dmaker

Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

185 posts in this topic

Those who have hunted in low light conditions have come to appreciate the larger objective lenses - of 40mm to 50mm.  We all instinctively know that the larger a telescope, the more light it gathers.  That's why huge array telescopes pull in more light and enable more fantastic views of galaxies far away, not seen with smaller objective lenses.

 

However, the limitations of how much light can be gathered AND UTILIZED - depends on our own eyes - where our pupils can only open from 4mm up to 8mm.  Only light that can get through those small openings are usable.  So no matter how large of a rifle scope, how much light it can gather - we can only see what can be transition through our small pupils.  For example, a good 50mm objective lens rifle scope can deliver more light than our pupils will pass and utilize.

 

A larger eye - probably - but not necessarily - can support a pupil arrangement that can open much larger than the 4mm-8mm diameter of human eyes.  It can take in, and process more light - and depending on the unique combinations or even mutations of rods and cones - just may see an expanded light spectrum that humans cannot.  

 

The BF I saw - huge eyes by comparison to what I've ever seen on any human.  Big.  I look at the skull of the Neanderthal, and there's a significant size increase over those of human skulls.  Larger eye sockets indicate larger eyes.  Larger eyes indicate larger pupils.  Larger pupils pass more photons, giving much better night vision.

 

The human eye only takes up 25% of the eye orbital cavity.  But a detailed study from Oxford indicated that larger eyes and brains were found in those from the more northern regions than those more toward the equator.  The biggest brains were from Scandanavia, averaging 1,484 ml, while the smallest brains were found in Micronesia - 1,200 ml.  And those that lived within the Arctic Circle had eyeballs some 20% larger than those averaged below that region.

 

The human skull is shaped more like a basketball, whereas the Neanderthal skull is shaped more like a football.  Anyone who suggest they are more or less interchangeable - need to pay more attention to sports, until at a glance, they can see the rather distinctive differences.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert on genetics or biology, but I think the answer would require a multidisciplinary approach including bio and brain mechanics.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very relevant comments, thanks!  I will copy over the gist of what I wrote about Neandertal skulls compared to chimpanzee skulls:

"The author of this hypothesis, Vendramini, seems to be unaware that humans *are* primates, and that Neanderthals are of the genus Homo, the same as we humans are! He says that “humans no longer look like their primate ancestors,” but we do in some significant ways. He doesn’t seem to be aware of what those retained primate features are. Oddly, he thinks that human and Neanderthal skulls are “quite different,” yet he believes that chimpanzee skulls and Neanderthal skulls are similar.  This leads me to wonder if he has actually studied and compared the skulls of any of them. Among a number of characteristics that distinguish Neanderthals, their skulls have a condition called 'mid-facial prognathism,' meaning that it is the mid-face beginning with the brow ridge area and extending to the tooth row area that protrudes forward, resulting in a retromolar space after the last molar.  This is different from the prognathism of the African apes. The following paper indicates that Neanderthals did not have strong bite forces, and to me that is a big distinction from the African apes: 

"...Neandertals tend to have more worn anterior teeth than posterior ones, and their anterior teeth show a high incidence of enamel chipping, microfractures, and microstriations on the labial surfaces. Taken together, these signatures of anterior tooth use suggest that Neandertals were using their mouths like a vise. The anterior dental loading hypothesis extends this idea by proposing that Neandertal facial form, and perhaps other cranial features, are adaptations to dissipate the high mechanical loads produced by this behavior (4752). Because Neandertal facial features appear early in development, they cannot be direct mechanical responses to anterior dental loading. They would have to be adaptations produced by natural selection after the species consistently performed this behavior for multiple generations.

One problem with the anterior dental loading hypothesis is that biomechanical modeling suggests that Neandertals were not able to produce particularly high bite forces (53, 54). Neandertal cranial form cannot be adapted to resisting high bite forces if Neandertals were incapable of producing them in the first place. O'Connor and colleagues (54) showed that, although Neandertals would have been able to produce fairly high bite forces in absolute magnitude, their bite forces would not have been unusually large for the size of their crania. Additionally, if efficiency is quantified as the ratio of bite force to muscle force, Neandertals were actually less efficient than many modern humans (54)..."  Timothy Weaver, The meaning of Neanderthal skeletal morphology

...Vendramini’s hypothesis is certainly imaginative, I’ll grant him that, but it is based on a superficial impression of Neanderthals, and a dubious familiarity with the African apes..."

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16028.full

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really matters to me is not so much the source of a theory, but its ability to account for observations.

 

I was previously unaware of Dr. Myra Shackley holds the opinion that the large, currently identified critters - are Neanderthals.

 

I think they very well could be - and certainly have similar observed characteristics to BF.  That Jocko or whatever his name was, and the Russian hairy woman - certainly go further to give two examples known of, described, and written of.

 

Not human.  But a form of primitive man.

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up the precise definition of a biological species:  "A group of populations that can actually or potentially interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and which are reproductively isolated from populations in other species."  (Wolpoff, 1999:42).  Humans and Neandertals interbred, thus are of the same species. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites