Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

[Guest DWA]

54 minutes ago, JDL said:

Stereotypes about scientists on the one hand, and about BF proponents on the other, are both likely and largely the result of a lack of familiarity on the part of each regarding the other, and I think they are actually harming the pursuit of knowledge. There are jerks in every walk of life, and science is no exception, BUT the vast majority of people I knew or encountered in paleoanthropology were dedicated, honest and intelligent people who really cared about what they were doing. And from my brief time here on the BF forum, I would say the same thing about BF proponents. OK, Cricket will get down off the soapbox.

 

No question here.  I think that in the sciences, however, jerkish responses can get embedded in the canon of the field, and this is one area in which that has happened.  This apparently comes from 'expert syndrome':  the idea that when one questions an 'expert' one should get a definite answer, and not "we don't know."  (Among other things in play.)

 

In fact, right here on this site, I'm seeing scientists - a term the use of which I am having considerable problems with lately - who characterize themselves as dedicated, honest and intelligent belittling not only eyewitnesses but scientists who disagree with them, have relevant expertise that they do not, and have shown their work.

[gigantor]

Just a reminder:

 

1) stay on topic

2) attack the argument, not the member.

 

Thank you

 

[Guest DWA]

No plans to go any further with that; I just like to help people recognize what they're doing

[WSA]

I've never put an expert witness up for deposition, or up on a witness stand in front of a jury without emphasizing this to him/her: If you don't know, say you don't know.  Nothing will kill you deader than an expert who thinks their credibility requires them to know EVERYTHING. Quite the opposite, really.  I once gleefully cross-examined an expert  who insisted he was an expert on "anything that moved." Oh boy, pack a lunch...  

[Guest DWA]

I posted it elsewhere (see the Paranormal category), the growing conviction among better-informed scientists that 'scientific expertise' is strangling the search for knowledge, about which I have always felt:  we're blind people groping the universe with a cane.  At best.

 

Picasso put it best; but I had to look at it like a scientist to get it:  Computers are useless.  All they can do is give you answers.

[gigantor]

52 minutes ago, WSA said:

I've never put an expert witness up for deposition, or up on a witness stand in front of a jury without emphasizing this to him/her: If you don't know, say you don't know.  Nothing will kill you deader than an expert who thinks their credibility requires them to know EVERYTHING. Quite the opposite, really.  I once gleefully cross-examined an expert  who insisted he was an expert on "anything that moved." Oh boy, pack a lunch...  

 

You're an Attorney?  (not that there's anything wrong with that!) 

 

 

 

[FarArcher]

Cricket, thanks for your response, and I'm glad you're here.

 

One thing I suggested that you disagreed with was how the museum presentations of different cavemen were inaccurate and maybe in some instances - dishonest.

 

I think the most obvious thing on the Neanderthal representations is minimal facial hair - some without facial hair at all, and very little body hair.  For northern, harsh climates, that just doesn't ring true.  And the clean shaven representations precedes Gillette by a significant margin.

 

The eyes are much larger on for example Neanderthal, but the expressions on the faces show the eyes to be more human sized.

 

The tissue covering the skull - that's a guess at best.  One can take a chimp skull and depending on facial tissue thicknesses - can configure them to look mighty human - and vice versa.

 

Why would a significantly different shaped skull be given the tissue coverage of a human?  I have no doubt that everything was done by experts, and that the data they used to put tissue on the Neanderthal skulls were carefully measured and built up - I'm not disagreeing with that.

 

But to use the norms for another species is not entirely honest.  It's a creation.  Not a re-creation.

 

Did anyone try three depictions of the skull, side by side,  - one human-like tissue build up, one more ape-like tissue build up, and one somewhere in between?  That may give a more accurate representation range than to present a single point representation.

