BigTreeWalker Posted July 11, 2015 Author Posted July 11, 2015 You are right Divergent1. The inference is there in the evidence. It is too human-like and too big at the same time. We could, I suppose come up with some new explanation. But we already have a good fit. And we continue to say, any expert in the field of dental forensics or paleoanthropoligists that want to take a look are entirely welcome to do so. You are also right that much more work needs to be done. This is the main reason this was brought here because bigfoot researchers are the most likely to find more of this type of evidence. In our research there were several times where a prey species was recorded as dying of unknown causes. When they can usually determine which predator caused the death, to me this begs the question... why not? Either they knew it died but didn’t find the body or there were no identifying characteristics as to the culprit which is unlikely. So what if there were identifying characteristics but they fell into the unknown category. If the point of the research was just to determine the survivability or mortality of the studied species, the exact determination of the cause of death was not necessary. In other words, predation was good enough as opposed to disease, road, or hunter kill.
Guest DWA Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 There is no one who doesn't do a detailed review and critique of this paper whose opinion I can take seriously when it comes to this topic. No one claiming to be a skeptic, anyway. The bona fides of the scientific proponents are long in.
Guest SoFla Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) It just so happens that Bob Heironimus was doing a little hunting up around Mt St Helens that weekend and it was he who left those bones there and he also likes the marrow from venison bones and we already know that Bob is a big guy and he recently had some cosmetic dental work done because like Matt Dillon's character in There's Something About Mary he too is attracted to women who are attracted to men with big choppers. coincidence? If you say so. Edited July 13, 2015 by SoFla
Guest SoFla Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 https://www.facebook.com/inhidingabigfootstory/photos/pb.900419863320055.-2207520000.1436838166./909705542391487/?type=3&theater
BigTreeWalker Posted July 14, 2015 Author Posted July 14, 2015 SoFla, thanks for the humor. If Bob H. was hunting or feeding in the area he should be arrested for poaching, since those were springtime kills! ;-) I'm not sure what the track post was about. But it looks like a bunch of melted out elk tracks to me. JMO.
BigTreeWalker Posted July 21, 2015 Author Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) For those who have wondered how we went from known predators to unknown to hominid. Here's a copy of the original analysis. Some of it is included in the main paper but evidently not enough. Enjoy. https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/0bcbab19-1f8d-4d80-af88-a430dd55782f Went to Hopsquatch Sunday. Enjoyed everyone that shared their eyewitness accounts. I gave a copy of this analysis to Shane and Gunnar, the hosts of Monster X Radio. Also, supplied copies for Derrick Randles because they are all a part of the Olympic Project, and Cliff Barackman to review. Edited July 21, 2015 by BigTreeWalker
jayjeti Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 BigTreeWalker, I recently saw Mr. Townsend commenting that the teeth marks on the bones prove that sasquatch is a hybrid of us. My question is, how can you know it's not just another species of man, but that it must be a hybrid of Homo sapiens and another species? Now, Dr. Ketchum's DNA research has concluded sasquatches are a hybrid of us, that involves testing genetics, but I'm wondering if Mr. Townsend is misspeaking when he says the teeth marks prove sasquatches are a hybrid species. How can you prove that by looking at teeth marks?
BigTreeWalker Posted August 8, 2015 Author Posted August 8, 2015 You can't. You can only come up with the most likely possibility. I agree with those that say only with a body and I might add extensive DNA testing are we going to figure out where it fits in. Mr Townsend sometimes misspeaks in his interviews. To me the correct interpretation is that they are human-like, in the way that neanderthal and some other primates have human-like teeth. Or maybe it should be said, primate-like.
jayjeti Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) That is better stated. This is what he wrote: Mitchel Townsend August 5 at 10:28pm They are Hybrids, I have proven this with tooth and dentition analys...is upon deer and elk bones from Mount St. Helen's If you are interested I'll post my research and pictures. I am also the only one in the world who have taught college courses on this subject to include Native American and First Nations histories. Respectfully, Mitchel Townsend Edited August 8, 2015 by jayjeti
Guest WesT Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 Is it just me? Doe's it sound like Mitchel Townsend is taking all the credit for the research paper in his statement to anyone else?
