Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

[FarArcher]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

That's because facial reconstruction is a science. And it gets dang close.

 

http://anthropology.si.edu/writteninbone/facial_reconstruction.html

 

Norse, those markers they place on the bone are the average depths of soft tissue - of HUMANS.

 

The Neanderthal isn't human - nor are the BF.

 

If you read what I posted, I suggested using human depth soft tissue markers, then use ape soft tissue markers, and another splitting the difference - and see the difference.  One can take average markers and put them on the skull of Rosie O'Donnell, and it won't look anything like her fat face.  

 

I don't care how much anatomy one has studied of humans, how expert they are - to use human soft tissue markers and applying that to Neanderthal or any other cave man skull is quite a stretch. It simply isn't credible.  No one would have bit of trouble picking a human skull out of all the skulls of all other cave men skulls.  And yet to use human data and applying human data to non-human faces is just BS.

 

The skulls are just too different.  I've repeated myself here - they eyes are very large in the BF.  Now, look at the skull of the Neanderthal.  HUGE sockets - way higher up on the head.  But let's use human tissue markers to construct the face, and smaller exposed eyes.

 

There may be genes that would indicate some to have red hair in Neanderthals - and oddly, two of our guys saw a BF with reddish hair sit across a cut and watch them for about 20 minutes shortly after sunrise.  I'd say that red hair is something to add to the idea that maybe Neanderthals and BF have some commonalities.

 

Mine had black skin.  Black hair.  Then that one had red hair - and lighter skin.  So what does the all-knowing Neanderthal DNA experts tell us about those properties?  Nothing!  I have blonde hair and blue eyes - a friend is very, very black - and we're both human.

 

Neanderthal isn't.

 

And Bigfoot isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

It's not a stretch.

 

And yes Neanderthals belong to the genus Homo. Not only that? Non African Homo Sapiens are the result of hybridization with Homo Neanderthal and in some populations Homo Altai (Denisovians).

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

 

What Bigfoot is, is yet to be seen. But we have a good handle on Neanderthals.

 

 

[Guest Cricket]

34 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

 

Norse, those markers they place on the bone are the average depths of soft tissue - of HUMANS.

 

The Neanderthal isn't human - nor are the BF.

 

If you read what I posted, I suggested using human depth soft tissue markers, then use ape soft tissue markers, and another splitting the difference - and see the difference.  One can take average markers and put them on the skull of Rosie O'Donnell, and it won't look anything like her fat face.  

 

I don't care how much anatomy one has studied of humans, how expert they are - to use human soft tissue markers and applying that to Neanderthal or any other cave man skull is quite a stretch. It simply isn't credible.  No one would have bit of trouble picking a human skull out of all the skulls of all other cave men skulls.  And yet to use human data and applying human data to non-human faces is just BS.

 

The skulls are just too different.  I've repeated myself here - they eyes are very large in the BF.  Now, look at the skull of the Neanderthal.  HUGE sockets - way higher up on the head.  But let's use human tissue markers to construct the face, and smaller exposed eyes.

 

There may be genes that would indicate some to have red hair in Neanderthals - and oddly, two of our guys saw a BF with reddish hair sit across a cut and watch them for about 20 minutes shortly after sunrise.  I'd say that red hair is something to add to the idea that maybe Neanderthals and BF have some commonalities.

 

Mine had black skin.  Black hair.  Then that one had red hair - and lighter skin.  So what does the all-knowing Neanderthal DNA experts tell us about those properties?  Nothing!  I have blonde hair and blue eyes - a friend is very, very black - and we're both human.

 

Neanderthal isn't.

 

And Bigfoot isn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi FarArcher, did you read the posts I made above?  The features that are most evolutionarily significant are the ones that matter in these kinds of comparisons.  That means they have a basis in embryological development.  This was becoming a very big issues when I was finishing school, that research into HOX genes and developmental biology were indicating that comparisons of adult forms were not always most informative regarding evolutionary relationships because morphology can be altered over time by a number of factors that are not genetically based.  Now of course we don't have any embryos from fossil humans (or BF), but what I am trying to say is that the adult forms may look to some to be very different, but the key thing is to find out what fundamentally controls skull morphology in early development.  It may be that Neandertal and modern human skulls have a close developmental basis, even if the adult forms look (somewhat) different.  Dental features are also very informative.  If you looked at skulls of non-human primates, along with a human skull and a Neandertal skull, I think you'd see that the latter two are more similar to each other by far than the Neandertal is to any non-human primate. 

 

The best way I know of to evaluate any hypothesized relationship is to take it and walk it through to its logical extensions, which is what I've been doing with your's and JDL's proposal that BF and Neandertals are closely related.  I provided the list of skeletal features that were supposed to have been unique to Neandertals, but were also found in degrees in post-Neandertal Europeans and modern humans.  Neandertals and modern humans are both in the genus Homo.  We have human skeletons and we have Neandertal fossil remains.  We have human DNA and Neandertal DNA.  We know that some modern humans, like me and many others who have had their DNA tested, have Neandertal DNA, so there was interbreeding.  If there is a relationship between BF and Neandertals, those features that I listed can be predicted to be present to some extent in BF.  It may simply be that Neandertals do not make the best candidates for BF relatives after all.      

 

[FarArcher]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

It's not a stretch.

 

And yes Neanderthals belong to the genus Homo. Not only that? Non African Homo Sapiens are the result of hybridization with Homo Neanderthal and in some populations Homo Altai (Denisovians).

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

 

What Bigfoot is, is yet to be seen. But we have a good handle on Neanderthals.

 

 

 

 

It is a big stretch.

 

If you can't tell a Neanderthal from a human, you might want to lay off the tequila while at the Roadhouse chasing skirts.  Look for once at the skulls - side by side.

 

I never mentioned the genus.  Go a bit further - one's a homo sapiens sapiens, and the other is called something else - homo neanderthalensis.  See?  Different.

 

I was reviewing a bit of archaeological sites last night, and 2,000' deep, off the west coast of Cuba, there's a city on the bottom of the sea, and of all things present, there's among other things like streets - a clear, defined pyramid.  2,000 feet deep.  You can check it out yourself - sidescan radar, computerized 3-D, rendition - the whole thing.

 

Now due to the geology, it wasn't a plate slippage/submersion that suddenly sunk it that deep.  And the narrative we've all been told - tells us sea levels never dropped that much.  

The point being - this BF is currently an anomaly.  Unexplained, and impossible - according to anthropology - as the record is known.  

 

What we know about Neanderthal - is still very limited.  And putting soft tissue the depth of human (homo sapiens sapiens) soft tissue on skulls - won't cut it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2017 by FarArcher

[FarArcher]

27 minutes ago, Cricket said:

Hi FarArcher, did you read the posts I made above?  The features that are most evolutionarily significant are the ones that matter in these kinds of comparisons.  That means they have a basis in embryological development.  This was becoming a very big issues when I was finishing school, that research into HOX genes and developmental biology were indicating that comparisons of adult forms were not always most informative regarding evolutionary relationships because morphology can be altered over time by a number of factors that are not genetically based.  Now of course we don't have any embryos from fossil humans (or BF), but what I am trying to say is that the adult forms may look to some to be very different, but the key thing is to find out what fundamentally controls skull morphology in early development.  It may be that Neandertal and modern human skulls have a close developmental basis, even if the adult forms look (somewhat) different.  Dental features are also very informative.  If you looked at skulls of non-human primates, along with a human skull and a Neandertal skull, I think you'd see that the latter two are more similar to each other by far than the Neandertal is to any non-human primate. 

 

The best way I know of to evaluate any hypothesized relationship is to take it and walk it through to its logical extensions, which is what I've been doing with your's and JDL's proposal that BF and Neandertals are closely related.  I provided the list of skeletal features that were supposed to have been unique to Neandertals, but were also found in degrees in post-Neandertal Europeans and modern humans.  Neandertals and modern humans are both in the genus Homo.  We have human skeletons and we have Neandertal fossil remains.  We have human DNA and Neandertal DNA.  We know that some modern humans, like me and many others who have had their DNA tested, have Neandertal DNA, so there was interbreeding.  If there is a relationship between BF and Neandertals, those features that I listed can be predicted to be present to some extent in BF.  It may simply be that Neandertals do not make the best candidates for BF relatives after all.      

 

 

Thank you, Cricket.  Yes, I read everything you write, and I'm still a bit stumped.  I'm not saying BF is Neanderthal - but Neaderthal seems to be the closest thing in the fossil record, and in traditional narratives - that share at least a few behavioral characteristics - one of those being the ability to interbreed - maybe not wholesale - but on a very limited basis.

 

Somewhere, I have a number of unique characteristics the Neanderthal has that were not in common with homo Erectus, nor were they shared with homo sapiens.  In fact, some of these characteristics seem to have only manifest themselves in Neanderthal - and in Neanderthal alone.  I thought I had it handy, but I have more packed bookshelves than the law allows - and I'll find - it'll just take some digging.

 

Milady, I pose this question.  If one were to use different soft tissue depth markers, would the Neanderthal skull look significantly different than if one used average human soft tissue depth markers?  

[Guest Cricket]

1 hour ago, FarArcher said:

 

Thank you, Cricket.  Yes, I read everything you write, and I'm still a bit stumped.  I'm not saying BF is Neanderthal - but Neaderthal seems to be the closest thing in the fossil record, and in traditional narratives - that share at least a few behavioral characteristics - one of those being the ability to interbreed - maybe not wholesale - but on a very limited basis.

 

Somewhere, I have a number of unique characteristics the Neanderthal has that were not in common with homo Erectus, nor were they shared with homo sapiens.  In fact, some of these characteristics seem to have only manifest themselves in Neanderthal - and in Neanderthal alone.  I thought I had it handy, but I have more packed bookshelves than the law allows - and I'll find - it'll just take some digging.

 

Milady, I pose this question.  If one were to use different soft tissue depth markers, would the Neanderthal skull look significantly different than if one used average human soft tissue depth markers?  

Well, if BF and Neandertal have any fairly close relationship, they ought to share some traits from that shared history.  I would definitely be interested in the list of unique Neandertal characteristics that you saw, if you have time in the near future to look.  I totally get the packed bookshelves!  New rule in my household:  buy 1 new book, and you have to donate 2 books to the local book sale fundraiser!

 

I honestly don't think the depth of the tissue markers is going to make that much of a difference.  I think the thing I'm really questioning is if Neandertals are so very different from humans, then they wouldn't be able to interbreed at all, yet we know it happened.  Interbreeding would not be possible between creatures classified differently at a higher level of taxa, and by proposing they could would be challenging the whole concept of species.  I will delve into species concepts and see if I can find something that is concise and to the point.  There are many in paleoanthropology who believe the correct nomenclature for Neandertals is Homo sapiens neandertalensis (a sub species of Homo sapiens). 

Edited June 25, 2017 by Cricket

[JDL]

The thing to keep in mind is that we are discussing an ology.  The definition of ology is "the study of".  The definition itself acknowledges that the knowledge of any subject that ends in ology is a finite snapshot in an open-ended exploration.  

 

What was once believed to be true is often, and should often be, refined by what is learned today; and what is learned today should be expected to undergo future refinement.  

 

It's at any given moment an incomplete puzzle of necessity based on incomplete information and incomplete perspectives.  

 

Remember the three blind men describing the elephant.   

[norseman]

6 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

It is a big stretch.

 

If you can't tell a Neanderthal from a human, you might want to lay off the tequila while at the Roadhouse chasing skirts.  Look for once at the skulls - side by side.

 

I never mentioned the genus.  Go a bit further - one's a homo sapiens sapiens, and the other is called something else - homo neanderthalensis.  See?  Different.

 

I was reviewing a bit of archaeological sites last night, and 2,000' deep, off the west coast of Cuba, there's a city on the bottom of the sea, and of all things present, there's among other things like streets - a clear, defined pyramid.  2,000 feet deep.  You can check it out yourself - sidescan radar, computerized 3-D, rendition - the whole thing.

 

Now due to the geology, it wasn't a plate slippage/submersion that suddenly sunk it that deep.  And the narrative we've all been told - tells us sea levels never dropped that much.  

The point being - this BF is currently an anomaly.  Unexplained, and impossible - according to anthropology - as the record is known.  

 

What we know about Neanderthal - is still very limited.  And putting soft tissue the depth of human (homo sapiens sapiens) soft tissue on skulls - won't cut it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its a minuscule stretch. If you can name a species of Homo that is more closely related to Homo Sapiens than Neanderthals?

 

Im all ears!

 

I can see differences between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals, absolutely. But when compared to say a Homo Sapiens skull and a Gorilla or a Gigantopethicus skull? It's minuscule. A Neanderthal unlike a Gorilla could walk into any bar in the US and order a beer without causing a riot.

 

Danny Vendramini is not a scientist and his theory is fantasy. It's that simple. If he would like to state how he got to the conclusion Neanderthals possessed cat eyes or any of his other supposed super attributes? State them in a peer reviewed article. The only conjecture concerning Neanderthals is his theory. The rest? Is backed by science's best evidence to date.

3 hours ago, JDL said:

The thing to keep in mind is that we are discussing an ology.  The definition of ology is "the study of".  The definition itself acknowledges that the knowledge of any subject that ends in ology is a finite snapshot in an open-ended exploration.  

 

What was once believed to be true is often, and should often be, refined by what is learned today; and what is learned today should be expected to undergo future refinement.  

 

It's at any given moment an incomplete puzzle of necessity based on incomplete information and incomplete perspectives.  

 

Remember the three blind men describing the elephant.   

 

There is a massive difference between pure fantasy and science. Science by definition can and will change based on the newest evidence at hand. But it's based on real current evidence that is the best at any given moment in time.

 

Just because science has blank spots in its vision doesn't mean we can just prop up anything we want with nothing to support it.

 

 

[FarArcher]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Its a minuscule stretch. If you can name a species of Homo that is more closely related to Homo Sapiens than Neanderthals?

 

Im all ears!

 

I can see differences between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals, absolutely. But when compared to say a Homo Sapiens skull and a Gorilla or a Gigantopethicus skull? It's minuscule. A Neanderthal unlike a Gorilla could walk into any bar in the US and order a beer without causing a riot.

 

Danny Vendramini is not a scientist and his theory is fantasy. It's that simple. If he would like to state how he got to the conclusion Neanderthals possessed cat eyes or any of his other supposed super attributes? State them in a peer reviewed article. The only conjecture concerning Neanderthals is his theory. The rest? Is backed by science's best evidence to date.

 

There is a massive difference between pure fantasy and science. Science by definition can and will change based on the newest evidence at hand. But it's based on real current evidence that is the best at any given moment in time.

 

Just because science has blank spots in its vision doesn't mean we can just prop up anything we want with nothing to support it.

 

 

 

Can you possibly get over the cat eyes?  You'll note - if you look - the representations had both eyes - round eyes and another with cat eyes.

 

A Neanderthal may walk into a bar - but after the bar empties - and everyone reaches their truck -  where they keep their firearms - it's going to get shot to hell as it's going to scare a lot of folks.

 

Vendramini is not and was not bound by his credentials.  He's not a fool who learned much of his knowledge by rote, and repeats the same.  I'm not saying he's right - but there are elements that ring a whole lot more true than the sanitized, approved narrative we've been fed.  If you place your faith in "science," then you'll be shocked to later realize that everything changes - continuously - as they actually don't have it correct.

 

Greek mythology for example can provide a lot of fables with colorful characters.  Remember Achilles?  Troy?  Guess what?  That story was determined by the "experts," scholars, and academia to be nothing more than a fantastic fable.  Guess who found Troy?  Not a scholar, expert, or academia - it was an amateur.

