Faenor Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Do you think 75% is "accurate" in science? I dont i work in a hospital lab 75% accuracy gets people dead. Whats more the 75% doesnt even appear to be from the field but from statistical analysis comparing jaw and tooth measurements from darabases. Im not sure there are any figures on the accuracy from scavenged bones in the field. Someone could provide them and demonstrate it is possible to accuratly identify species from scavenged bones 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 You don't get it do you, 75% is for determining species. You don't need anywhere near that percentage to identify an order. All you need is defining characteristics. I'm sure even Bright could tell you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted October 31, 2015 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? 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted October 31, 2015 Author Share Posted October 31, 2015 Thanks Faenor, we are considering that. Honestly I would have liked to see some of it cut from the beginning. More consolidated, a little less wordy. Bigfoot was only mentioned in Mr Townsend's interviews after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited October 31, 2015 by jayjeti 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Hello jayjeti, I agree, rule out Bigfoot and then look at the picture. Look at the bite marks on the ribs, the 1/2 inch width of the incisor marks, the arc/radius the bite, the severed skulls, the bones piled in a stack and see if someone can come up with another solution that fits the profile. Of course if it was only one creature doing the damage then there is much to be said about what it is not. But if several different species were present, or alternatingly present, then it becomes more difficult to nail down Bigfoot as a candidate. Still in all though, heads not connected to spines and bone piles would be strong cases for ruling out typical fauna even if the teeth marks aren't definitive in showing what exactly scavenged the animals. I have no issues understanding why BigTreeWalker was drawn to this discovery and then pursued it so tenaciously. Edited October 31, 2015 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayjeti Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 This is great evidence to go along with other types of evidence, such as fingerprints left by sasquatches showing a markedly different pattern than human fingerprints, being found on large handprints even a thousand miles apart. That's besides the many thousands of footprints found, some of which show dermal ridges running the opposite direction than on human feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 The opposite direction of the dermal ridges.....is this a characteristic of any other primate? Do other primates have dermal ridges that correspond to ours, with respect to direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 2, 2015 Share Posted November 2, 2015 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. Humans can stack bones as described in the paper. Let's not forget the human element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted November 2, 2015 Author Share Posted November 2, 2015 Yes and that is why the state biologist suggested that. We just gave him a basic description of what we had found. No measurements, no pictures. However, I don't know too many people that eat raw meat out in the woods. Or have that large of teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Well, at the end of the day it is the same old problem. This is novel and interesting research, but at best it is evidence shy of proof. Thus, no academic will publicaly support it, even if privately intrigued (which I hope is enough for BigT to feel this is worthwhile). If BF were to be proven then perhaps this could indicate the potential that they were in an area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Hello 1980Squatch, Agreed. There's physical evidence that added together does point in an intriguing and thought provoking direction. And there is not doubt whatsoever that BigTreeWalker has done the work and made the effort to bring it to the attention of not only us but to scientists as well. But as far as proof goes IMO there is a shadow of doubt and that's enough to say more is needed as incredible as that may sound to some. BigTreeWalker, my gratitude and utmost respect goes to you for what you have accomplished. I'm sure there's more to come of this find but in the meantime I commend you on your patience in this thread. You are a gentleman and a credit to the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted November 3, 2015 Author Share Posted November 3, 2015 1980Squatch, Without evidence there is no proof. The foot dragging and nay saying that has been going on for years in the majority of the scientific community with respect to this creature is going to be hard to overcome even if a body or part thereof is brought in. Look at the other threads where bringing one in is discussed. Everyone knows there are going to be obstacles to overcome even with a body. I know very well this evidence is not proof positive of anything. Though it probably won't, it should open the eyes of the scientific community that there is something worth looking into out there. That's sad but not my problem. Hiflier, thanks for the compliment. Though I do wonder what's the use at times. But yes I do intend to continue with this line of research. Maybe some time in the future it will be of use to answer a few questions when they finally decide to ask them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) " Without evidence there is no proof. The foot dragging and nay saying that has been going on for years in the majority of the scientific community with respect to this creature is going to be hard to overcome even if a body or part thereof is brought in" That is, simply put, wrong. A body could not be denied. How you can even say something like that is beyond me. Furthermore, if your results are analyzed by other scientists and your conclusions not supported, then why would you think your paper should open the eyes of the scientific community? You need to have valid, repeatable results. So far, the one time someone in the scientific community has examined your paper, she has not agreed with your findings. You need to crank down the footer rhetoric and be a bit more objective. And the next time you write a scientific paper (if there is one), I would suggest you don't mention the spooky forest and the hairs on the back of your neck. Nonsense like that does not help your paper at all. Are you writing a bigfoot campfire story, or a scientific paper? Edited November 3, 2015 by dmaker 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) To be clear, there is evidence, just no body. And yes, I know you'll first say "What evidence? There is no evidence." And then when presented with a list of available forensic evidence say that it isn't actual evidence and go into a rote denial of whether or not any forensic evidence short of a body is evidence. We've all heard it. And we've all recognized that it is just your subjective opinion. And yes, you'll point to various hoaxes as if to say "If one is a hoax, then they all must be hoaxes". A logical fallacy. And you'll refuse to consider that the sheer volume of data and forensic evidence that has amassed has any value, and so on. So yes, you've got us....we have no body. And yes, we understand that you'll cross your arms, stick out your lower lip and stamp your foot until we do. But the majority of us are more objective, and we'll move on. Edited November 3, 2015 by JDL 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts