http://www.droppingscience.com/mt-archives/neanderthal.jpg

Hey, notice how they are making Neanderthals look like modern whites?

http://www.rdos.net/neanderthal.jpg

From some estimates, Neanderthals were as strong as ten men! In one article from Smithsonian Magazine in 1992 (June, I believe), it mentioned that they could easily tear a gazelle limb from limb barehanded...and with ease! ;)

I seriously doubt the brow ridge is accurate in the first reconstruction.

From some estimates, Neanderthals were as strong as ten men! In one article from Smithsonian Magazine in 1992 (June, I believe), it mentioned that they could easily tear a gazelle limb from limb barehanded...and with ease! ;)

Oh, knew they were more like monkeys then men.
http://www.williams.edu/dean/oxford/images/ojsimpson2.jpg

In the BBC documentary "Walking with Beasts" the Neanderthals had fair skin with red, blond and brown hair. Humans living in an "Ice Age" Northern Europe were portrayed as black haired and brown skinned. The BBC has been bashing white heritage and people so often in recent years in their programme making that it's not surprising anymore.

Sorry to burst everyone`s bubble but there is no evidence of Neandertal DNA in the modern European gene pool.We are without a doubt the descendants of the more superior Cro-Magnon man.
So what is the purpose of this thread?

Well I do actually agree with you and I was pointing out what the BBC did, and basically trying to criticise the BBC for doing it.

Sorry to burst everyone`s bubble but there is no evidence of Neandertal DNA in the modern European gene pool.We are without a doubt the descendants of the more superior Cro-Magnon man.
So what is the purpose of this thread?

No, that's the point. White Neanderthals are an insult to whites.

Neanderthals were adapted to cold climates, which was their habitat for 200,000 years or so, so it's reasonable to reconstruct them with fair skin. Compare several separate races, including eskimos, laplanders, Iroquois, etc., all having relatively depigmented skin. I don't think that it's reasonable to reconstruct them with red hair and freckles. If you look at the majority of the races around the (sub)arctic periphery, including the ones just mentioned, the majority of groups have dark hair and eyes. Dark hair and eyes seem to be the general rule for all hominid races; fair hair and eyes are the distinguishing exception of Whites. I think freckles also are more or less an exclusively White trait.

No, that's the point. White Neanderthals are an insult to whites.

eskimos and injuns "light-skinned"? Anyone you know look like that pale goblin? Where did the browridge go? Obvious deceit in one aspect of the "recreation" makes me suspect other deceits.
Further, it doesn't really matter what color skin they depict on neandertals. We are not descended from them. We are observably related to cro-magnons.

Well who cares!

We all knew that we are superior "anyway"(?)!

Neanderthal man had an average brain size of 1582 cc

(1700 cc in another source.)

They for example made flutes that niggers could only dream about making.

In fact we don't knew so much about the Neanderthal.

My own "guess" is that they where superior, due to their brainsize, that they lived in artic conditions for a very, very long time, in conditions niggers and even modern whites could even dream about surviving in, without being tigers or some other animal, but a creature on two legs, using tools for survivial.

And yes they do this out of propaganda, they are possessed by the black horde, the traitors, they should be killed directly.

Well, I do, for one.
OK, how about coon brain size for comparison? Cro-magnon?
If you look at a modern White skull, next to a cro-magnon, you cannot help but OBSERVE WITH YOUR BARE EYES, the many similarities. Compare a neandertal skull with a negro skull, and you will also be struck by the many similarities CLEARLY VISIBLE. All the wacky explanations and contrived similarities pale in the face of EASY OBSERVATION, IMO.

Cro-magnons are anatomically modern Whites, albeit possibly slightly more robust that the average modern White. General consensus is that they were our direct ancestors in Europe.

As I understand it, Neanderthals are a completely separate offshoot from all the surviving races. I don't think they should be paired more closely with Whites any more than with Blacks. For one thing, they were much more robust than any surviving race. Given their bone structure, Neanderthals are thought to have been freakishly strong by any modern standard, something akin to olympic class power lifters as the norm. Their facial structure seems to me distinct from both Black and White. Even if you insist on finding Black-like features in the skull, as noted, Neaderthals were clearly more adapted to cold weather. They had a relatively low limb-to-torso length ratio like northeast Asians and Whites (for heat retention). Taking together their remarkable strength, archaical if not negroid skull features, and White-like limb-torso lengths, I think we have to view the overall Neanderthal skeletal structure as sui generis.

Soft tissue features are of course lost on the fossil record but it is sensible to assume Neanderthals had fair skin and fat distribution closer to the White norm, due to the effects of cold-adaptation. (Whites tend to distribute fat over the muscle for insulation; blacks tend to distribute fat under the muscle so that muscle can radiate heat directly through the skin, which is why Black body builders have a slightly easier time achieving "definition". U.S. Army statistics on heat stroke and hypothermia corroberate the expected differences between the races due to these facts.) Hair distribution is completely a matter of conjecture but they may well have been furry for all we know, again signaling their uniqueness.

Well, I do, for one.
OK, how about coon brain size for comparison? Cro-magnon?
If you look at a modern White skull, next to a cro-magnon, you cannot help but OBSERVE WITH YOUR BARE EYES, the many similarities. Compare a neandertal skull with a negro skull, and you will also be struck by the many similarities CLEARLY VISIBLE. All the wacky explanations and contrived similarities pale in the face of EASY OBSERVATION, IMO.

Interesting assertions. All worthy of consideration. I consider the negroes to be the offspring of the lowest of the low-hanging fruit gatherers. Not to be cute, but the longer limbs could be a giraffe-like adaptation for just such a purpose. The muscle over fat vs. under fat is applicable to groups in one type area. Once they move, the other may become the norn through natural selection.Light or dark skin could be the same type feature. I certainly don't claim to have this all figured out.
Plenty of fat-over-muscle negro specimens on view in N. America. Admixture or adaptation?