Jump to content

What About The Bones? Research Paper Now Available.


BigTreeWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

That was awesome!  A bit of a sophisticated read for a layman like myself. 

 

Some clarification however, this has yet to be reviewed, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to the paper: http://1drv.ms/1BnR9hm

I am away from WiFi access until Saturday. I do hope you enjoy the research!

Original thread. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50970-what-about-the-bones/

comdo secure DNS reports the first link as unsafe/mailcious: reporting.

Warning: Unsafe Website Blocked! 1drv.ms

This website has been blocked temporarily because of the following reason(s):

  • Malicious

This site contains links to viruses or other software programs that can reveal personal information stored or typed on your computer to malicious persons.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - I didn't get that message.

 

It's a Onedrive site.  Quite common.  Hmmmmm.

 

Basically, it's a paper that 'shows' there is an undocumented hominid predating on deer and elk as was determined through the examination of predation teeth marks on bones using a technique that has already been accepted and applied in the field.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems incomplete to me. Shouldn't there be a comparative analysis to bones chewed by the known species in the area? Or bones tested for saliva DNA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cotter,

Just forwarding the report from Comodo Secure. They are pretty solid on this stuff. What security are you using which didn't flag the page?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest diana swampbooger

Nailed it, BTW!

 

I've read this twice now! Need to go through it several more times. I've a challenge of 'thinking drift' in the importance of the long term implications of this white paper.

 

One of my first thoughts... behavior at family meal time... who gets what & when?

 

I'm in anticipation that many more researchers/observers take up the baton.

 

Best of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Cotter,

Just forwarding the report from Comodo Secure. They are pretty solid on this stuff. What security are you using which didn't flag the page?

What might have happened is that your firewall might have been concerned about the share. Share placed on the file of the report, causing it to block.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a review on CNET about Comodo and yes, it's known as a false positive. I'm happy to see someone like woodslore do a scientific study on this. We can't prove bf without a carcass, but this endeavor has the potential to prove that there's something out there that's unknown to science.

Edited by WesT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Divergent1

It seems incomplete to me. Shouldn't there be a comparative analysis to bones chewed by the known species in the area? Or bones tested for saliva DNA?

This....I was expecting less anecdotal, and more straight science. By stating this is without a doubt some type of hominid you've shot yourself in the foot before you've even had a chance to run.  It would have been better to leave out the narrative and put more documentation as to what animals didn't leave the bite marks, to include regular human beings This is disappointing.

I will add that I think looking for predator kills is a new way to go about finding potential evidence but I'm not impressed by the way this was presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had you read past the first few introductory pages, you would've come to a different opinion (assuming you're objective).

 

It's obvious you didn't bother to even browse through the paper.

 

It is a thorough, exhaustive work and will take some time to get through all of it. I find this sample very interesting...

 

post-338-0-13068000-1435026565.png

 

Great job and thanks for posting  the paper!

Edited by gigantor
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Divergent1

 As I said, I think the work is good, it needs to be reformatted to reflect non biased research. I am only disappointed in how the information was presented. Despite my alzheimers, I found it very easy to read and understand for a lay person, I'm sorry you're having difficulty wading through the information.

Edited by Divergent1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems incomplete to me. Shouldn't there be a comparative analysis to bones chewed by the known species in the area? Or bones tested for saliva DNA?

Currently DNA testing comes back as inconclusive or is contested. So right now it is not the best course to take. However, forensic tooth impression analysis for determining a predator is a known, acceptable, repeatable science.

We have discussed DNA testing but because of the controversy involved chose to take direction we did in our research. I will admit that more of the initial comparison of known predators could have been included. The reference material is there. Other experts in the field we contacted immediately went to human-like. These people are mentioned in the paper. Due to this our research took the direction it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...