Would the scientific discovery of Sasquatch revolutionize Paleo Anthropology

[Drew]

On 12/2/2016 at 5:30 PM, FarArcher said:

Yeah, and they used the term "phenomenon."  Not "typical."  Two-thirds were attributed to ethanol in the blood, twice the legal intoxication, and the temperatures were below freezing, but with a few exceptions, temps were above freezing.

 

I'm aware of this most unusual phenomenon - but it's very rare and I certainly never saw an example myself.  Of course, most of our rescues and searches involved hunters and folks definitely not drinking.  Nor were we - the searchers.

 

We had folks freezing to death all the time - usually they were intoxicated, sat down or lay down outside, and froze.

 

And to be more accurate - it was Company O, Arctic Rangers, 75th Infantry.  My four MOS's were combat related - not a medic - although I can do quite a bit of emergency treatment from cross-training we received.

 

Bottom line - it's a very unusual circumstance when this phenomenon occurs - very rare - and just not very common.

 

Would you say it happens more, or less often than Bigfoot abductions/murders?

[FarArcher]

You're the expert on hypothermia undressing - you tell us.

 

Use simple logic.  It'll come to you.

 

I recall a mass hypothermial undressing of sorts.  Folks appear to have gotten too cold, suffered from group hypothermia, cut their way out of their tent, and walked away in the snow - only to die.  Place called, Dylatov Pass.

 

Maybe this is a good example of what you're talking about.  

 

First two bodies (both named Yuri) were found at the base of a large cedar tree, with remains of a fire, but per your postulation of hypothermia - being out of their minds, they tried to climb the tree - as evidenced by limbs broken off fifteen feet high - as evidenced by tree bark embedded in their hand tissues.  They were found in underwear and shoeless, with the temperature around 5 degrees F.  Every single one was only partially dressed - to your point.

 

Dyetlov and two others were found in a line, suggesting they may have been trying to get back to the tent (I assume in a moment of hypothermial lucidity).  Dyetlov was found on his back, a twig in one hand, the other covering his face and eyes as though to avoid something.  Slobodin was found face down with a deeply fractured skull (maybe another mysterious characteristic of hypothermia?)  Kolmogorova was found with traces of blood around her body, but no obvious signs of struggle.  Hypothermia undressing is weird to say the least.

 

The other four were found - more - or at least partially dressed - two months later as they had been buried in twelve feet of snow - and all died of massive internal injuries.   Thibault-Brignol had major skull damage.  Dubinina and Zolotarev had their chests crushed inward with enough force to break ribs and rupture organs - but oddly - no external bruising or lacerations.  Doctors who examined the bodies could come up with no explanations on how such powerful trauma could have been imparted on their bodies - reminiscent of a major car crash.  Dubinina was found with her head thrown backwards as in a scream, without a tongue which had been ripped out at the base or eyes - which had likewise been removed from their sockets.  

 

Per your postulation - hypothermial disrobing certainly does a good job of explaining this event.  

 

Mystery solved.

 

 

 

 

[Drew]

Yes, disregard the scientific paper I posted, and post about the Dylatov Pass incident.

 

That is Bigfooter 101, ignore the science, produce the anecdote.

 

Well done Footer.

[hiflier]

Drew, I can understand why the paper might have been considered as not all that relevant. No where did the paper mention blunt force trauma- and you know it. You're on a witch hunt and maybe you could explain yourself a bit? That paper for as short as it was carried a lot of info on substance abuses by the victims. Alcohol consumption, psychotropic drug use by a high percentage (78%) of the women, alcohol abuse in the men 50% and the big fact- no mention of blunt force trauma. IMHO it seems to be the biggest indicator of why FarArcher "disregarded" the study. I don't know why you seem to have it in for FarArcher but it would seem from your recent postings here it appears that you do. ICBW of course so don't take this as my own witch hunt because believe me I have much bigger fish to fry.

Edited December 7, 2016 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

On 12/7/2016 at 0:09 PM, Drew said:

Yes, disregard the scientific paper I posted, and post about the Dylatov Pass incident.

 

That is Bigfooter 101, ignore the science, produce the anecdote.

 

Well done Footer.

 

Been out of civilization lately.  Great - no phones, no 'puter.

 

Your scientific paper demonstrated extraordinary health problems, compounded by significant levels of drugs and alcohol, most resulting in restricted blood vessels.  Which explains why they shucked some clothes.

