The Shape Of A Face

[WSA]

I find "several hundred witnesses" to be a very crucial part of this ^^^ post. Thanks Branco.

[hiflier]

Hello Branco,

Thanks for wading in on this. You've spoken before on species differentiation in the Sasquatch lines and I have always found it interesting as in reasoning what one may expect is behind certain activities; or what one may suspect from a certain type should it be encountered. I may help someone who presents themselves to such creatures from tossing caution into the wind.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Holy cow, I do not remember seeing that about the Matilda photos. That is pretty funny, at least in a way, although it is also frustrating. I remember assuming it was fake, but I never thought in a million years it would be a wookie mask. HAHA. Perfect match, absolutely identical masks. Anyway, I think that this is an extremely angle to pursue hiflier. I've always assumed that face or nose shape would vary in a manner similar to the human population. Although non-human primates usually have nearly identical faces. So should sasquatch faces follow more human trends or more non-human primate trends? Or do they mix? I would look into how facial characteristics differ for known non-human primate species. Are there any distinguishing facial characteristics between the males and females of gorillas or chimps for instance? Again, this is a very interesting angle to pursue, and I believe that it has the potential to illuminate certain sasquatch characteristics, as well as slightly uncover a little bit more about the underlying facts of just what sasquatch are. I will try to see if I can find anything useful.

[hiflier]

Hello JiggyPotamus,

 

Thank you, I'd appreciate that. As far as differing characteristics in say, Gorillas I'm sure for someone who spends the time their facial features become quite distinct from one to another. Like the barnacles and white marks on Humpback Whales. We gat so busy with ourselves that paying close attention to our fauna isn't something that we do. But the ones ho study and care for different creature see the differences and so know who is who in a group. Parents know the difference in twin children even though to an stranger the twins look identical. After a while though those differences become rather obvious even to the ones who only visit them occasionally.

 

It's all about observation of fine details and also mannerisms. Thanks for the input. Keep me in mind on this thread in your internet travels if you run across a bit of info. Anything but a Matilda or a Wookie will probably do

[ShadowBorn]

If I was to describe this creatures facial features it would be like this:

A. The nose would not be flat but smaller and more pointing

B. Eyes deep in with eye brow bridge more shaper then ours ,more rugged.

C.Face way wider then ours with no facial hair around the nose, part of the cheek bones of the face and fore head.

D. Has a stern look and a wise appearance.

 

Can leave you at AW at the same time change you in what you thought  did not belong.

[hiflier]

Hello ShadowBorn,

This is excellent. In John Green's database that kind of a breakdown is also detailed where the witness had the time or wherewithal to have these things register. Even facial expression, lips, whether the mouth was open or closed, wide or not, a chin, eye color, slope of the forehead, and several other finer points. Before I worked on separating things out like eye color a lot of the details were listed in one field column. For instance the different nose shapes were all grouped under simply Nose Shape. Creating separate columns for each shape now allows for a more detailed sort process.

The different face shapes also used to be together under one Face Shape heading. Now one can sort out only Ape-like faces and so forth. It makes for a lot more columns now though. I'm still working on joining the three major divisions of Incident, Creature, and Footprints into one so that cross-referencing the three sets of corresponding ID numbers will eventually no longer be necessary. All the data available, even with the many gaps where data wasn't recorded, will be able to be sorted without jumping back and forth between data sets.

As an FYI Mr. Green's work is only a small part of what is included in the massive compilation of data that the SSR has, and is going to have, within it. It's going to be the go to for most researchers for years to come.

Edited September 5, 2015 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

Hiflier, thought I would chime in. Though not proven to be BF. Those impressions in the bones show a wider flatter face than ours. We see at least three different individuals, two adults and one juvenile. They all show the same type facial structure in the mouth area. Even the juvenile has a flatter face than does an adult human. Those are repeatable measurements where there is more than one impression. So at least around Mt St Helens this is the type of facial structure we see. (Because of this repeatability, we must have some very skilled porcupines.)

