Guest Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Isn't that the tooth featured on Finding Bigfoot? The guy at the Santa Cruz BF Museum showed it on the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I know Mike Rugg and saw the tooth a few years ago. Grover Krantz never saw the tooth. Dr. Meldrum examined it, but I don't recall him determining anything about it. It's still at the museum and Mike will gladly show it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 <Grover Krantz never saw the tooth> Thanks for that correction HM. I had to go back and re-read where I thought I saw that but I mis-read it. It was Mike Rugg who compared it to Meganthropus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Hello Johnny G, Isn't that the tooth featured on Finding Bigfoot? The guy at the Santa Cruz BF Museum showed it on the show. Don't know. Haven't watched TV for almost 4 years so couldn't really say. Hello Hairy Man, Thanks, I'll have to check it out if I ever get out that way in the meantime I think I'm sparking new interest in it with some emails I have out to some respected establishments. Mike may get some unexpected but perhaps (I hope) welcomed attention. This was written in this link: http://bigfootdiscoveryproject.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-mystery-tooth-at-museum.html around January 27, 2013: "To date the only person with any kind of scientific background who has looked at it has been a Dentist, who said it looked human, just BIGGER!" Edited August 12, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 And yes, he was on Finding Bigfoot with the same tooth. It is definately a fossil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) Hello Hairy Man, Lots of mega fauna around until 11,000 years ago. Someone in Paleo REALLY should have a look at this, eh? Edited August 12, 2015 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Hello All, I did get a response from the Santa Cruz Archeological Society. A person by the name of Peter Von der Porten who stated he was not aware of the tooth's discovery. He evidently forwarded my inquiry to either a friend or colleague named Rob Edwards who suggested I contact the curator of the Capitola History Museum, a Mr. Frank Perry, which I did. Mr. Perry is regarded as the expert in the Santa Cruz, CA area on fossil remains. Mr. Perry also was not aware of the find and requested that I send photos of the tooth. I sent the same images that appear on this thread and am waiting for any responses. I also sent the images to my first contact, Peter Von der Porten to have and show to his associates at the Archeological Society and any student groups or volunteers that they may have out-reaches to. The thing is this, these people know people who may know people willing to go and professionally look at this artifact even if only out of respect for the Society itself, or for the curator of the Capitola Museum hmself. So, now we wait.... Edited August 13, 2015 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 What I find interesting is the possibility that the Beringia crossings of H. sapiens kicked off the direct confrontation between us and the Sasquatch, who either crossed with us, or who evolved on NA along with all the other mega-fauna before we hit the neighborhood. As I see it, if you do not see much of a challenge in taking on a Smilodon, a BF is not going to be much of a stretch. Although the de-populating of mega-fauna in NA is likely to have numerous causes, most agree we took out whole segments of the population, perhaps creating an entropic cascade that crashed many species. I also think it is not a stretch to hypothesize the local BF who survived this onslaught were selected for their furtive tendencies during this period and possibly this explains their nature up until the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Hello WSA, Lots of good speculating involving possibilities for an era we are continually learning about. My question to you and any other member of the Forum would be were you or anyone else aware of this tooth at the Bigfoot Discovery Museum before this thread? It appears that least Bart Cutino and several other investigators may have been aware of it. The "Finding Bigfoot" gang was aware of it which means Matt Moneymaker, Bobo and others. The other TV group with Dr. Todd Disotell I don't know about but I did send an email to Dr. Disotell inquiring of his awareness of the artifact and whether or not he might be interested in running DNA on a piece of pulp since Dr. Sykes refused because he only does hair and apparently Dr. Ketchum has dropped the ball. I'm also curious if I'm the only one that seriously am interested in this enough to pursue these avenues with the different organizations in Santa Cruz as well as Dr. Disotell. It may indeed be a camel's tooth which seems more likely but getting a definitive professional look at this find to me would be somewhat critical since it has been suggested that it is a Bigfoot tooth. Again, rule it in. or rule it out. Only an professional in DNA or a paleo-forensic tooth expert could possibly provide the answer. If it's already been determined what creature this belongs to I am not aware of it. In other words the existence of this fossilized tooth isn't speculative. Only what it belongs to up to this point is. Edited August 13, 2015 by hiflier 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 13, 2015 Admin Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Way to go Hiflier! Has anyone told the owner of the tooth? Edited August 13, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 Hello Norseman, Mike Rugg lists a phone number which I will call. I've not seen an email address either for him or the Museum. I'll make that call today. And thanks for the compliment/encouragement 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I don't think I'd hear of it before now, no. But I'm frequently the last to know about a lot of things! Yep, I'd surely want to know if a DNA sequence has been attempted yet, before doing anything else. Let us know what you find out. If it has not been done, I'm sure the first step is to examine the morphology and see if it likely fits any known genus or species of fossils. If it doesn't, it does beg the question of what DNA might prove. If I had to choose one guy to do it, it would be Svante Pääbo If the tooth is intriguing enough, there might be more than one geneticist who would be interested. As you point out, the odds of it not coming from an unknown species are great, and the likelihood of it coming from the animal we call BF are vanishingly small, but great discoveries turn on long odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I will also offer up the same opinion I always give about DNA testing. Unless there is a body to point to, and the ability to say "this came from that" all DNA results, at most, are only going to get you a, "That's interesting" response. I think this goes double for fossils. There are more unknown fossilized species out there waiting to be found and classified, I'm betting, than all the known extant species. This tooth might be from one of those, and it might even be from a BF or an ancestor species of the animal, but when the result only comes back "unique and unknown", I'm not sure you gain anything. Not trying to be a wet blanket, but I think it pays to be realistic about what this tooth might, and probably might not, be able to tell us. Out of context (if it is) it's ability to tell us much is not good. I know you want to see what the context is, and that is absolutely worth knowing. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 (edited) Hello All, I decided to do a measurement test for myself on the width of the tooth's crown as it appears next to the penny in the second frame of the images in post #14. I know what you're thinking "Sure, but the penny isn't to true scale". I used the zoom option to reduce the image so that the penny was as close to one that I actually measured. The "real" penny measures very close to 3/4 of an inch across. I was able to get the one in the image to nearly exactly match that size. Then I scaled the tooth. It measured 19/32nds of an inch. Which is 1/32 smaller than 5/8ths of an inch across the top of the crown area. Folks, that's a big tooth. The Human molar varies of course but the largest measurement I've seen so far is a little more than 11 millimeters which is just over 3/8ths of an inch. To have this fossil tooth measure almost 1/4 inch bigger is what makes it interesting. In the video posted by chelefoot of Mike Rugg's interview he said 6 different dentists who had visited the Museum and looked at it said that it looked Human- but bigger. I can now understand better why at least they all said it was bigger. The Human part remains to be seen. Mr. Rugg also gave a bit more detail on how the tooth was found. I can't help but think the rest of what the tooth came from might just still be buried in the sand above the spot where the tooth was discovered. Open this subject up might help in getting some real interest for mounting a search for the source. I can only hope right? @WSA, I see we posted at the same time Hope you find what I wrote a little more realistic this time around Edited August 13, 2015 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Now, the idea of looking for the rest of that critter is very good one. I hope that can be determined. I don't know my butt from page 8 when it comes to tooth identification, so I'll demur to those who do. Still, I'm betting there were tons of big toothed carnivores/omnivores running around back then. Or maybe not. I can't wait to be told though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts