Leaderboard

Hi David NC, yes of course and the first reply I received went through all of that is fairly scientific detail. Here is a small excerpt from that response: "The tooth size, coloration, and morphology are all thoroughly consistent with a human tooth. The roundness of the crown and the blunt, compressed roots suggest that this is probably a third molar (a.k.a. a wisdom tooth). The lumpiness you can see on the root surface is known as hypercementosis, and it's found in adult dentition-- it's caused by excess production of cementum, which is the substance that helps hold the teeth in place in their sockets. The lumpiness is believed to occur in teeth that aren't solidly housed in their sockets (as will often happen due to periodontal disease, but can also result from weakening of the jaw bone by osteopenia, trauma, or infection), so the roots produce extra cementum to try to compensate for the loose gomphosis (the "joint" between the tooth root and the bony socket). Unfortunately, that's all that these photos can tell us. Since the specimen is unprovenienced, we can't tell anything about its antiquity, and despite how horrible the cavity appears, teeth in this condition can be found from Paleoindian straight through modern times. I've seen teeth like these in every population with which I've worked-- the Ancestral Puebloans from Chaco Canyon and Puye, the 19th Century Huntington Collection, the 20th century Terry Collection, Egyptian mummified heads, and modern forensic cases. There is no way of telling from looking at it whether it was lost a year ago, a century ago, or a millennium ago." So, as you and everyone can see, first of all I am actually doing these correspondences , and secondly size is addressed along with the rest of some of the features. As I mentioned, it was a lengthy evaluation (for which I was grateful) DID in fact address the size issue (which I had overlooked) and under the circumstances was pretty thorough. But a second opinion is always good and if that second opinion comes in and aligns with the first assessment then I will consider the matter closed. Any evidence presented to anyone can and should have a certain level of corroboration attached to it. Otherwise any peer review processes would be entirely unnecessary. And while peer review no doubt is involved here it does not hurt to get a second evaluation considering the sensitive subject of this Forum. My wish is to be thorough and show this Forum that I am being thorough and not have its members just take my word for it

Paleontologist, biologists and anthropologist I am friends with agree that the creature is mostly folklore. However, some are intrigued by the reports and the Patterson film.