Hobbit or Hoax?

[HDRKID]

Flores man is a woman. Also, this person was not a child as reported once. DNA analysis might give us some clue about what is going on. Still, we do wonder about these hobbit people who are still being seen even now. Maybe, the past was more amazing than we can imagine.

Hobbit Or Hoax?

Homo floresiensis: scientists clash over claims 'hobbit man' was modern human with Down's syndrome

Flores bones show features of Down syndrome, not a new 'hobbit' human | Penn State University

 

[Harte]

Settled years ago - no hoax.

Harte

 

[HDRKID]

A cop once told me. "When some one is constantly changing their story, it is a bad sign."

First it was 12,000 years ago... now it is 50,000 years ago.

TAKEN FROM New Homo Floresiensis Dates May Quash Cryptozoology Theories About 'Hobbits'
When the “hobbit” remains were thought to date to as recently as 12,000 years ago, these legends about Ebu Gogo started sounding like they could refer to H. floresiensis. The new Nature paper, however, uses cutting-edge analysis of geology to push the date of disappearance of the “hobbits” back to 50,000 years ago. Or, at least, this is the date that the “hobbits” left the cave at Liang Bua. Research authors Thomas Sutikna and colleagues write that, “Whether H. floresiensis survived after 50 kyr ago — potentially encountering modern humans on Flores or other hominins dispersing through southeast Asia, such as Denisovans — is an open question.”

A DNA test would tell us if they are ancient humans or another species. Sadly, if you listen to the video, you will see that all the DNA test results were lost - how convenient.

Genetics tests would tell us if the small skull belong to a person with trisomy 21 AKA Downs syndrome.
Hobbits Are Not Real: Analysis of 'New Human Species' Homo Floresiensis 'Consistent with Down's Syndrome'

Sadly, the DNA tests results were lost and they have not done any more.

What we do know is that the facial asymmetry was 6% and this is consistent with abnormal fetal development and this is not a normal person. Most people have less than 1% facial asymmetry, but you will find 6% in people with down syndrome. Also, we have just one skull and that is simply not enough evidence to claim a brand new species.

The 'Hobbit' was a human with Down syndrome, not a separate species

Teuku Jacob, Indonesia’s premier paleoanthropologist believes Homo floresiensis is not a new species. Rather instead it is a modern melanesian suffering from microcephaly. Not doubt you have seen tiny skulls in babies born with the Zika virus.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/science/22tiny.html?_r=0

When some one is constantly lying to you. It is hard to know what the truth is.

Animal Planet’s “Cannibal In The Jungle” Was Fake With Elements Of Fact

 

[Harte]

There was one attempt to extract DNA from these remains, and it was unsuccessful.
There were nine individual remains found.
What are they saying, it's an entire colony of Down's Syndrome individuals all living together?

Harte

 

[HDRKID]

When the story first came out, I was excited by the idea of finding a new species. However, the preponderance of evidence suggests, that is not the case.

I fall down a million times, but I rise up once more.



Homo floresiensis

has only 380 cc brain mass. Chimpanzee has 400 cc. Gorilla 500 cc. Neanderthal 1490 cc. Modern human 1350 cc. Homo erectus (Java) 930 cc.

That is considerably smaller than Homo erectus that they claim is the ancestor.

However, HF has fire, as well as sophisticated stone tools that are more modern than those of a Home erectus in Java with 930 cc brain mass on average.

Something is amiss.

Why have no HF been found in larger islands like Sumatra or Java?

Frankly, since 2003, we should have found more HF skulls in other caves. Well, we just have the one.

Actually, despite a lot digging, no more skulls have been found in the Liang Bua cave.


TAKEN FROM Homo floresiensis: the Hobbit
hard to believe a creature with such a small brain could make such sophisticated stone tools,
interestingly, they are not like any stone tools made by Homo erectus.


Science Daily goes into detail as to why HF is a down syndrome person. It lays the evidence out for you.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140804151510.htm

This clips below make the same argument as me. Sophisticated stone tools point to an advanced hominid, not some one that has approx 400 cc of brain mass.

TAKEN FROM Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?
"The cranial capacity of LB1 ( approximately 400 cc) is smaller than in any other known hominid < 3.5 Ma and is far too small to derive from Homo erectus by normal dwarfing. By contrast, some associated tools were generated with a prepared-core technique previously unknown for H. erectus, including bladelets otherwise associated exclusively with H. sapiens. The single European microcephalic skull used in comparing virtual endocasts was particularly unsuitable. The specimen was a cast, not the original skull (traced to Stuttgart), from a 10-year-old child with massive pathology. Moreover, the calotte does not fit well with the rest of the cast, probably being a later addition of unknown history. Consideration of various forms of human microcephaly and of two adult specimens indicates that LB1 could well be a microcephalic Homo sapiens. This is the most likely explanation for the incongruous association of a small-brained recent hominid with advanced stone tools."

more from Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?
subsequent dating using a combination of radiometricmeasurement and electron spin resonance yielded an even younger age of 27,000–53,000 years (Swisher et al.,1996). Hence, the Ngandong specimens may possibly beonly 9,000–35,000 years older than the LB1 skeleton.The average cranial capacity for six skulls from Ngan-dong is 1,149 cc (Stanyon et al., 1993), almost threetimes larger than that of the Flores hominid. This all leads to the conclusion that it is simply unre-alistic to explain the tiny cranial capacity of 380–417 cc recorded for Homo floresiensis as an outcome of evolu-tionary dwarfism affecting an insular population of late-surviving Homo erectus.

more from Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?
All of the stone tools (n 32) reportedfrom the level of section VII containing the LB1 skeleton by Morwood et al. (2004), as well as those describedfrom section IV (which are even more advanced thanthose in section VII), clearly belong to types that areconsistently associated with Homo sapiens and have notpreviously been associated with H. erectus or any otherearly hominid.

more evidence

Homo floresiensis revealed?

Evolved developmental homeostasis disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia, denotes Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid species Homo floresiensis

A genetic test would tell us if this individual suffered from trisomy 21 or is a previously unknown species. However, there is no genetic test and this did raise my suspicions. Teams of initial discoverers keep changing their story and prove evasive.


TAKEN FROM No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University
To study LB1's traits, 94 cranial features and 46 features of its mandible were compared to values for modern humans. All fell within the normal range of variation for Australomelanesians. Two anatomical details, particular grooves in the cranial base singled out as "not seen in modern humans," in the 2004 new species announcement are commonly found in Australian and Tasmanian crania, according to Alan Thorne, archaeology and natural history, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

more from No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University
Another supposed indication of a new species was the unusual robustness of the leg bones. "CT scans show that the cortex, the outer solid bone, is very thin, not robust at all," said Henneberg. "The bone is thin and straight. The attachment of the muscles suggests muscle paralysis."


The Indonesian anthropologist Teuku Jacob Flores, director of the Institute of Palaeoanthropology at Gadjah Mada University, made this clear in a statement issued shortly after the publication of the Flores discovery: It is not a new species. It is a sub-species of Homo sapiens classified under the Australomelanesid race. If it’s not a new species, why should it be given a new name?

TAKEN FROM "Hobbits" Were Pygmy Ancestors, Not New Species, Study Says
Jacob's team compared the hobbits' skull, face, teeth, and other limb bones to the Rampasasa pygmies who currently live on Flores. According to the analysis, the hobbits and pygmies share many features.

TAKEN FROM No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University
Dental configuration also can be used to designate a new species. The original researchers argued that a CT scan showed the absence of a third molar and that there was some atypical positioning of other teeth. However, Maciej Henneberg, anatomical sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia, and Etty Indriati, laboratory of bioanthroplogy and paleoanthropology, Gadjah Mada University, found an existing socket and a tooth fragment in the space where the molar supposedly was missing. The unusually positioned teeth were there, but such teeth also are found in a sample of Rampasasa pygmies who still live on Flores.


"LB1 is not a normal member of a new species, but an abnormal member of our own," - Robert B. Eckhardt (anthopologist) Penn State University.

 

[PaulaJedi]

Hey guys, I'm not a hoax! I'm real!

(Short, chubby hobbit lady)

 

[Harte]

Hey guys, I'm not a hoax! I'm real!

(Short, chubby hobbit lady)

It's not a hoax Paula.
This is old information.
There were nine sets of remains (do you believe in Down's Syndrome colonies?) Skeletal differences between H. Florensiensis and us are enough to set them apart. Their wrists are very chimp-like and the lone skull has more features of H. Erectus than H. Sapiens.


Harte

 

[PaulaJedi]

Hey guys, I'm not a hoax! I'm real!

(Short, chubby hobbit lady)

It's not a hoax Paula.
This is old information.
There were nine sets of remains (do you believe in Down's Syndrome colonies?) Skeletal differences between H. Florensiensis and us are enough to set them apart. Their wrists are very chimp-like and the lone skull has more features of H. Erectus than H. Sapiens.


Harte

I was making a joke about my height. Maybe I'm a descendant.