 

And their bodies.  Anyone try three depictions of the body - side by side - one human-like with less hair, one very hairy like an ape, and one somewhere in between?  After all, the bone structure of a Neanderthal tells us they were very, very muscular.  In addition, the climate and game available would indicate they probably had a very low body fat content.  So they'd be very, very muscular - and anyone who's seen a wet cat compared with a dry cat knows what a difference the appearance looks like with thick body hair and without. 

 

I'm here now telling you that as I had this thing running right at me, in the open, for 60 yards, passing withing twenty feet or so, I was seeing a primitive man - mighty hairy, and mighty ugly.  With really big, dark (sclera) eyes.  

 

Why would my first choice of what the BF is - be more likely a Neanderthal/variation?  The countless narratives from Europe and the New World of the ability to cross breed with humans.  My son got his DNA analyzed, and has 315 Neanderthal markers, and coming from northwestern Europe DNA.  That 315 markers were more markers than 94% of the population.  It's cool up there, and a bare-***ed species make no sense whatsoever.

 

I really enjoy your intellect here - as you can literally discuss possibilities without blind fervor of a singular position.  It's entirely possible that this Vendramini has touched partly on what may be more likely characteristics - and if it appeals to me even a bit - and elements of it does - it's because what he presented was very close to what I saw - just bigger/larger.  When you throw in the other narratives of BF characteristics of showing reasonable intelligence, likely a rudimentary communication, families/packs, cooperative hunting, ability to avoid humans, and keeping to difficult terrain - it sounds like some kind of cave man didn't go extinct.  But the kicker is that while these BF do things during daylight - they are primarily night hunters.  Huge eyes.  Neanderthal had huge eyes.

 

Until we get a body, of course we won't know just how close they really are, but I can only go with a number of parallel indicators - and the visual sighting - but nothing like iare presented in museums.

 

 

 

 

[FarArcher]

3 hours ago, JDL said:

 

Welcome.  Your expertise and experience are valued.  I'm sure some will want to explore both the facts and assumptions underlying commonly accepted scientific positions in your field.  

 

With regard to bigfoot, I favor the hypothesis that they are near human and can interbreed with humans (based on Native American and other accounts) but, most importantly, from direct observation of their behavior and apparent intelligence.  

 

I expect that a Bigfoot skeleton may not be immediately distinguishable from an unusual human skeleton at first glance by someone who might not consider the possible existence of Bigfoot. 

 

Using the assumption that they are near human as a starting point, I would wonder what characteristics they might have retained/developed as the megafauna representative of our family tree.  What bio mechanical adaptations would be required and which would be advantageous for a species that eschewed technology in favor of physical capabilities.  

 

I also have an interest in evidence of a large race of Native Americans in the past.   My father was a geologist in Northern Nevada and in the 60's and 70's I had the opportunity to view several times naturally mummified remains of seven and eight foot tall Si-Teh-Cah skeletons recovered from various caves in Nevada, along with associated and distinctive stone, wood, and textile artifacts.   The Bureau of Land Management has since taken possession of them. 

 

These people were still using the atlatl in a period when the bow had long been in use, presumably because available materials for bow construction could not withstand the stresses required of a proportionally large bow, and because the longer moment arm provided their longer arms gave them more power and distance with this weapon.  

 

I'm looking forward to your posts. 

 

JDL, I find this fascinating - the large Native Americans.

 

The Spanish wrote of them, the Native Americans spoke of them, Magellan wrote of them, and you actually got to see some.

 

I note that in US museums at least, we don't find these fossils of these 'giants' represented anywhere.  In fact, all the published indications of large people, or often referred to as giant skeletons - have seemed to disappear.

 

No telling what else mainstream anthropologists and paleoanthropologists threw away - when large bones and large skulls were found - that might throw a lot of shade upon their contrived narrative.  Could have thrown away some BF fossils in their haste to remove any large bones or skulls.

 

I note too, that archaeology and anthropology seem to have a lot of "anomalous artifacts."  Things found that are quickly determined to be "intrusive" or anomalous.  

 

If it were true science - there would be no such thing as anomalous artifacts.  Things would be reported as found - and let the rough end drag.

 

 

 

[gigantor]

45 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

I think the most obvious thing on the Neanderthal representations is minimal facial hair - some without facial hair at all, and very little body hair.  For northern, harsh climates, that just doesn't ring true.  And the clean shaven representations precedes Gillette by a significant margin.

 

The eyes are much larger on for example Neanderthal, but the expressions on the faces show the eyes to be more human sized.

 

The tissue covering the skull - that's a guess at best.  One can take a chimp skull and depending on facial tissue thicknesses - can configure them to look mighty human - and vice versa.

 

Why would a significantly different shaped skull be given the tissue coverage of a human?  I have no doubt that everything was done by experts, and that the data they used to put tissue on the Neanderthal skulls were carefully measured and built up - I'm not disagreeing with that.

 

But to use the norms for another species is not entirely honest.  It's a creation.  Not a re-creation.

 

 

It's so nice to have civilized, reasonable discourse....

 

I agree with FarArcher and his opinion on the museum/media depictions of Neanderthal and other primitive humans. Below is the one the media is going with.  Pleeeease...  it's laughable. I'm not saying the other depictions are correct either, but they are just as valid as the one below.

 

 

From http://themandus.org/gallery

 

 

 

 

 

[WSA]

Gigantor: In recovery. 

[WSA]

I've had hundreds of clients. but Sasquatch is hands-down my favorite of all of them.

[JDL]

Hey FarArcher,

 

I've developed a strong interest in the Advanced Ice Age Civilization hypothesis.  There are a lot of things such as submerged ports along the US coast and various other things that suggest an intercontinental trade network once existed before sea levels rose.  I suspect that the civilization, if it existed, originated in what is now the Americas and may well have been that of the large Native American race.

 

If so, they were clearly more advanced than the Si-Teh-Cah, but the Si-Teh-Cah may have been a struggling remnant of a dying race.

 

Edited to add:  "If anyone caught a quick comment at the end of this before I deleted it, I thought I was responding to a text on my cell phone and it was merged with this post instead."

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by JDL

[norseman]

5 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

It's so nice to have civilized, reasonable discourse....

 

I agree with FarArcher and his opinion on the museum/media depictions of Neanderthal and other primitive humans. Below is the one the media is going with.  Pleeeease...  it's laughable. I'm not saying the other depictions are correct either, but they are just as valid as the one below.

 

 

From http://themandus.org/gallery

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your European right? Are you saying your 8% of the creature in the bottom picture? A cat eyed nocturnal super predator ape?

 

How would Homo Sapiens even produce offspring with such a thing? It might as well be a two legged Gorilla. Ten million years of evolution seperate Gorillas from Humans! 

 

But 40,000 years ago cat eyed super ape mixed genes with us? 

 

No way, this is crackpot conspiracy stuff.

[gigantor]

 

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Are you saying your 8% of the creature in the bottom picture?

 

Not at all.

 

You are missing the point, which is:  The top representation has as much uncertainty as the bottom. It is all conjecture. To make the point, somebody created the bottom pic making different, plausible assumptions considering the differences in skull size, eye sockets, etc.

 

The top picture which the media is going with, and presented as certainty, may not be accurate at all. Neither is the bottom picture. No conspiracy necessary.

 

The same thing is happening with dyno representations, many of which have already been proven to be incorrect. Yet we have movies and Nature documentaries spreading speculation as fact.

[Guest DWA]

The top representation is in no way 'laughable;' a lot of intelligent speculation - which is pretty much all science is - went into it. It's been honed by increased understanding over the course of well over a century. It is with very little doubt as accurate as anything speculated regarding our prehistory.  It is not true that the difference is six of one, a half dozen of the others.  Science is all about the way to bet.  Put your house on the top one.

 

That bottom one?  Some guy with more imagination than science chops ginned that up pretty much off the top of his head.  Bet all you have against anything close.