Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 This one is interesting, this 3D model was created from scanning several other relics and using data from modern foot prints, gives you an idea of the scale at 8 1/2 feet. Dwarfing Meldrum, and look at the lack of neck, as well as the broadness of the hips. This certainly brings some of the images in our minds to life. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) So this is based off of foot print cast and descriptions, but also from other relics, Neanderthal skeletal remains were used in the baseline, footprint dimensions, and other descriptive data. What comes of the model is a picture of the biomechanical girders that make up our conception of Sasquatch, well I see the scale and I am ready to go look for a fresh pair of under garments, how bout you? If this is a 8 1/2 foot model, what would be the scale of a 10-12 foot model, obviously taller, but also much wider, all right I am ready to go buy the fruit of the loom 12 pack. Check out the link to the article about the model http://www.3ders.org/articles/20151208-sasquatch-speculation-given-new-boost-with-remarkable-3d-printed-full-scale-bigfoot-skeleton.html Edited December 17, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 Already posted FYI, just sayin'.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Yeah. Folks talk about the height, but I was stunned by the mass of the critter I saw. If there's anything that I'd really question about this model, is the thigh bones - in my opinion - seem like they'd be a bit thinner than I'd expect on these things. But that is just speculation on my part because the thighs were as thick as my waist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 Oops did not see the other post about this, all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 The feet are likely to be very accurate in comparison to sasquatch, since Meldrum did a fantastic job of taking the available data and using it to account for the unknowns. A knowledge of physiology dictates that there can only be so many possibilities, and Meldrum has used his knowledge to theorize an exact structure for the sasquatch foot- a structure that must be different from the human foot due to the sheer weight of these animals- and a differing structure that is hinted at in some of the available pieces of video evidence. It is my opinion that he did a great job, although I suppose others may disagree. Thus the feet are the one thing for which sasquatch data can be used to arrive at a working theory. Available sasquatch data can also be used to build up a picture of what other portions of their skeleton would look like, but there is a lack of precision where all but the feet are concerned; the feet being the only data that a sasquatch seems to leave behind in any cases. Height would be the only other piece of data for which measurements exist, but these are more often than not based upon educated estimates by the observer, or sometimes based upon a precise measurement which is based upon an educated guess by the observer- like standing in front a tree with your arm raised, telling the witness to yell "stop" when the hand reaches the correct height. The measurement is precise, but the method is not. Whereas with footprints this is not the case. Thus the lack of data must mean that the model is going to be wrong for a number of individual components. However, they are likely to be right for those structures where variation is unlikely, where human and non-human primates always seem to agree. The biggest differences will be found in places like the neck and perhaps the shoulders, the pelvis, and most importantly, the skull. It still looks really cool, and is accurate in a general sense for all individual elements, but I'm just saying it is not a precise model of sasquatch, except for perhaps the feet. The skull interests me the most, and the possibility for error here seems pretty great in my mind. I always imagined that the main bones of the legs would be a bit thicker too, considering they must support a lot of weight. Which just made me think of something- what part of the diet gives wild animals calcium? An underground milk spring? I wonder what their bones are like in comparison to human bones from a subject who gets the proper amount of minerals in their diet? Perhaps plants and meats contain enough minerals for the predators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 In a communication from Dr Meldrum, the skull used was a Paranthropus boisei skull. I didn't get an explanation as to why. For comparison sake I asked for an incisor measurement. Also gave him some of our information on the maxillary incisor radius. Haven't heard back from him since. As I said it was for sake of comparison. Because what we see is human-like as are the incisors in his model, just bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Hello LakeCountyBigfooot, I'm curious. That looks like a very expensive skeleton project. If Dr. Melsrum didn't pat for it out of his own pocket how in the heck did he convince whoever it was that footed the bill? Was it the Idaho State University? I guess I don't understand how he accomplished the financing and where the money came from. Just the research and design to get it to the 3D state it's in now must have cost a small fortune. And if it was the university here I thought his superiors in the past just rolled there eyes, tolerated him, and just looked the other way when he started talking about Sasquatch. It's obvious to me that someone else might be thinking Sasquatch is real? There has to be some story there and I sure would like to know what it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) I agree hiflier. Very thoughtful points and I'd be interested to know who funded it as well. Edited December 20, 2015 by ChesterCopperpot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfriendly Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Hello LakeCountyBigfooot, I'm curious. That looks like a very expensive skeleton project. If Dr. Melsrum didn't pat for it out of his own pocket how in the heck did he convince whoever it was that footed the bill? Was it the Idaho State University? I guess I don't understand how he accomplished the financing and where the money came from. Just the research and design to get it to the 3D state it's in now must have cost a small fortune. And if it was the university here I thought his superiors in the past just rolled there eyes, tolerated him, and just looked the other way when he started talking about Sasquatch. It's obvious to me that someone else might be thinking Sasquatch is real? There has to be some story there and I sure would like to know what it is. I saw the show that had this whole make up done, and it appears the University has a 3D printer. That is what they used to make this thing. Sure there are costs involved, but it also appears that this university also supports his work, so..........Pretty straight forward and I see no reason that Meldrum would make any part of this structure influenced by a donor or anything like that. If anyone would want to get this right, it would be Jeff. It may not be exact, but how much closer can you get? I LOVE IT! Pretty sure I too would be looking for a Hanes 12 pack if I ever saw something like this that was really alive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Hello bfriendly, Hey thanks for the info. I thought a 3-D printer would be involved somewhere. As for the rest of your post? I agree with all of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) In a communication from Dr Meldrum, the skull used was a Paranthropus boisei skull. I didn't get an explanation as to why. For comparison sake I asked for an incisor measurement. Also gave him some of our information on the maxillary incisor radius. Haven't heard back from him since. As I said it was for sake of comparison. Because what we see is human-like as are the incisors in his model, just bigger. Meldrum considers the Paranthropus genus one of the two leading fossil contenders for sasquatch ancestry. From his Sasquatch Field Guide: "The other candidate [than Gigantopithecus - DWA] is an early branch of the hominin family tree, bipedal, with robust jaws and teeth: Paranthropus (a robust australopithecine). In this case a fossil record linking the bipedal African Paranthropus with North America is lacking. However the discovery of the enigmatic "Hobbit" - Homo floresiensis - ...suggests an earlier and wider dispersal of early hominins than previously recognized." First, we have more remains in that bodily region for Paranthropus (for Giganto, we have only teeth and a jawbone). Second, the connection appears morphologically plausible. One caution disregarded far too often when it comes to fossil record is the record's incompleteness. Not only would the required movement and evolution of the Paranthropus genus be plausible over the speculated timeframe, but it is also possible that the genus existed on more than one continent at the time represented by the boisei fossils, just we haven't found those outside of Africa yet. (And evidence suggests people could have found - and disposed of, or tossed into museum basements - such fossils. And there is always the possibility that people have found them, have them in their possession, and just aren't talking.) Of course there is a third possibility: another fossil genus than those two. And a fourth: a genus for which we simply have no fossils yet. Edited December 20, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD-40 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 This one is interesting, this 3D model was created from scanning several other relics and using data from modern foot prints, gives you an idea of the scale at 8 1/2 feet. Dwarfing Meldrum, and look at the lack of neck, as well as the broadness of the hips. This certainly brings some of the images in our minds to life. I don't think my little .357 would be able to knock that thing down if I was forced to defend myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I wouldn't assume much accuracy in the gigantopithicus blacki skull sitting on it's shoulders. I think it's out of place on an otherwise hominin skeleton. That's just my perception, but the scale is daunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 It really doesn't matter to me what skull is sitting on the shoulders. It's the scale that's interesting to me. It may turn out to be something else. But if it has human-like teeth, as far as incisors go, that is what is of interest to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts