kitakaze Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 Because Prof. Todd Disotell is one of the foremost primate authorities in the world. He is also a friend of Stacy Brown Jr. and friendly to Bigfoot research in general.
hiflier Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Hllo kitakaze, You are correct, and one would've that for ALL of those reasons word would have been forthcoming today? Edited September 3, 2014 by hiflier
Branco Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 Because Prof. Todd Disotell is one of the foremost primate authorities in the world. He is also a friend of Stacy Brown Jr. and friendly to Bigfoot research in general. What has the information contained in the last sentence have to do with him identifying the source of the bones? He saw 7 hi-res scans today, and ......? 1
kitakaze Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 It would be that because not only is Disotell a world authority on primates, due to his history of accommodating Bigfoot research, Brown was very right in going to him with the photos as he could count on Disotell promptly being able to help, as opposed to approaching people unknown.
Wingman1 Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) It would be that because not only is Disotell a world authority on primates, due to his history of accommodating Bigfoot research, Brown was very right in going to him with the photos as he could count on Disotell promptly being able to help, as opposed to approaching people unknown. I agree, Mr. Brown is working with someone he feels he can trust and will give it the proper attention needed to identify what it once belonged to. I have to say that it does look more like a Rhesus monkey or even a Chimpanzee hand. I did some comparisons of X-Rays from both subjects and I am no expert on this matter, but they appear to be almost identical. I think it will probably turn out to be from a known primate. We will just have to wait for the results. Edited September 3, 2014 by Wingman1
Guest UPs Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 If I were in his shoes I would also use someone who takes the subject of bf seriously, like Disotell or Meldrum, but for reasons other than many would think. It would not be difficult to identify these bones if they are from something known and if by chance they cannot be identified, I would want someone who has taken this subject very seriously and on record as doing so. There are plenty of scoftic scientists out there and I personally would not want any of them involved in the discovery process. I would only want those who have taken the professional risk associated with the discovery (I am not of the opinion that this is what will happen in this case, but I would welcome it). Looking at that picture, I haven't been able to find any photos of primate bones that match it and was wondering of maybe a very young primate would have the the same bone structure as seen in the photo. All of the skeletons I googled appeared to be adult. Also, I hope that Stacy will explain the background on how he came into possession of the bones.
Incorrigible1 Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 There are plenty of scoftic scientists out there and I personally would not want any of them involved in the discovery process. Really? Why is that? It would seem to me that a "scoftic" scientist would be the perfect messenger to acknowledge the bigfoot creature.
PBeaton Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) I still think the metacarpals relative length to the radius, ulna an humerus resembles those of a feline or canine, the most likely culprit. Here are a few examples from the cougar, the tibia an fibula are of similar length(8 inches). An a wolf(canine) to also show the relative bone lengths. Not sayin' it is either, just lookin' at the likely first is all. Pat... ps: If wonderin bout claws, the remains in question appear to be missin' the distal ends of phalanges from what I can see. Edited September 3, 2014 by PBeaton
Teegunn Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 ^^^^ That's why we need to see better pics of the arm. From all sides.
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) I would be interested to know how they ruled out a human specimen. I am not an anthropologist, zoologist, zooarchaeologist, osteologist, or whatever you would call someone who would study something like this, but in my amateur opinion I see nothing in the photograph that rules out a human specimen. I really hope it is not human however, for obvious reasons. I noticed other people are commenting on the length, and that was the first thing that struck me. We can get an approximation of height by using rough formulas. For instance, if we say that the ulna is 8 inches long, or 20 cm, we could multiply that by about 3.7 and then add 76 cm. This equals about 59 inches, or 4.9 ft, which is about 4 ft 11 inches if my math is correct. However, this rough formula is for a caucasian male, and the numbers differ for various races as well as for females. Not to mention the fact that a sasquatch arm would be longer, which I would assume to mean that a shorter sasquatch could still have the same arm length as a taller human. Therefore I would estimate that if this belongs to a sasquatch, it was probably only about 4 feet tall or so. I know that chimps can easily be over 5 feet tall when standing, fully grown chimps that is, and males get even larger. It wouldn't surprise me if they can reach 6 feet in standing height. The big question is whether this could have come from a sasquatch. It seems to me there are only a few possibilities. Either this is an elaborate hoax, with the bones not even being real, which is unlikely; or it is a hoax where those who "found" the bones know what they belong to, probably a chimp or something; or they legitimately found these things in the woods. If the latter is the case then obviously it can only be one of two things: non-human primate or human. I wish we could see more of the structure of the thumb area, as that could potentially be an area where sasquatch differ, although it may be nearly impossible to distinguish a sasquatch hand from a human hand. The ratio of the radius/ulna and the humerus could maybe be analyzed to determine whether it falls within proportions for certain animals, but I don't think an accurate enough measurement could be gained from the picture. I say that such an analysis could show something because of the longer arms on a sasquatch. If their arms are longer then their bones proportions might be different. Maybe not, but it is something to look in to imo. How uncommon would it be to find a primate bone in this particular area or location? Probably highly unlikely, as to my knowledge most people don't have 4 ft tall primates as pets, and if they do they probably don't escape that often. And if they did, would they be likely to be found in such a location as this? My point is that in my opinion there is a better probability of finding a sasquatch bone than another non-human primate bone, because even though there probably aren't that many sasquatch, there are more of them than other non-human primates...such primates not being indigenous to the US. Something else I just considered is the fact that no other bones were found. This implies strongly that this arm was dragged to this location, likely by scavengers, meaning it came from another location. They could have even dug it up from under the earth if bigfoot actually did bury their dead. I've seen coyotes dig pretty deep to get at a dead animal, so it would not surprise me at all. We caught a raccoon 2 nights ago. I honestly think it was trying to steal a chicken or something, as the trap was behind the chicken coop. Not related to the conversation at all however, lol. He's staying in a large cage for now, and he takes food with his little hands and eats it. They're pretty cool little animals. Probably will let him go, after making him sign a sworn statement agreeing not to harass the chickens anymore. Edited September 3, 2014 by JiggyPotamus
georgerm Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 I still think the metacarpals relative length to the radius, ulna an humerus resembles those of a feline or canine, the most likely culprit. Here are a few examples from the cougar, the tibia an fibula are of similar length(8 inches). An a wolf(canine) to also show the relative bone lengths. Not sayin' it is either, just lookin' at the likely first is all. Pat... ps: If wonderin bout claws, the remains in question appear to be missin' the distal ends of phalanges from what I can see. It's most likely some animal as described above.
kitakaze Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) I agree, Mr. Brown is working with someone he feels he can trust and will give it the proper attention needed to identify what it once belonged to. I have to say that it does look more like a Rhesus monkey or even a Chimpanzee hand. I did some comparisons of X-Rays from both subjects and I am no expert on this matter, but they appear to be almost identical. I think it will probably turn out to be from a known primate. We will just have to wait for the results. I'm not sure what Disotell has told Brown or if he's spoken with him yet, but the more I look at these metacarpals, the more I can not reconcile things with my first impression of orangutan and then rhesus monkey. In post #34 I noted the metacarpals did not seem right for either an orangutan or a rhesus monkey. In the first digit I noted what could be a separation, but the remaining three fore digits definitely do not show separation where there should be for any primate. Chimpanzees and orangutans have longer metacarpals compared to rhesus monkeys, but not that long and not in the relative proportions and placements. There's no way around those last three long metacarpals... The radius and ulna are wrong for a chimpanzee which are far more separated, and the metacarpals are wrong for any primate. I would go as far as saying that I'm throwing out anything I've originally thought about these bones. I no longer think they are primate, and possibly not even mammalian. I'm not even sure these bones are arm bones now. The more I look at the bones, the more they look like the hind limb of an alligator, which would be an infinitely more likely find in Florida. That's my guess so far. It's all in those super long bones which would be metatarsals, not metacarpals. We'll just have to wait and see, but I think all bets are off for a primate arm. Edited September 3, 2014 by kitakaze
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Perhaps it is the aftermath of a Skunk ape killing a smaller ape of another variety, or a juvenile that was somehow taken by another predator such as a cougar. Whatever the case it asks the question of how the arm was severed. Edited September 3, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot
kitakaze Posted September 3, 2014 Posted September 3, 2014 I would be interested to know how they ruled out a human specimen. The limb bones, particularly the small bones, look nothing a human. The length is all wrong... My guess so far is revised to the hind limb of an alligator. We used to run a game on the forum called Evolution where we would try and guess the extant relative of an extinct species. I am no expert, but based on my experience trying to determine taxonomy, Brown's "primate arm" looks much more like an alligator leg....
Recommended Posts