolution redesigned the bipedal foot in some way, these guys missed the train."

A closer inspection of the bones in the hobbit's nearly complete left foot reveal both modern and archaic characteristics. Its short big toe resembles that of an australopithecine like Lucy, while the shapes of the toe bones appear human. "It's definitely a head-scratcher," Jungers says.

He speculates that the hobbit's closest relative is a species of human more ancient than H. erectus, with a smaller brain – perhaps H. habilis.

Hobbits 'are a separate species'

It has been accepted by two separate studies that Homo floresiensis is indeed a separate species!

This is delightful news. Although it does not necessarily prove Bigfoot is possible, it definitely supports that Bigfoot is possible.

One of the primary theories of bigfoot is the species may have a common ancestor with a modern day primate. This is exactly the case with Homo floresiensis approx 1 million years ago. The theory is not completely fleshed out, but the common ancestor may have been Homo erectus .

reported by the BBC is the following...

Hobbits 'are a separate species'

The Hobbit's foot is in many ways quite primitive
Scientists have found more evidence that the Indonesian "Hobbit" skeletons belong to a new species of human - and not modern pygmies.

The one metre (3ft) tall, 30kg (65lbs) humans roamed the Indonesian island of Flores, perhaps up to 8,000 years ago.

Since the discovery, researchers have argued vehemently as to the identity of these diminutive people.

Two papers in the journal Nature now support the idea they were an entirely new species of human.

The team, which discovered the tiny remains in Liang Bua cave on Flores, contends that the population belongs to the species Homo floresiensis - separate from our own grouping Homo sapiens .

They argue that the "Hobbits" are descended from a prehistoric species of human - perhaps Homo erectus - which reached island South-East Asia more than a million years ago.


Over many years, their bodies most likely evolved to be smaller in size, through a natural selection process called island dwarfing, claim the discoverers, and many other scientists.

However, some researchers argued that this could not account for the Hobbit's chimp-sized brain of almost 400 cubic cm - a third the size of the modern human brain.

Original article at BBC News Worls America

Bigfoot: Descendant of Cain

I have heard many theories regarding Bigfoot. Missing Link. Undiscovered North-American ape. Living modern branch of Gigantopithicus. Inter-dimensional time traveling monster summoned from the physics experiments during the US Government funded Montauk Project. Really, I'm a fan of all of these and thought I had heard all of these. Not True.

Enter Matt Bowman. You may remember him from a previous post Is Bigfoot My Brothers Keeper? He wrote a paper published by the JOURNAL OF MORMON HISTORY VOLUME 33, NO. 3 FALL 2007. It is an article entitled A Mormon Bigfoot: David Patten’s Cain and the Concept of Evil in LDS Folklore.

I will give you the Readers Digest version. Multiple historical Mormon documents reference an Bigfoot-like encounter experienced by David W. Patten. Patten was an early leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and an original member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The creature is described as a hairy man of ill smell, who claimed to be none other than Cain himself. Yes, the creature talked.

Why am I bringing this up again? Because, I was a little disappointed after reading Matt Bowman's Paper. I realized there is no mention of one of the most respected BF scientists out there, Jeff Meldrum. Why would/should have Matt Bowman mentioned Jeff Meldrum? Jeff Meldrum is a BYU Alumni AND Author of the Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. A book recognized and recommended by Jane Goodall, in fact she is quoted on the cover, "...[Sasquatch:LMS] brings a much needed level of scientific analysis to the Sasquatch-or Bigfoot-debate."

Being ever diligent I have corresponded with both Matt Bowman and Jeff Meldrum. I should first say both are very gracious and kind. Although I must say Mr.Meldrum shattered my own private personal Bigfoot hypothesis, but that's another post altogether.

First Mr.Meldrum's response to the Cain/Bigfoot Paper:

I am aware of the primary citations, but haven't encountered Bowman's paper...I don't place any significance in Patten's "experience" for Sasquatch research, but would be interested to learn more about its historical context.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Jeff Meldrum

Your welcome Jeff, I had a hunch as a Mormon you may have heard of David W. Patten and as a published well-recognized and respected Sasquatch researcher you may also have had something to say about the whole thing.

Matt Bowman's response?

In retrospect probably should have included something about Meldrum in the paper; I was aware of him when I did the research, but just didn't find a good place to fit him in. I've seen some of his work but have never spoken to him personally, so I'm not sure what drives his interest.

Overall, though, I'd say he fits in with the trend among Mormons I describe in the paper away from a more supernatural interpretation of Bigfoot and toward an increasingly scientific approach.

Best,
MB

So there you have it mystery solved.