hiflier Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) Hello All, Being someone who leans toward the existence of Sasquatch but who is critical of evidence I find this remarkable and congratulate the finders both for the discovery and their presentation of their preliminary analysis. The points that I find interesting are the same as a lot of you but when the points are combined it becomes quite compelling indeed: The radius of the incisors, the width of some of the larger examples, and the comparisons with known carnivores' canine spread. The last point being the most intriguing as when looking at known predator skulls one notes that, other than primates, six teeth lie between the canines and as stated in the paper there wouldn't be enough room for six teeth of the size measured to fit between normal predator canine teeth centers without the jaws being enormous? This might be a good avenue of pursuit to firm up eliminating a grizzly from the predator list as their canine spread approaches around 2.5 inches. Although I'm pretty sure grizzlies don't sit on logs and drop finished ribs into a pile Edited August 8, 2015 by hiflier
BigTreeWalker Posted August 8, 2015 Author Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) Yes, Jayjeti, there is a difference between the conclusions drawn in the paper and the statements made on Facebook and in interviews. I've pretty much decided there isn't much I can do about it. The thing that really bothers me about it is at what point is he not going to be taken seriously (if that point hasn't already been reached). WesT, you noticed. :-) That is one of the main reasons I've posted the original analysis. Hiflier, good points all. Those are the very things I've been trying to make clear. I've also found out, because of what I mention below, that carnivore incisors aren't built for biting bone. They always use their carnasials. As of yesterday, I now have access to a huge amount of skulls. Right now I don't have the permission to reveal the person who has given me this access. He is a bone expert dealing mainly with skulls. Because of this I intend to continue my research into comparisons with known animals. He even has human and other primate skulls. So I can now measure and photograph various types of teeth in my comparisons. A couple of things I have already discovered is that the small scavenger which left its canine impressions in a couple of the bones was probably a mink. The other is that when we held cougar, bear and wolf skulls up to the impressions nothing fit. The only thing we could find that even comes close (and Crowlogic is going to love this), is porcupine. However, there are problems with this possibility even the bone expert mentioned, there are no score marks in the bones that all rodent gnawing would leave. When we look at the crime scenes; these bones were on top of the piles. Very neat porcupine. Also it would have taken at least two different sized porcupines to make all the impressions. Remember these are the elk kill sites and they are 10 miles apart. But most telling is both sites have impressions in multiples of three which show a repeated measurable arc. A porcupine would have had to take three bites to accomplish this in exactly the same way to get the arcs the same. I believe through microscopic examination they could also be ruled out. The really funny thing was, this expert asked me, after we had looked at the bones for a while, If I had ever heard of cryptozoology. I just laughed, couldn't help myself. He was interested enough to give me further access. Wow! Edited August 8, 2015 by BigTreeWalker
hiflier Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) Hello BigTreeWalker, ...Those are the very things I've been trying to make clear. I've also found out, because of what I mention below, that carnivore incisors aren't built for biting bone. They always use their carnasials...... That was my impression as well. So in your testing of bone samples to teeth check for side cutting. You know how it is even with Humans and our domesticated pets our hardest bite is within the jawline. I saw some different bear skulls and jaws that show both a straight and a curved molar/premolar line which I'm sure you'd like to rule out over time (as would I). It being possibly a side bite of a bear or other creature though still answers neither the questions regarding the neat rib bone piles, the damaged skull areas, nor the dear head alignment. I'd say you have your hands full with this one Can't say enough about you bringing this here. Lots to do, lots to discuss. Edited August 8, 2015 by hiflier
BigTreeWalker Posted August 8, 2015 Author Posted August 8, 2015 We did do some side bite comparisons. The only skull we were able to get close enough along the side of the jaw was a wolf and then the impressions didn't line up. Their carnasials would leave very distinct marks but different from what we see here. The expert made the observation that a canid would probably bite across and break the bone. He also stated that because there are usually several of them together that the bones usually get scattered over a large area and end up in small pieces. He commented that the kill sites looked more like a cougar kill. The odd thing was we had all these carnivore skulls sitting on the counter but nothing seemed to fit the evidence and it was very obvious. That's when he started looking for other types of skulls to compare. I do intend to get some photo evidence of these comparisons.
hiflier Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 Hello BigTreeWalker, It doesn't surprise me that you thought of side biting. I'm not that up on the different ways predators take down their kills. Can big cats sever a deer's neck and then head from the body? Will they attack an elk from the front an crush/block air from it's nasal passages? No doubt those who know these answers may be smiling right now and I hope they are. It's better than the other way right? I will say this though, sounds like you've got the right person looking into this with you. There has to be a little eyebrow movement in there yes? Hopefully the mystery will pique enough interest to find out what exactly happened to those animals. Or at least, as you are doing, rule out what couldn't have happened to them. Thanks for taking the time here.
Recommended Posts