dmaker Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Her thesis, wherein it seems that she challenges tooth impact analysis on scavenged bones as a method for identifying the scavenger, has what, exactly, to do with bigfoot? Perhaps you should visit her advisor and tell him/her that her thesis is invalid because she doesn't believe in bigfoot. If someone said I believe DNA analysis can be used to identify a species, but also said they think bigfoot is a myth, then their comments re: DNA analysis are no longer valid? Edited October 30, 2015 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I've made a pretty good living making common sense arguments to juries, so I feel I've got at least a smidge of intelligence to boil ideas down to their essence as far as is possible without dumbing them down to complete twaddle. On this subject, I'd merely propose this summation of Bigtreewalkers' hypothesis, as I understood it to be. (BTW...please correct me if I'm wrong here): When an animal bites something hard, and manages to remove a piece of that material, it leaves a negative outline of the shape of the tooth that did the biting. Every tooth of every animal species has a measurable and documented profile to which you can compare that impression. The average size and shape of the array of the teeth in these animals is also measurable and documented. Any bite mark, or series of bite marks, must match both the shape of the average tooth and the average shape of the teeth of the animal you propose to have made it. The list of possible animals producing an impression will depend on the environmental context in which it was produced. So I ask all of you here: Isn't the collection, observation, measurement and identification process so described the most objective determination as one is likely to encounter on this point? Secondarily, if agreed, to what degree are our subjective opinions useful ? Thirdly, how is one best able to contradict or confirm those findings? To my way of thinking, the answers are: "It is" , "Not much", and "Look at the bite marks in the material yourself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Look at the bite marks, sure. One of the points being discussed is whether or not that is a reliable method to determine the scavenger species. There seem to be results and findings that challenge the reliability of using tooth impact marks on scavenged bones for species identification. If that is the case, then what benefit to looking at the bite marks yourself? So that you can say, yeah it looks like bigfoot did it? I have some tea leaves that indicate otherwise. Edited October 30, 2015 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Hello dmaker, ....I have some tea leaves that indicate otherwise. A bit severe in your sarcasm, sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 It is a bold and rash leap of logic to say NO teeth of ANY animal on ANY bone can be identified, at all, ever. Even more so when there is an unwillingness to actually look at those bones. (Especially when declaring the findings of others are erroneous) What form of scientific inquiry is that, exactly? "None at all" should be the chorus of response in reply to that question, if we were being at all honest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Is it a leap of logic to say that no pig could fly, ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 It is a bold and rash leap of logic to say NO teeth of ANY animal on ANY bone can be identified, at all, ever. Even more so when there is an unwillingness to actually look at those bones. (Especially when declaring the findings of others are erroneous) What form of scientific inquiry is that, exactly? "None at all" should be the chorus of response in reply to that question, if we were being at all honest about it. It certainly possible and maybe some researcher has come up with methodology that can accuratly predict species from scavenged bone bite marks. If the authors of the paper could specifically post a study that does accuratly predict such a thing in the field it could clear up the issue One expert in the field chimed in and said it wasnt possible other experts may disagree with that assesmnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) OK dmaker, faenor, you don't like our paper or the subject it covers. I get it. You know whats really funny is that bigfoot isn't mentioned in either of the papers I have posted links to. You don't like the track cast. Well neither do I. But the tracks were about the best you're going to find in our forests. But since BF doesn't exist what difference does it make what the cast looks like. And yes I disagree with Bright's comments about our research. Her conclusions were based on what she saw in her research. She definitely had a mess to work with. Something we didn't see in any of the sites. Bone impression ID is possible. If you have the measurements of the canine separation or even better, a skull to work with. Coyote Female mink. I actually placed the teeth of a skull in the impressions. Age determination. A couple months old at most. A year later. After a winter. I will trust experience over inexperience any day. But don't mind me... I'm mistaken and a liar. Because I think some evidence points to the possibility of BF. Edited October 30, 2015 by BigTreeWalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 I think one of the issues concerning the bone assessment by the original posters is an already predisposition towards ascribing them to the actions of (for want of a better word bigfoot). If I'm wrong then I stand corrected. That said it has better legs if the bones were found by observers not inclined to link them to bigfoot. It is certainly possible that an astute observer could notice unique gnaw patterns and conclude something unique is being observed. Only the originators of the these post can answer that question. Yet I approach this evidence with caution in the same way Skookum Meadows requires caution. Skookum was discovered by bigfooters for the purpose of furthering/enhancing a specific enterprise. Skookum was also analyzed largely by bigfoot sympathizers and it's run as genuine was longer than it deserved as a result. We've seen here at least one independent assessment of the bones running counter to the premise that they were gnawed by bigfoot but the question remains will the bones get a full study that is totally impartial. Since this current study was not a full study with bones in hand it is only a mild indication of where other studies may take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 I am not a BF fanatic. The only reason I may sound like a proponent is because of this and other evidence I have found and experiences I've have had. And it isn't in me to put down what others have found because I disagree with them. As I've said before, I came here to share information. If any of you are looking more closely at found bones, great! I accomplished something. Bright actually did me a favor by not mentioning rodents. After going over her research again she covers the fact that rodent gnawing is very identifiable. Which does kind of fly in the face of the rest of her conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 BigTreeWalker, your life here would be much easier if you got your own section in the new researcher area. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 Rockape, you're probably right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 OK dmaker, faenor, you don't like our paper or the subject it covers. I get it. You know whats really funny is that bigfoot isn't mentioned in either of the papers I have posted links to. You don't like the track cast. Well neither do I. But the tracks were about the best you're going to find in our forests. But since BF doesn't exist what difference does it make what the cast looks like. And yes I disagree with Bright's comments about our research. Her conclusions were based on what she saw in her research. She definitely had a mess to work with. Something we didn't see in any of the sites. Bone impression ID is possible. If you have the measurements of the canine separation or even better, a skull to work with. Coyote IMG_20150920_121757.jpg Female mink. I actually placed the teeth of a skull in the impressions. 2RB2A.jpg Age determination. A couple months old at most. 2014-09-08_11-43-46.JPG A year later. After a winter. IMG_20150920_122015.jpg I will trust experience over inexperience any day. But don't mind me... I'm mistaken and a liar. Because I think some evidence points to the possibility of BF. Your still not providing the refrence that demonstrates species can accuratliy be predicted from scavenged bones. You dont know for sure the teeth impressions were from a mink unless you actully saw the mink biting the bone. According to the foust dissertation you refrenced there is only a 75% chance of accurate identification using tooth and jaw measurements from Murman, 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted October 30, 2015 Admin Share Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) But don't mind me... I'm mistaken and a liar. Because I think some evidence points to the possibility of BF. 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: You dont know for sure the teeth impressions were from a mink unless you actully saw the mink biting the bone. No kidding, really? so we can't use probabilities? yet Faenor proceeds to use them in the very next sentence! :lol: According to the foust dissertation you refrenced there is only a 75% chance of accurate identification using tooth and jaw measurements from Murman, 2006. only 75%? I'll take it. It's almost not worth arguing with such closed minds. Edited October 30, 2015 by gigantor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts