Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 A bigfoot body part has not made it to the science table that I know of. I posed reports of bigfoots being shot and brought into pioneer towns then were later disposed of. If a bigfoot juvenile skeleton is found it might be difficult to tell it from a human. In this case someone may turn it in and the find may be lost. If its a full grown bigfoot then only trusted bigfoot researchers should be called in or the find may be lost. Archeo anthropologists would have no problem in identifying it as non human.If Bigfoot is actually a human you now have a second problem... The trick is knowing when the bones are from a bigfoot,( if anyone could know) and of coarse, anything that is remotely large and humanoid would be from a robust native, if old enough. http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/minaret/ They would know if it was human or non human. They would know what "type" it most closely resemble, say a gorilla, chimp, or Australopithecus (if a new type, what type it had evolved from). The more skull you have the more precise you can be. From the article you could probably tell brain size and that is one of the biggest identifiers and brain shape, brain structure. As far as race, forget about it, a meaningless construct, especially as you go back in time. In science there is just as much debate as in pseudo science so a skull would contribute to the overall picture and not likely define it. Perhaps overturning conventions such as that we are the only surviving hominid. I'm not sure they would know. The minaret skull reportedly had a nuchal ridge that was more developed, theoretically from larger muscle attachment from the neck and back. This occurs in other apes due to quadrupedal locomotion. In order to look forward in that position, the muscles must work harder in that area. If the physical anthropologist looking at it didn't know that bigfoot is sometimes seen in 4x4 mode, they might not put two and two together. Why, they have seen all that, it's all just variation on a theme. Bigfoot is not the first Hominid that can go on four or two. Gorilla, Chimp, etc. etc. Seems Dr. Meldrum or those that practice as Paleontologist, archaeologist and anthropologist probably could figure it out. The combined experience of analyzing the entire fossil record and classifying it as to morphology and function might have something to do with it, after all...
Bonehead74 Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 What's the minaret skull? http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/minaret.htm
MIB Posted March 7, 2016 Moderator Posted March 7, 2016 (edited) ^^^ Finding a "trusted" BF researcher may be a problematic as finding BF in the first place. I don't have any trouble finding a trusted researcher. There aren't many I truly respect because their values don't align with mine but that's not the same as trust: none that I know of would "send my evidence off to the Smithsonian to make it disappear" or anything like that, they're as curious as I am and maybe even more aggressive than I'd be about getting stuff tested. Question: why you think a "researcher" is necessary? It's not like there's some BF researcher certification process that, upon certification, gives you access to resources that you or I don't already have equal access to. The most having a known researcher available to you might do is give you access to even more known researchers that are just all as stymied as the rest of us. That's a fact. MIB Edited March 7, 2016 by MIB 3
JKH Posted March 7, 2016 Posted March 7, 2016 Plussed, although I'm guessing that you aren't really stymied. I'm not a researcher, but I don't feel stymied about anything. I just keep on doing what I like, which is learning more about behavior patterns. I've had my personal proof, which is the only sensible way to approach that concept, IMO. I'm repeating myself, but science is ongoing. I'd point to the tons of information gathered in the last few decades and emphatically state that it's teaching interested people much of value. It's a dynamic process that will probably last many more decades surrounding this subject, so be patient. If someone wants more right away, I don't know what to say. Read, listen, learn, go outside, it's fun. Period. 3
MIB Posted March 8, 2016 Moderator Posted March 8, 2016 Agreed .. I think with every single thing you said. I was thinking of stymied in the sense of engaging academic research with large budgets into the search, not individuals' personal efforts in the field. I don't believe our TV personalities from the bigfoot community have any more "pull" in that sense than I do. So far as personal efforts ... I prefer the flexible and nimble approach that comes from answering only to myself, I don't have a board of peers or trustees I have to ask permission from that's grounded in preservation of a status quo. MIB 1
southernyahoo Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 A bigfoot body part has not made it to the science table that I know of. I posed reports of bigfoots being shot and brought into pioneer towns then were later disposed of. If a bigfoot juvenile skeleton is found it might be difficult to tell it from a human. In this case someone may turn it in and the find may be lost. If its a full grown bigfoot then only trusted bigfoot researchers should be called in or the find may be lost. Archeo anthropologists would have no problem in identifying it as non human.If Bigfoot is actually a human you now have a second problem... The trick is knowing when the bones are from a bigfoot,( if anyone could know) and of coarse, anything that is remotely large and humanoid would be from a robust native, if old enough. http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/minaret/ They would know if it was human or non human. They would know what "type" it most closely resemble, say a gorilla, chimp, or Australopithecus (if a new type, what type it had evolved from). The more skull you have the more precise you can be. From the article you could probably tell brain size and that is one of the biggest identifiers and brain shape, brain structure. As far as race, forget about it, a meaningless construct, especially as you go back in time. In science there is just as much debate as in pseudo science so a skull would contribute to the overall picture and not likely define it. Perhaps overturning conventions such as that we are the only surviving hominid. I'm not sure they would know. The minaret skull reportedly had a nuchal ridge that was more developed, theoretically from larger muscle attachment from the neck and back. This occurs in other apes due to quadrupedal locomotion. In order to look forward in that position, the muscles must work harder in that area. If the physical anthropologist looking at it didn't know that bigfoot is sometimes seen in 4x4 mode, they might not put two and two together. Why, they have seen all that, it's all just variation on a theme. Bigfoot is not the first Hominid that can go on four or two. Gorilla, Chimp, etc. etc. Seems Dr. Meldrum or those that practice as Paleontologist, archaeologist and anthropologist probably could figure it out. The combined experience of analyzing the entire fossil record and classifying it as to morphology and function might have something to do with it, after all... http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/minaret.htm Dr. Ridge's letter to Dr. Denton in 1965 contains the only detailed description of the item : "...a rather interesting specimen largely by virtue of the unusual length of the skull as well as a very unusual development of the nuchal ridge in the occipital zone. This latter fact for a time had me thinking this must be the skull of some anthropoid species other than human, inasmuch as this amount of nuchal ridge development had not been observed by me."
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 (edited) A bigfoot body part has not made it to the science table that I know of. I posed reports of bigfoots being shot and brought into pioneer towns then were later disposed of. If a bigfoot juvenile skeleton is found it might be difficult to tell it from a human. In this case someone may turn it in and the find may be lost. If its a full grown bigfoot then only trusted bigfoot researchers should be called in or the find may be lost. Archeo anthropologists would have no problem in identifying it as non human.If Bigfoot is actually a human you now have a second problem... The trick is knowing when the bones are from a bigfoot,( if anyone could know) and of coarse, anything that is remotely large and humanoid would be from a robust native, if old enough. http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/minaret/ They would know if it was human or non human. They would know what "type" it most closely resemble, say a gorilla, chimp, or Australopithecus (if a new type, what type it had evolved from). The more skull you have the more precise you can be. From the article you could probably tell brain size and that is one of the biggest identifiers and brain shape, brain structure. As far as race, forget about it, a meaningless construct, especially as you go back in time. In science there is just as much debate as in pseudo science so a skull would contribute to the overall picture and not likely define it. Perhaps overturning conventions such as that we are the only surviving hominid. I'm not sure they would know. The minaret skull reportedly had a nuchal ridge that was more developed, theoretically from larger muscle attachment from the neck and back. This occurs in other apes due to quadrupedal locomotion. In order to look forward in that position, the muscles must work harder in that area. If the physical anthropologist looking at it didn't know that bigfoot is sometimes seen in 4x4 mode, they might not put two and two together. Why, they have seen all that, it's all just variation on a theme. Bigfoot is not the first Hominid that can go