[hiflier]

Hello BigTreeWalker,

Interesting and thanks for bring it up. Of course porcupines can and do sometimes chew on bones for the mineral content and will chew on just about anything, even rocks and roots, to whittle down their teeth. When I was looking at the ruler next to the teeth marks and measuring my own teeth for size comparisons I didn't have a face shape in mind at all- only possible head size. Even in this thread I didn't think of the bones you discovered. Bad researcher!

But I do remember the radial discussion regarding the arc of the teeth and what you brought up does make sense. AND I've learned something here. To work a little better on putting the different pieces of the puzzle together like you just demonstrated. Consider me humbled. Thanks.

Edited September 5, 2015 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

You're welcome and I do enjoy putting the pieces together!

[Guest 67Mopar]

The skin is a grayish black with an almost dry wax look to it. Think of the special effects "skin" used on Cicely Tyson on the movie The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman. The nose is a hooded type, flat, darker than the rest of the facial skin, and a texture similar to that of a dogs nose.  

[FarArcher]

Hello DWA,

You are right in that there is at least some bias in the perception of what Gigantopithucus may have looked like. And there are a lot of other disciplines involved in the renderings that we see. Factors like competition for the Giant Panda at the time, the morphology of the teeth, the massiveness of the lower jaw, the types of abundant forage, the introduction of Homo into the area also competing for food and space while defending it's own survival.

The facial reconstruction by Dr. Grover Krantz took a lot of these factors into consideration. And we now know a lot more about the flora and other environmental factors during the period as well. All in all I think it pares down the choices for what the creature may have looked like. If it turns out way different I would be surprised, biases notwithstanding.

 

'Bout that Gigantopithicus - we have a partial jaw and some teeth.  That's it.  And somehow, the scientific community has determined it's likely appearance, and have also determined it was likely bipedal.  A partial lower jaw, and some teeth.  You gotta love the scientific method, and current anthropologists - each racing to make new transitional species links to humans.

 

We have Hebrew texts stating that giants found human women attractive and bred with them.  The last time the Hebrew make note of giants was after they'd divided the land among the tribes.

 

We have Greek and then Roman texts that mention hybrids - all supposedly myth and legend - but Troy and Achilles were considered myth as well, yet we see Alexander taking a trip to visit the grave of Achilles, and later, Troy was found.  No longer legends.

 

The Woodwose in Europe shows depictions of giant hairy men - often grabbing human women.  Here in the Americas, we have legends from Native Americans telling that these giants often raided camps to make off with human females.

 

We have stories of missing women in the nineteenth century as well as today who are indicated to have been taken by these critters.

 

I see two major descriptions of bigfoot - not including Goatman, Sheepsquatch, Loupgaru, or other such odd variations.  We seem to have the larger ape-like face - that's the one I saw - and we have reports of others that have a more human face.

 

If all of the written record has any validity, some of these things take women for fun and games.  If other suggestions are true that they're close enough to successfully breed with humans, then the few reports of more human facial features would make sense.  At least a means to account for the discrepancies in reported appearances.

 

Then we have the occasional, odd report that some of these things may actually have and use fire.  A camp jay-robber will come and grab things it can fly off with, and take the items to their nest.  Lots of scavengers will go over a previous camp, and sometimes find scraps.  If these Bigfoots likewise examine recent camps of humans, there's a fair chance that on occasion they may find things dropped or forgotten - even matches or a lighter.  Of course they may not know what they are or what they do, certainly not how to properly operate them, but if they took these items back to their own shelter - AND - if there's a human hostage/breeder, they would certainly know what they are, and how to use them.

 

Which would explain the stories of fires being used by these critters.  Very, very few - but it only takes one white cat to prove not all cats are black.

 

All this is quite a stretch, but this one possibility - of them actually being capable of breeding with humans - would alone account for some odd, seemingly disjointed narratives.  Breeding ability accounts for appearance discrepancies.  And the very rare reports of fire usage. 

 

All wild speculation to be sure.  But I keep trying to match narratives over millennia and centuries, and this one possibility would be a possible solution for explaining a lot of odd reports simultaneously.

Edited September 16, 2015 by AaronD
rule compliance