Leaderboard

If you actually want to see any of this ever published in a real journal I would cut out all the nonsense. Cut it down to 3 or 4 pages, leave out anything about bigfoot, try to give evidence leading to hominadae and stop there, get rid of the diary at the beginning, use in paper references that specifically apply to the point your making not a shotgun approach, get rid of references to webpages, find someone with an established reputation in the field to evaluate the bones and give an opinion, be more ambiguous about the conclusions.

The obvious thing to me that it's not your regular established animal of the forest is the stacking of bones, like something was eating the flesh and dropping the bones in the same general spot, which would I assume is most likely to occur with something that is eating with hands. Adding the tooth impressions that can correspond to a hominid further impresses me of what it must be because I know sasquatches are real; I've seen it; I've had multiple encounters, and so we all have our biases. If someone automatically removes bigfoot from the equation and can only accept non-cryptid answers then we've reached an impasse as far as I'm concerned.

Faenor, have you thought that maybe what we referenced was enough. 75% was good enough to rule out the whole order Carnivora with the impressions we have in the bones. You tell me what difference other than size do you see in those 2 examples I provided above. That is one of the identifying characteristics of the whole order. But just for you here is one from my part of our research. I don't think it was included in the main paper: The bite of a carnivore can usually be distinguished from the bite of a human by comparing the sizes of the incisor and cuspid teeth. Cuspids in non-humans are called canine teeth. Carnivores, such as dogs, bears, and mountain lions have small incisors and large canines. Therefore their bites usually consist of two deep punctures with six small indentions in between, which correspond to the three incisors per quadrant of most carnivores. In humans, however, the cuspids are relatively small and the incisors are relatively large, especially the first incisors. So, a human bite will usually consist of two broad tears or punctures in the center of the mark, corresponding to the two first incisors; with two smaller indentations on each side corresponding to the second incisors and the cuspids. (Skelton. 2011) And I'm sorry. I know that isn't what you want. But it does go to what we see in the bones. Are you from Missouri by any chance?

Don't take them so seriously BigTreeWalker, objectivity is not the method of choice for some here. It is transparent however, and most rational observers see that clearly. Case in point: No kidding, really? so we can't use probabilities? yet Faenor proceeds to use them in the very next sentence! :lol: only 75%? I'll take it. It's almost not worth arguing with such closed minds.

BigTreeWalker, your life here would be much easier if you got your own section in the new researcher area.

From my viewpoint someone that states BF is a myth at the outset is hardly objective enough to evaluate the validity of methods which may support the existence of BF.

Which refrence specefically demonstrates that tooth marks on scavenged bones can be used to accuratly identify a species? I looked through the some of the ones you bizarrly lump together to support your statements. The only one that i saw was the faust disertation which in a controlled test was able to predict at about 75% for carnivores. Most concerned a specefic group of animal, bear, coyote, chimp, etc. Its laughably bad you use Bright to support the identification of scavenged bones since her work indicates otherwise. Not to pile on but the footprint is awful. It barely looks like any sort of footprint let alone a sasquatch. But then you take these awful prints to extrapolate a height leading to the bizarre giant human figure the paper determines was the culprit. No ones going to publish this if you leave any of this in the paper, also the diary section at the beginning is not needed if you want to be taken seriously. Also not to nitpick but it doesnt appear Hanglund & Sorg 2002 is actully listed in your refrences. Any scientist that says "you can't do that" is setting themselves up for being wrong. Most things like that are made to work by simply figuring out procedures and lab techniques that solve the problems and are made to work. I don't know what her thesis is about but I if it is directly related to the discussion here, I don't think she would want BTW present when she presents her thesis. As WSA says this bone study could very well add useful techniques and body to her own work. Perhaps that is what her interest is. Do the findings and techniques presented in the bone study contradict her own thesis? Is that why she needed to weigh in? Her work was sited as support for some of the methodology used within the bigfoot bone paper. Her conclusions are that some of the methods used in the bigfoot bone paper are not accurate.

Dude thats a little lazy just using the power point as a refrence without actually reading the source material. Will you be writing a letter to the department that passed her thesis to inform them it is in error?

Oh, brother.

Actually, the break only shows that it is broken.

There you go, calling other members stupid again. Can you make a post that doesn't involve insulting members with a different opinion than yours?

Forgot four toed, three toed, glowing eyes, mind speak, infrasound, teleporting, ...you know, all the things good primatologists look for.

OMG! The consistency! Only primatologists could describe something with that uncanny accuracy! Behold, bigfoot is real because people on the Internet can describe a giant monkey.

They're sorta tall and sorta hairy and sorta blurry.

By all means, could someone please educate me on the anatomy of a creature that has no type specimen and has never been proven to exist.

6 feet from the hips down? Riiiiight..