 

And if anyone should have had a head's up - all they had to do was read of Alexander the Great.  After crossing the Bosphorous, on the way to fight at Guagamela, Alexander made a pilgrimage to Achilles grave, offered sacrifices to Athena, poured libations to Achilles and the Greek soldiers, and crowned with a wreath the column that marked the grave.

 

Was Troy real?  Achilles?  The Roman Emperor Julian likewise visited the grave of Achilles, and that's documented.  So did Mehmed II, the Ottoman sultan who at age 22 conquered Constantinople.

 

Since then, the location has since been lost - but its location was previously known.  

 

BF hunts at night - they run down deer - difficult enough to see in forests in the daytime.  Look at the eye sockets of the Neanderthal up beside a human skull - I'd say they likely did the same thing - hunt primarily at night.  Look at it!

 

Vendramini is able to point out the obvious without having his academic credentials derided for breaking ranks.  I've worked alongside some of the most brilliant and accomplished Ph.D's in the world - and they were the first to know that commonly accepted scientific knowledge - is incorrect.  Had this same conversation a month or so ago with a Ph.D who's been published 25 times with his research - but he says in all public circles he cannot tell the truth - he has to play the game - but he's doing some bizarre things that science just doesn't allow.

 

You follow science's latest findings.  Keep good notes.  A few years later, go back and look at your notes.  It will likely have all changed.

 

 

[Guest Cricket]

Here's a question:  Is it the absolute size of the eye that means something about nocturnal vision, or is it the ratio of eye to brain size?  The eye is essentially and extension of the brain.  So the thing to do is compare eye to brain size in Neandertals and modern humans.  That would require some digging.  You can find brain to body size ratios easily, but probably not brain to eye ratios.  It took me a few minutes to find a reference for that in tarsiers, who are definitely nocturnal.  Fleagle (1988) calculated brain to eye ratio in tarsiers – each eye is larger than its brain.  I don't have the precise numbers, but I do have Fleagle's book on hand. 

Just a thought. 

[JDL]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Its a minuscule stretch. If you can name a species of Homo that is more closely related to Homo Sapiens than Neanderthals?

 

Im all ears!

 

I can see differences between Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals, absolutely. But when compared to say a Homo Sapiens skull and a Gorilla or a Gigantopethicus skull? It's minuscule. A Neanderthal unlike a Gorilla could walk into any bar in the US and order a beer without causing a riot.

 

Danny Vendramini is not a scientist and his theory is fantasy. It's that simple. If he would like to state how he got to the conclusion Neanderthals possessed cat eyes or any of his other supposed super attributes? State them in a peer reviewed article. The only conjecture concerning Neanderthals is his theory. The rest? Is backed by science's best evidence to date.

 

There is a massive difference between pure fantasy and science. Science by definition can and will change based on the newest evidence at hand. But it's based on real current evidence that is the best at any given moment in time.

 

Just because science has blank spots in its vision doesn't mean we can just prop up anything we want with nothing to support it.

 

 

 

I'm not suggesting that fantasy be embraced, simply that the ologist acknowledge that knowledge of the subject of study is incomplete.  

[JDL]

1 hour ago, Cricket said:

Here's a question:  Is it the absolute size of the eye that means something about nocturnal vision, or is it the ratio of eye to brain size?  The eye is essentially and extension of the brain.  So the thing to do is compare eye to brain size in Neandertals and modern humans.  That would require some digging.  You can find brain to body size ratios easily, but probably not brain to eye ratios.  It took me a few minutes to find a reference for that in tarsiers, who are definitely nocturnal.  Fleagle (1988) calculated brain to eye ratio in tarsiers – each eye is larger than its brain.  I don't have the precise numbers, but I do have Fleagle's book on hand. 

Just a thought. 

 

An interesting exercise, but moot.  

 

Bigfoot sees in the dark, therefore it has sufficient optical capacity to collect enough light in the required wavelengths to do so.  And it has enough dedicated brain capacity to process the visual information.  

 

That said, the absolute size of the eye simply makes it more or less efficient at collecting enough light in situations where there is very little light to collect.  A large eye in a low light environment doesn't necessarily collect more light (information to be processed by the brain) than a smaller eye in better light.  

 

So it wouldn't be the eye to brain size ratio, but the ratio between the quantity of visual information collected and size of that part of the brain that processes visual information that is important. 

 

Looking at an eagle, which collects a lot of visual information and processes it with a relatively small brain, I'd conclude that there is a certain minimum required capacity for visual processing, and that minimum capacity could easily fit within a larger brain.  

 

Where my logic could be flawed here is with regard to the number of rods and cones in an eye (the number of information input channels).  In this case it wouldn't necessarily be the amount of information that drives optical processing size requirements, but the density of the wiring, so to speak.  This would be more size dependent, though some eyes may have more densely packed rods and cones than others.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by JDL

[norseman]

3 hours ago, JDL said:

 

I'm not suggesting that fantasy be embraced, simply that the ologist acknowledge that knowledge of the subject of study is incomplete.  

 

http://themandus.org/

 

I suggest we go back to the ignition point of the debate, in which some forum posters believe incorrectly that Danny Vendramini's theory is as good as any other. When the evidence simply does not support it. Neither archeology nor geneticists.

 

I find it funny your trying to hold sciences feet to the fire for being "incomplete" and yet have said nothing about Mr. Vendramini's theory which is not "incomplete" but "incorrect".

 

But I guess boring old normal looking cave man Neanderthal doesn't sell as many books as cat eyed super predator Neanderthal does.

This actually kinda ties into the original post. If people think Vendramini's book is on par with peer reviewed science? Then it's no wonder Bigfoot related material is sub par.

[JDL]

So you assume that by saying nothing about Vendramini I am tacitly approving of Vendramini?

 

For the record, I have commented on Vendramini in the past.  I think the cat eyes are silly, as you do.  I also think that the Neanderthal skull is shaped more like a chimpanzee skull than a human skull.  It seems self evident.  

 

Beyond that, the remainder of his theory is unproven, but I think that elements of it cannot be discarded out of hand without objective consideration.  And I believe that there is no contradictory evidence to some parts of his theory regarding the influence of Neanderthals on the early development of our species.  It may not be probable, but.....

 

If you want me to put Vendramini on the same level as a credentialed ologist, though, then I am willing to do so and my earlier comments apply to him as well.  

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by JDL

[Guest Cricket]

6 hours ago, JDL said:

 

An interesting exercise, but moot.  

 

Bigfoot sees in the dark, therefore it has sufficient optical capacity to collect enough light in the required wavelengths to do so.  And it has enough dedicated brain capacity to process the visual information.  

 

That said, the absolute size of the eye simply makes it more or less efficient at collecting enough light in situations where there is very little light to collect.  A large eye in a low light environment doesn't necessarily collect more light (information to be processed by the brain) than a smaller eye in better light.  

 

So it wouldn't be the eye to brain size ratio, but the ratio between the quantity of visual information collected and size of that part of the brain that processes visual information that is important. 

 

Looking at an eagle, which collects a lot of visual information and processes it with a relatively small brain, I'd conclude that there is a certain minimum required capacity for visual processing, and that minimum capacity could easily fit within a larger brain.  

 

Where my logic could be flawed here is with regard to the number of rods and cones in an eye (the number of information input channels).  In this case it wouldn't necessarily be the amount of information that drives optical processing size requirements, but the density of the wiring, so to speak.  This would be more size dependent, though some eyes may have more densely packed rods and cones than others.  

 

 

 

 

 

OK, so it's not just the size of the eye compared to the brain, but the quality of the physiology that matters in effective night vision.  Regarding BF's night vision, I will defer to those who have observed it.  But regarding Neandertals, the reason I think the ratios of 1) brain to eye size and 2) brain to body size are still valid metrics is that it could be that its apparently large eyes are the result of Neandertals' skulls scaling a bit larger than modern humans.  Ratios would tell us if their eye sockets are disproportionately larger, or simply the result of Neandertals' skulls overall being a bit larger than modern humans.  I found something pertaining to the question, but I haven't read it yet....