 

If you're going to present a "scientific paper," for heaven's sake, at least understand what the "scientific paper" states - or get someone to explain it to you.  Get a dictionary, and look up "paradoxical,"  "abstract," "arteriosclerosis," "chronic alcoholism," "concomitant illnesses," and "psychotropic agents," but most important, "peripheral vasoconstriction.

 

Then, just to make sure you're on the right track with what you've presented, at least look at supporting/similar papers/citations referenced in the post.  "Methanol Intoxication Pathological Changes of Central Nervous System," or "Accidental Hypothermia and Local Cold Injury: Physiological and Epidemiological Studies on Risk," or "Cold, Casualties, and Conquests: The Effects of Cold On Warfare," or, Association of Pulmonary Histopathological Findings With Toxicological Findings in Forensic Autopsies of Illicit Drug Users," or "Postmortem Findings After Anaphylactic Reactions of Drugs in Turkey."

 

Had you bothered, you would have easily noted you had jumped the track, and the "scientific paper" was in no way connected.

 

Keep coming.  You're doing so very well.

[Drew]

On 12/13/2016 at 8:47 PM, FarArcher said:

 

Been out of civilization lately.  Great - no phones, no 'puter.

 

Your scientific paper demonstrated extraordinary health problems, compounded by significant levels of drugs and alcohol, most resulting in restricted blood vessels.  Which explains why they shucked some clothes.

 

If you're going to present a "scientific paper," for heaven's sake, at least understand what the "scientific paper" states - or get someone to explain it to you.  Get a dictionary, and look up "paradoxical,"  "abstract," "arteriosclerosis," "chronic alcoholism," "concomitant illnesses," and "psychotropic agents," but most important, "peripheral vasoconstriction.

 

Then, just to make sure you're on the right track with what you've presented, at least look at supporting/similar papers/citations referenced in the post.  "Methanol Intoxication Pathological Changes of Central Nervous System," or "Accidental Hypothermia and Local Cold Injury: Physiological and Epidemiological Studies on Risk," or "Cold, Casualties, and Conquests: The Effects of Cold On Warfare," or, Association of Pulmonary Histopathological Findings With Toxicological Findings in Forensic Autopsies of Illicit Drug Users," or "Postmortem Findings After Anaphylactic Reactions of Drugs in Turkey."

 

Had you bothered, you would have easily noted you had jumped the track, and the "scientific paper" was in no way connected.

 

Keep coming.  You're doing so very well.

 

* Still more likely than "Got Killed by Bigfoot"

 

 

 

 

[FarArcher]

I'm impressed.

 

Your ability to ignore all Coroner findings, investigation findings, conclusive evidence of circumstances, and the elimination of all sane, prudent, rational alternatives takes a very special mind.

 

I know your momma is proud. 

[norseman]

On 10/18/2016 at 1:17 PM, DWA said:

Well, the scientific discovery of sasquatch has already happened.

 

That we are still discussing this as if it hasn't is the precise equivalent of a jury demanding to see the murder performed before it or else, not guilty.  The evidence makes it abundantly clear that there is no way any other proposed cause of all of this consistent evidence has any more chance of being the case than Venus having crashed into Earth in 1956 only no one noticed.  If you disagree with this you are not adequately informed on the topic.  And that is all.  Please do not bother disagreeing with me on this.  I am not arguing with you. You will not get a response, because what you will say, I have already answered here, times beyond counting.  No matter what you say, someone else has (wrongly) said it.

 

A scientist has written a book totally agreeing with me, showing all homework and making a compelling case...which remains utterly unaddressed.  He is not the only scientist to have done so; he is just the only one who has explicitly said - and shown - that he did it.

 

One of the world's reigning experts in costume effects has proven Patty genuine.  No.  PROVEN.

 

I am not arguing with you.

 

So.  How will sasquatch change science when all the people not paying attention are finally shown that they weren't?

 

Simple.  It won't change science at all.  It will teach those not practicing it what it is, and to pay better attention.  Let's hope the lesson takes.  Because this is the thousandth time, at least, that it's been taught in the history of science.

 

PROVE IT!

Edited December 20, 2016 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 11:01 PM, norseman said:

 

PROVE IT!

The only people who seem to be paying careful attention to the evidence either vouch for the animal's existence or insist it is time to get out there and find out.  All the proof I need.

 

It is real if it exists, proof notwithstanding; and the evidence makes a beyond-solid case.  All I need.  And I have no interest in lifting a finger for anyone who has made it plain they're staying right where they are on this until they personally see one.  Good luck there, is all I say to that.

Edited January 3, 2017 by DWA

[Twist]

23 minutes ago, DWA said:

The only people who seem to be paying careful attention to the evidence either vouch for the animal's existence or insist it is time to get out there and find out.  All the proof I need.

.........

 

All the above statement tells me is that you refuse to acknowledge anything or anyone else that has an opinion contrary to your own.  

 

Can you back up your claim that the ONLY people that have paid attention can vouch for them or need more data?  

 

There is not one person that has ever paid attention but came to a conclusion that they do not exist ?

 

It amazes me that you have such personal knowledge in regards to all research and decisions made regarding the existence of this creature.  

 

In reality,  I get the gist of what you are getting at DWA, but I always feel obligated to chime in when ppl make absolute statements about things that are yet unproven.  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There's no true proof in science like there is in mathematics. Everything in science is open to interpretation, and even though we have common consensuses within acadamia, our understanding of reality ultimately comes down to person opinion. What's evidence to one person might not be evidence to another. The strength of evidence is subjective as well. With that in mind, it would make sense to explain to others in detail what you would consider as evidence before asking them for it.

[Guest DWA]

I don't have to, is the cool part.  All you have to show me is ONE skeptic who has a shred of anything other than "not proven yet," which counts for zero in a scientific discussion.  Then, of course, you get to watch me shoot him to smithereens.

 

Although you can tell me if you wish how you've gotten where you are on this, and I where I have, when all I have done for my "personal knowledge" is READ publicly available evidence...and THINK about it.  Go 'head.  I'd love to see somebody get me to change my mind with an argument based on evidence and logic.  But I am sure not holding my breath on that.

15 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

There's no true proof in science like there is in mathematics. Everything in science is open to interpretation, and even though we have common consensuses within acadamia, our understanding of reality ultimately comes down to person opinion. What's evidence to one person might not be evidence to another. The strength of evidence is subjective as well. With that in mind, it would make sense to explain to others in detail what you would consider as evidence before asking them for it.

And my problem is:  they always say (when they say it):  PROOF.  That's what teeth bones a body are.  Know how scientists get those?  By following EVIDENCE.

 

There is, by a lot, much more consistent and compelling evidence for sasquatch than there has ever been for anything the society hasn't accepted yet.  Know how I know that?  I'm interested enough in the topic TO READ AND FIND OUT.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, DWA said:

The only people who seem to be paying careful attention to the evidence either vouch for the animal's existence or insist it is time to get out there and find out.  All the proof I need.

 

It is real if it exists, proof notwithstanding; and the evidence makes a beyond-solid case.  All I need.  And I have no interest in lifting a finger for anyone who has made it plain they're staying right where they are on this until they personally see one.  Good luck there, is all I say to that.

 

Just because it's all the proof you need doesn't make your Bindernagel parroted statement valid.

 

It also invalidates the continuing hard work put in by researchers still out there looking for proof! Like the NAWAC you seem to be a fan of.

 

If Sasquatch has been deemed "discovered" by science? Why would anyone bother to continue attempting to collect proof?

 

Well because its a LIE that's why.........

Edited January 3, 2017 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

No.  People bother to continue attempting to collect proof for these reasons:

 

1. The mainstream insists on stonewalling until proof, while doing no work to get there;

2. Personal curiosity, which they don't hold a shred of hope the mainstream will satisfy for them;

3. Belief that 1. is true, and that someone will have to shove something under the mainstream's nose.

 

Why should I root against them?  Why shouldn't they (and you) be doing it?

 

My PERSONAL stance is:  the evidence satisfies me.  If I see one great; if I don't too bad so sad.  Feel the same way about wolverines, mountain lions, mountain beavers and shrew-moles.

 

Besides which I have no personal interest in killing a living thing to satisfy a blockhead. Although I understand those who want the blockheads to eat crow, I am simply satisfied that I get what's going on and the blockheads don't.

Edited January 3, 2017 by DWA

[norseman]

You made this statement;

 

"Well, the scientific discovery of Sasquatch has already happened."

 

No where in that statement does one find the word "personal".

 

If the evidence has settled the question for you? Fine! 

 

But your statement above is still a bald faced lie.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2017 by norseman