Leaderboard

If you re-read my earlier posts, I do not specifically advocate the whole of Vendramini's hypothesis, nor am I invested in it, but he does raise a couple of questions that I consider objectively valid. I focus specifically on two points from the mindset of an educator (see below). 1. It is self-evident that the size and positioning of the eye orbits in the Neanderthal skull are markedly different from that of a human skull, yet the interpretation of a Neanderthal's appearance in the OP does not reflect this distinct divergence in morphology. If anything, the interpretation seems to have somewhat beady eyes, and they are positioned as human eyes would be relative to the positioning of the eye orbits in a human skull. I don't see how anyone could accurately interpret a Neanderthal's eyes as slitted cat eyes, though others seem to throw this out as if I believe it to be true, which I don't. 2. That the use of human facial reconstruction techniques to overlay the Neanderthal skull with a face is based on the very loose assumption that those techniques can actually be applied to Neanderthals. Vendramini points out that the Neanderthal skull more closely fits the shape of a chimpanzee head than that of a human head, and looking at the two representative overlays, I have to agree with him on that point. Other than that, Vendramini's hypothesis is largely conjecture regarding aspects that cannot be verified. And his hypothesis actually agrees with the prevailing view of Neanderthals on other points. I recall stating that both the OP's and Vendramini's interpretations were based on assumptions. Now it is appropriate to discuss my specialty and qualifications as requested. 1. I am a government-licensed Professional Chemical Engineer. This is akin to being licensed by the State in medicine or another discipline in that a person with my skill and qualifications is required to approve, on behalf of the State, industrial chemical processes, and also to approve the design of both the equipment used in the process line and of the building housing the process line before the whole lot can be constructed. 2. I am the inventor of a novel technology that is going to market late this year. I hold both method and device patents for this technology; two in the U.S., with others pending; and patent awards in the European Union (the U.K., Germany, and France), Mexico, Australia, Israel, Egypt, and South Africa so far. I have patents pending in several other countries. In short, I discovered how to produce a very important compound, that had never before existed in the gas state, as a gas with near-ideal characteristics, and invented devices to produce the gas for use in multiple applications and market verticals. 3. I am a West Point Graduate, served in the Army Chemical Corps as a field grade officer, and hold additional skill identifiers in nuclear and chemical weapon target analysis, electronic warfare, and education, among others more operational in nature. I have an MS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Virginia. PhD's in my specialty offer less earning potential than a professional engineer's license (see points 1 and 2 immediately above), so I chose that path rather than remain in academia (reference point 4 immediately below). I might also state that I served at the Army's High Technology Testbed and was a member of a NATO technology panel back in the day. 4. I also served on the faculty at West Point for four years. As a matter of fact, I directed West Point's largest academic course, with eighteen faculty reporting to me (ranking from Captain to Lieutenant Colonel, along with a few civilian PhD's). I coordinated their instruction of over 900 cadets split into 52 separate class sections. I very much enjoyed these four years. I also had duties as an educator in other assignments, in professional development specifically, training junior officers to serve on battalion and brigade staffs, and to command a company, as I did. And, of course, training is a daily part of military service, and supervision of that training is part and parcel of the culture. And this brings me back to the point of my earlier posts. Though not an anthropologist, I am somewhat acquainted with the scientific method, and I do recognize when someone stretches it. So, as I did with students and trainees, I pointed out a flaw or two in scientific reasoning evidenced in the OP, most importantly that the OP was presenting assumption and interpretation as accepted fact. Assumptions and interpretations are not fact. In subsequent posts, I recall pointing out that the suffix "ology", defined as "the study of", accurately characterizes the disciplines to which it is appended as The Study of This, or The Study of That. By definition, the suffix "ology" is a tacit acknowledgment that the knowledge of such fields is incomplete or, more charitably, an ongoing process of discovery and development. And this actually applies to the hard sciences such as Chemistry and Physics also, and of course the applied sciences represent by the fields of engineering. If this weren't the case, I wouldn't be able to discover, invent, and patent something new. As an aside, my father was a geologist, and growing up in Northwestern Nevada, I spent quite a bit of time poking around geological, archeological, and anthropological sites with him. Lots of fun. We reported Native American remains when we found them (exposed by erosion), but kept arrowheads when we happened upon them. With regard to bias and wild conjecture, I have actually faced that. It is an integral part of the patent application process as one's claims are subjected to scrutiny by patent examiners worldwide. As indicated above, I successfully asserted the novelty, inventiveness, and value of my intellectual property. Then there is the matter of convincing a Board of Directors who do not have scientific backgrounds that certain testing and regulatory processes are objectively necessary rather than subjectively nice to have based on my "biased" advice. Finally, once my points were made and understood that assumptions and interpretations are not fact, that competing interpretations of the same data (each with some value) can exist, and that new information and data within a field of knowledge regularly cause old hypotheses and interpretations to be refined, I withdrew from the discussion. Subjectivity and objectivity are a theme in most threads on this board. We have tons of fun going back and forth with each other over them. Thank you for keeping me occupied while waiting up for the airline to have my lost bag delivered.

Hello All, Most of you know I've left the Forum and this cameo will be the only one. The Redwoods, sir/ma'am. I hope you realize that if what you say IS the truth then you have at this moment put every conference, researcher, author, Forum, and vendor- not to mention several TV shows with their crews, advertisers, and revenue- out of business. Also the reputation of a certain Professor in Idaho's career is now on the line along with at least two museums and their curators. I'm sure there's more to fall as a result of this information and I fervently hope for your sake that you are fully prepared for the task that you have ahead of producing proof of all that you claim as the ripples are already more than likely going to reach far and wide. I'm having some difficulty understanding why you are not at the keyboard and remaing there for days to come to field and verify your statements to this community. And I wish the BFF good luck with this one.

Post proof or it never happened.

Could be because "Such and such" believer has seen a bigfoot in one of the places you said they did not exist and after they supposedly died out, where as these "Open minded" skeptics you mention have never seen or experienced a bigfoot at all?

Your prayers have been answered.........there are a lot more than just "one!"

Did you ever try luring them in with Luck's beans?

<-- Stops running. Turns to listen.

Okay, I'll play...operating on the premise that this posting is valid: What agency did you work for? I'm okay with not discussing MIBs, helicopters and such, but why was this program hidden? After all, even Project Blue Book was known to exist. Why now tip your hand? What is significant about 1987 that they all of the sudden became extinct? If there were "never more than 85" spread across a range from "Northern California, Oregon, Washington, most Southern tip of Alaska. British Columbia, never more then 120 miles from the Pacific coast, with a very small population of a very like sub-species on the Tex, OK and Ark border" then I find it exceptionally implausible that they could have remained a viable species even as recently as the 1960's. What classification of sub-species was given to them. Surely if they were "known" to exist and indeed, were a "sub-species of man" they were assigned some sort of taxonomy. If the PGF was real, and this "team" you belonged to existed and presumably was tasked with keeping the whole thing suppressed, why didn't they shut Patterson and Gimlin down from day 1? Does being "civil" mean you won't answer any hard questioning of your claims/story?

There's another level to this. Actual confrontation by the bigfoot. This happened to me, my brother, and my friend, David. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=5697 I'm still trying to figure out exactly what the bigfoot was trying to achieve here. It could easily have slipped away down the wash without us ever suspecting it was there, but it chose to emerge and present itself. Did it expect us to flee? Was it trying to keep us busy while it's family group slipped away? If so, they all could have avoided us just as easily without us ever knowing they were there. Was it holding us in position while another approached us from behind? Were we in significant danger? If my brother and I had run, would it have taken David? If its actions were a prelude to predation, how did our response to it alter its intentions?

No question about that. So ... has something changed? If they're intelligent enough to avoid us via PLANNING, it could be they've recognized that the game has changed because of sheer numbers, firearms, and deliberately adjusted their behavior to match. On the other hand, perhaps those stories were stories to scare small children into behaving. Seems to be a common parent / grandparent trick in all cultures. Some of the Native American accounts also talk about sasquatch appearing at ceremonial gatherings and very rarely participating. Its interesting in some area how differently adjacent tribes perceive sasquatch. My notion is it reflects first contact. First impressions are hard to reverse. The possibility or impossibility of almost all the answers to almost all the questions depend on what the sasquatch really are. Despite a wide variety of often-conflicting strong opinions in the BF community, we just don't know. I think a level of caution is appropriate but not to the point it cripples our curiosity or our ability to observe and react. MIB