Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Cryptozoology & Mythical Beings
Hobbit or Hoax?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HDRKID" data-source="post: 141531" data-attributes="member: 43"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I fall down a million times, but I rise up once more.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Homo floresiensis</strong></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>That is considerably smaller than Homo erectus that they claim is the ancestor.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Something is amiss.</p><p></p><p>Why have no HF been found in larger islands like Sumatra or Java?</p><p></p><p>Frankly, since 2003, we should have found more HF skulls in other caves. Well, we just have the one. </p><p></p><p>Actually, despite a lot digging, no more skulls have been found in the Liang Bua cave.</p><p></p><p></p><p>TAKEN FROM <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html" target="_blank">Homo floresiensis: the Hobbit</a></p><p><em>hard to believe a creature with such a small brain could make such sophisticated stone tools,</em></p><p><em>interestingly, they are not like any stone tools made by Homo erectus. </em></p><p><em></em></p><p></p><p>Science Daily goes into detail as to why HF is a down syndrome person. It lays the evidence out for you.</p><p><a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140804151510.htm" target="_blank">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140804151510.htm</a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>TAKEN FROM <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6763047_Flores_Hominid_New_Species_or_Microcephalic_Dwarf" target="_blank">Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?</a></p><p><em>"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."</em></p><p></p><p>more from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6763047_Flores_Hominid_New_Species_or_Microcephalic_Dwarf" target="_blank">Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?</a></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>more from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6763047_Flores_Hominid_New_Species_or_Microcephalic_Dwarf" target="_blank">Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?</a></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]lY7FviV-22Y[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p></p><p>more evidence</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/news/origins.php?id=Homo-floresiensis-revealed" target="_blank">Homo floresiensis revealed?</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11967" target="_blank">Evolved developmental homeostasis disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia, denotes Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid species Homo floresiensis</a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>TAKEN FROM <a href="http://news.psu.edu/story/201935/2006/08/21/no-hobbits-shire-skeletal-remains-are-pygmy-ancestors" target="_blank">No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University</a></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>more from <a href="http://news.psu.edu/story/201935/2006/08/21/no-hobbits-shire-skeletal-remains-are-pygmy-ancestors" target="_blank">No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University</a></p><p><em>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."</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>TAKEN FROM <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060821-hobbits_2.html" target="_blank">"Hobbits" Were Pygmy Ancestors, Not New Species, Study Says</a></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>TAKEN FROM <a href="http://news.psu.edu/story/201935/2006/08/21/no-hobbits-shire-skeletal-remains-are-pygmy-ancestors" target="_blank">No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University</a></p><p><em>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 <strong>such teeth also are found in a sample of Rampasasa pygmies who still live on Flores.</strong></em></p><p></p><p></p><p>"LB1 is not a normal member of a new species, but an abnormal member of our own," - Robert B. Eckhardt (anthopologist) Penn State University.</p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/daCCENdSDqGQgEE_q7ZhcQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDUzO3E9OTU7dz00MjI-/http://www.laputanlogic.com/images/2005/04/11-10CRPFDQN00.jpeg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p><img src="http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/indonesia_pol98.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HDRKID, post: 141531, member: 43"] 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. [B]Homo floresiensis[/B] 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 [URL="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.html"]Homo floresiensis: the Hobbit[/URL] [I]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. [/I] Science Daily goes into detail as to why HF is a down syndrome person. It lays the evidence out for you. [URL]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140804151510.htm[/URL] 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 [URL="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6763047_Flores_Hominid_New_Species_or_Microcephalic_Dwarf"]Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?[/URL] [I]"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."[/I] more from [URL="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6763047_Flores_Hominid_New_Species_or_Microcephalic_Dwarf"]Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?[/URL] [I]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.[/I] more from [URL="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6763047_Flores_Hominid_New_Species_or_Microcephalic_Dwarf"]Flores Hominid: New Species or Microcephalic Dwarf?[/URL] [I]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.[/I] [MEDIA=youtube]lY7FviV-22Y[/MEDIA] more evidence [URL="http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/news/origins.php?id=Homo-floresiensis-revealed"]Homo floresiensis revealed?[/URL] [URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11967"]Evolved developmental homeostasis disturbed in LB1 from Flores, Indonesia, denotes Down syndrome and not diagnostic traits of the invalid species Homo floresiensis[/URL] 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 [URL="http://news.psu.edu/story/201935/2006/08/21/no-hobbits-shire-skeletal-remains-are-pygmy-ancestors"]No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University[/URL] [I]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.[/I] more from [URL="http://news.psu.edu/story/201935/2006/08/21/no-hobbits-shire-skeletal-remains-are-pygmy-ancestors"]No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University[/URL] [I]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."[/I] 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 [URL="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060821-hobbits_2.html"]"Hobbits" Were Pygmy Ancestors, Not New Species, Study Says[/URL] [I]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.[/I] TAKEN FROM [URL="http://news.psu.edu/story/201935/2006/08/21/no-hobbits-shire-skeletal-remains-are-pygmy-ancestors"]No Hobbits in this Shire: Skeletal remains are pygmy ancestors | Penn State University[/URL] [I]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 [B]such teeth also are found in a sample of Rampasasa pygmies who still live on Flores.[/B][/I] "LB1 is not a normal member of a new species, but an abnormal member of our own," - Robert B. Eckhardt (anthopologist) Penn State University. [IMG]https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/daCCENdSDqGQgEE_q7ZhcQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDUzO3E9OTU7dz00MjI-/http://www.laputanlogic.com/images/2005/04/11-10CRPFDQN00.jpeg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/indonesia_pol98.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Cryptozoology & Mythical Beings
Hobbit or Hoax?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top