on four or two. Gorilla, Chimp, etc. etc. Seems Dr. Meldrum or those that practice as Paleontologist, archaeologist and anthropologist probably could figure it out. The combined experience of analyzing the entire fossil record and classifying it as to morphology and function might have something to do with it, after all... http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/minaret.htm Dr. Ridge's letter to Dr. Denton in 1965 contains the only detailed description of the item : "...a rather interesting specimen largely by virtue of the unusual length of the skull as well as a very unusual development of the nuchal ridge in the occipital zone. This latter fact for a time had me thinking this must be the skull of some anthropoid species other than human, inasmuch as this amount of nuchal ridge development had not been observed by me." Your missing my point. Fossil morphology variation is endless. It's part of the analysis. If a nuchal ridge had never before been seen in a Hominid, that might be unique. Not an indicator of a new species unless other conditions are met. More interesting would have been the brain cast imprinted on the interior of the piece or the overall dimensions. Edited March 8, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
southernyahoo Posted March 8, 2016 Posted March 8, 2016 A bigfoot body part has not made it to the science table that I know of. I posed reports of bigfoots being shot and brought into pioneer towns then were later disposed of. If a bigfoot juvenile skeleton is found it might be difficult to tell it from a human. In this case someone may turn it in and the find may be lost. If its a full grown bigfoot then only trusted bigfoot researchers should be called in or the find may be lost. Archeo anthropologists would have no problem in identifying it as non human.If Bigfoot is actually a human you now have a second problem... The trick is knowing when the bones are from a bigfoot,( if anyone could know) and of coarse, anything that is remotely large and humanoid would be from a robust native, if old enough.http://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/minaret/ They would know if it was human or non human. They would know what "type" it most closely resemble, say a gorilla, chimp, or Australopithecus (if a new type, what type it had evolved from). The more skull you have the more precise you can be. From the article you could probably tell brain size and that is one of the biggest identifiers and brain shape, brain structure. As far as race, forget about it, a meaningless construct, especially as you go back in time. In science there is just as much debate as in pseudo science so a skull would contribute to the overall picture and not likely define it. Perhaps overturning conventions such as that we are the only surviving hominid. I'm not sure they would know. The minaret skull reportedly had a nuchal ridge that was more developed, theoretically from larger muscle attachment from the neck and back. This occurs in other apes due to quadrupedal locomotion. In order to look forward in that position, the muscles must work harder in that area. If the physical anthropologist looking at it didn't know that bigfoot is sometimes seen in 4x4 mode, they might not put two and two together. Why, they have seen all that, it's all just variation on a theme.Bigfoot is not the first Hominid that can go on four or two. Gorilla, Chimp, etc. etc. Seems Dr. Meldrum or those that practice as Paleontologist, archaeologist and anthropologist probably could figure it out. The combined experience of analyzing the entire fossil record and classifying it as to morphology and function might have something to do with it, after all... http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/minaret.htm Dr. Ridge's letter to Dr. Denton in 1965 contains the only detailed description of the item : "...a rather interesting specimen largely by virtue of the unusual length of the skull as well as a very unusual development of the nuchal ridge in the occipital zone. This latter fact for a time had me thinking this must be the skull of some anthropoid species other than human, inasmuch as this amount of nuchal ridge development had not been observed by me." Your missing my point.Fossil morphology variation is endless. It's part of the analysis. If a nuchal ridge had never before been seen in a Hominid, that might be unique. Not an indicator of a new species unless other conditions are met. More interesting would have been the brain cast imprinted on the interior of the piece or the overall dimensions. I think I've made my point clear, the morphology doesn't have to be something never before seen in hominids. But the combination of traits sure gave the Dr's the inclination that it wasn't normal. This is why it wasn't determined to be bigfoot, there isn't necessarily a smoking gun per se. That's why I'm not sure they would recognize bigfoot bones for what they are. Bigfoot isn't defined by opinion but by prevailing evidence.
SWWASAS Posted March 8, 2016 BFF Patron Posted March 8, 2016 What's the minaret skull? SWWA: Good post that makes sense, and you have outlined a real problem. I will reply in more detail later since I still see issues. Off topic: My landscape architect job is taking me out into some squatchy country east of Coos Bay near Blue Ridge. Google it. The home owner built a new house there. Something moved in the trees but could not make it out the last time I was there. There were no smells, prints, or tree breaks so it's probably nothing. What else would you look for? Some fellow out there showed me a picture of a bigfoot that his trail cam caught at night. His phone number is lost in my files now .................. ouch. The lack of tree breaks and snaps offs is not indicative at of BF presence all in some areas. My previously active area had no evidence of that so I think that is an individual behavior thing with some BF. Keep looking for footprints. Used paths that do not have deer or elk prints have to be something without hooves. Glyphs and rock stacks can indicate BF or busy humans. Bedding areas could indicate something large has been bedding down in the area. But those could be deer too. I have yet to encounter a BF that put out a smell. But if you saw movement I would keep going back to figure out what it was.
georgerm Posted March 8, 2016 Author Posted March 8, 2016 Thanks SWWA. We were standing in a clearing looking towards dense forest and thick brush. I was staring in an area with nothing in mind when something brown slid about 2' out of sight. He had his dog out and it's white. It probably thought I was staring at it. Later we walked the area, there were no prints, and the path connected to an old over grown road. I made no mention of BF to my client of course. Sometimes I will take a chance and ask about bigfoots, but it's risky. Sometimes people know about BF but most of the time, they have done little reading. The monster quest show seems to update people in a more serious science way. I've seen several areas with rock stacks but they were close to roads. Southern and Cryptic have left me behind. I did understand that the Minaret skull was lost as usual, but it's connection to bigfoot was unclear. No DNA test probably.
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted March 9, 2016 Posted March 9, 2016 (edited) southernyahoo The reply was too long and won't let me post. Did not really bother to read the article as you mention the calvarium was lost. There are too many things like that so I took it as a hoax (lovelock cave, anyone?) On rereading it does look more promising. Seems like the best approach would to go back to the location in question and do a dig. If brain patterning was on the inside of the skull you would get a pretty full picture as well as the position of the foramen magnum telling you if it was apelike or upright walking primarily. Of course if it was hominid it is upright walking... Then the question is tree climbing hands, knuckle dragger, tool user, etc. Edited March 9, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna
georgerm Posted March 11, 2016 Author Posted March 11, 2016 The lack of financing for credentialed bigfoot research is the real bottle neck. Even if public opinion remains skeptical, a significant influx of money ($5,000,000 of more) for bigfoot research offered to major university anthropology departments would spur active professional involvement. No matter how much this class of researcher turns its nose up at bigfoot now, they still have to eat, and when it comes to grant applications, they are promiscuous. Once they go for the grant money they have to convince, first themselves, and then their peers, that the line of research is worthy. And once main stream academia starts insisting that bigfoot research is worthy (because they took the grant money), the dominoes of public perception will begin to fall in the right direction, because they then have to publish, and if they seriously get out there and start looking, they will have something to publish. It will take a private group of benefactors to get this going, though. The government certainly won't sponsor it. This is what it takes.
SWWASAS Posted March 11, 2016 BFF Patron Posted March 11, 2016 There are not enough of us with the bucks to get behind some sort of foundation to fund research and raise significant money, unless we can get a Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos interested. Anyone on speaking terms with either one? Saving an endangered species would be good press for them.
MIB Posted March 11, 2016 Moderator Posted March 11, 2016 Saving an endangered species would be good press for them. Perhaps. However, destroying a substantial portion of the remaining economy of many small towns ala the spotted owl would not. MIB
Yuchi1 Posted March 11, 2016 Posted March 11, 2016 There has been piles of money thrown at this over the decades, Tom Slick, Wally Hersom, Erickson, et. al. with apparently little to show for it.
Recommended Posts