Where should professional scientists review bigfoot evidence?

[FarArcher]

Those who have hunted in low light conditions have come to appreciate the larger objective lenses - of 40mm to 50mm.  We all instinctively know that the larger a telescope, the more light it gathers.  That's why huge array telescopes pull in more light and enable more fantastic views of galaxies far away, not seen with smaller objective lenses.

 

However, the limitations of how much light can be gathered AND UTILIZED - depends on our own eyes - where our pupils can only open from 4mm up to 8mm.  Only light that can get through those small openings are usable.  So no matter how large of a rifle scope, how much light it can gather - we can only see what can be transition through our small pupils.  For example, a good 50mm objective lens rifle scope can deliver more light than our pupils will pass and utilize.

 

A larger eye - probably - but not necessarily - can support a pupil arrangement that can open much larger than the 4mm-8mm diameter of human eyes.  It can take in, and process more light - and depending on the unique combinations or even mutations of rods and cones - just may see an expanded light spectrum that humans cannot.  

 

The BF I saw - huge eyes by comparison to what I've ever seen on any human.  Big.  I look at the skull of the Neanderthal, and there's a significant size increase over those of human skulls.  Larger eye sockets indicate larger eyes.  Larger eyes indicate larger pupils.  Larger pupils pass more photons, giving much better night vision.

 

The human eye only takes up 25% of the eye orbital cavity.  But a detailed study from Oxford indicated that larger eyes and brains were found in those from the more northern regions than those more toward the equator.  The biggest brains were from Scandanavia, averaging 1,484 ml, while the smallest brains were found in Micronesia - 1,200 ml.  And those that lived within the Arctic Circle had eyeballs some 20% larger than those averaged below that region.

 

The human skull is shaped more like a basketball, whereas the Neanderthal skull is shaped more like a football.  Anyone who suggest they are more or less interchangeable - need to pay more attention to sports, until at a glance, they can see the rather distinctive differences.

 

 

[JDL]

I'm not an expert on genetics or biology, but I think the answer would require a multidisciplinary approach including bio and brain mechanics.  

[Guest Cricket]

All very relevant comments, thanks!  I will copy over the gist of what I wrote about Neandertal skulls compared to chimpanzee skulls:

"The author of this hypothesis, Vendramini, seems to be unaware that humans *are* primates, and that Neanderthals are of the genus Homo, the same as we humans are! He says that “humans no longer look like their primate ancestors,” but we do in some significant ways. He doesn’t seem to be aware of what those retained primate features are. Oddly, he thinks that human and Neanderthal skulls are “quite different,” yet he believes that chimpanzee skulls and Neanderthal skulls are similar.  This leads me to wonder if he has actually studied and compared the skulls of any of them. Among a number of characteristics that distinguish Neanderthals, their skulls have a condition called 'mid-facial prognathism,' meaning that it is the mid-face beginning with the brow ridge area and extending to the tooth row area that protrudes forward, resulting in a retromolar space after the last molar.  This is different from the prognathism of the African apes. The following paper indicates that Neanderthals did not have strong bite forces, and to me that is a big distinction from the African apes: 

"...Neandertals tend to have more worn anterior teeth than posterior ones, and their anterior teeth show a high incidence of enamel chipping, microfractures, and microstriations on the labial surfaces. Taken together, these signatures of anterior tooth use suggest that Neandertals were using their mouths like a vise. The anterior dental loading hypothesis extends this idea by proposing that Neandertal facial form, and perhaps other cranial features, are adaptations to dissipate the high mechanical loads produced by this behavior (47–52). Because Neandertal facial features appear early in development, they cannot be direct mechanical responses to anterior dental loading. They would have to be adaptations produced by natural selection after the species consistently performed this behavior for multiple generations.

One problem with the anterior dental loading hypothesis is that biomechanical modeling suggests that Neandertals were not able to produce particularly high bite forces (53, 54). Neandertal cranial form cannot be adapted to resisting high bite forces if Neandertals were incapable of producing them in the first place. O'Connor and colleagues (54) showed that, although Neandertals would have been able to produce fairly high bite forces in absolute magnitude, their bite forces would not have been unusually large for the size of their crania. Additionally, if efficiency is quantified as the ratio of bite force to muscle force, Neandertals were actually less efficient than many modern humans (54)..."  Timothy Weaver, The meaning of Neanderthal skeletal morphology

...Vendramini’s hypothesis is certainly imaginative, I’ll grant him that, but it is based on a superficial impression of Neanderthals, and a dubious familiarity with the African apes..."

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16028.full

 

[FarArcher]

What really matters to me is not so much the source of a theory, but its ability to account for observations.

 

I was previously unaware of Dr. Myra Shackley holds the opinion that the large, currently identified critters - are Neanderthals.

 

I think they very well could be - and certainly have similar observed characteristics to BF.  That Jocko or whatever his name was, and the Russian hairy woman - certainly go further to give two examples known of, described, and written of.

 

Not human.  But a form of primitive man.

 

 

 

 

[Guest Cricket]

I looked up the precise definition of a biological species:  "A group of populations that can actually or potentially interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and which are reproductively isolated from populations in other species."  (Wolpoff, 1999:42).  Humans and Neandertals interbred, thus are of the same species. 

[hiflier]

Back on topic: "WHERE should PROFESSIONAL scientists review bigfoot evidence?" The bolded are the key words here. This isn't a question to answer with "They won't, so they don't". And it's not about when a body gets brought in. It's about evidence- I'm assuming it means current evidence. And it's not even about that there isn't enough evidence.

 

It's only asking about where. Where should the evidence such as it is be reviewed? What location? What facility? What lab? That's how I viewed the question anyway.   

[dmaker]

12 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Where should the evidence such as it is be reviewed? What location? What facility? What lab? That's how I viewed the question anyway.   

Not exactly. The point I was trying to make with the post was to force proponents who constantly claim a mountain of unaddressed, or uncontested evidence, to recognize the fact that this evidence is not presented anywhere (i.e. peer review) a professional scientist could properly address it. 

 

Basically, the point was if you are not going to present your evidence for peer review, then  you do not get to cry about no one addressing it, or contesting it, and you certainly don't get to claim that is stands as true until addressed. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by dmaker

[hiflier]

My viewpoint is more thought provoking, yes? In other words you didn't elicit your hoped for response from THIS guy. Although your interpretation resulted in far more replies than mine would have received. How did I do sidestepping the obvious?  Answering your question with several of my own apparently doesn't sound like that's what you had in mind but the thread has kind of devolved anyway.....Ah well........

Edited June 27, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest Cricket]

OK, I'll comment on the opening post of this thread:  I recall seeing Dr. Meldrum had a poster on his BF work at one of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists yearly conferences I attended as a grad student in the late 90’s.  This is probably the main conference for the field, so on at least one occasion BF evidence was presented to a relevant scientific community.  Whether he attempted anything else beyond that with those peers is unknown to me. 

[dmaker]

A BF poster is presenting evidence? 

[JDL]

A poster presentation of a study, yes.  

 

At conferences more studies are generally presented in poster form than on platforms. 

[dmaker]

Where would, other than during that conference, a peer address or contest the study findings?

[ioyza]

I just want to show you what a Journal rejection sounds like when it's not even accepted for review:

 

Quote

Dear ___: 
> 
> Thank you for submitting your manuscript to [Journal] for consideration. Your manuscript did not receive a priority score adequate for consideration for publication in [Journal] during pre-screening by a senior editor and a second reviewer with appropriate expertise relevant to your manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript was not sent out for a formal review. 
> 
> A number of considerations were weighed by the editors in reaching this decision. Unfortunately, although we do not have any comments to share with you from the reviewer, please realize that your paper was discussed extensively by the editors and given the utmost consideration. 
> 
> Please note that it is [Journal]'s policy that once a manuscript is rejected, we do not wish to re-review. 
> 
> I wish to express my appreciation to you for allowing this journal the opportunity of considering your work. I hope you understand that the continually increasing number of manuscripts competing for publication in [Journal] makes it necessary to reject a large number of papers that represent painstaking work, as well as interesting and useful clinical points. I hope that we will have the opportunity to see the results of your effort in the future. 

 

I fully realize that the point of your thread here is to say "There's no scientific bias against bigfoot, you're just not submitting papers to Nature!" This rejection letter above was from a publication with a much lower impact factor than Nature. There's nothing particularly wrong with the paper - they said as much - it's just their prerogative to take one precursory glance at what the study is actually about and decide they don't even want to look at it. Do you honestly think anyone submitting bigfoot evidence would get their paper reviewed, regardless of what the study entails? Do you actually think no one (Meldrum, Ketchum) has tried? Meldrum has gotten rejections that amounted to "Bigfoot doesn't exist, therefore we won't review your paper." 

 

I mean, convince yourself of whatever you want, but my response to the original intent of this thread here is OF COURSE THEY WON'T REVIEW YOUR BIGFOOT PAPER! You'd be lucky to get an email response about not letting the revolving door hit you on the way out.

 

The only exception will come from someone with a huge reputation and publication track record, like Bryan Sykes.

[Guest Cricket]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

A BF poster is presenting evidence? 

 

Hi dmaker.  Posters at these conferences are basically a paper presented on a large piece of foam core or mat board.  Those who want to have a poster must submit abstracts.

Here's the AAPA instructions from 2016: 

"C. Contributed Paper and Poster Abstracts – deadline: September 15, 2015
Contributed research presentations convey leading research results to our peers. There is no limit on the number
of abstracts that an individual may co-author; however, each person may be the first author of only one
abstract. And every abstract must have a unique author (and email address) registered for the meetings.
Poster and Podium Presentations: The AAPA meetings offer the opportunity to deliver presentations in either
a poster or a podium format. We maintain a limit of four simultaneous podium sessions (including invited
symposia). Authors are asked to state their format preference as part of their online abstract submission. We
cannot guarantee your preferences can always be met. Recent meetings have had a ratio of 3:1 posters to
podium presentations. Reviewer advice and programmatic requirements may result in the moving of some
abstracts from podium to poster OR from poster to podium format. Final decisions regarding presentation
type and abstract acceptance/rejection rest with the Program Chair.
Abstract Preparation: Prepare your abstract carefully. To be accepted, the abstract must contain a clear
statement of purpose, provide essential new information, including results of the investigation and
conclusion(s), and address the importance of the findings for anthropology. We are aware that many
organizations accept abstracts without results, but the AAPA does not. To be accepted, an abstract must
include clear evidence that data have been analyzed and results have been obtained. Occasionally it is
appropriate for abstracts to be submitted which do not include results but which are synthetic in nature. In
general, however, abstracts are to present new results. Abstracts should not exceed 250 words.
A Note on Self-Plagiarism: Abstracts must not duplicate previously published abstracts. Abstracts that are
substantially the same as published abstracts cannot be accepted as copyright may be held elsewhere..."

 

Note this:  "Recent meetings have had a ratio of 3:1 posters to
podium presentations. Reviewer advice and programmatic requirements may result in the moving of some
abstracts from podium to poster OR from poster to podium format."

 

 

 

 

[JDL]

15 hours ago, dmaker said:

Where would, other than during that conference, a peer address or contest the study findings?

 

I'm not sure about all professional forums, but two years ago a poster presentation reviewing the impact in a hospital of the technology I invented was presented at the Association for Professionals in Infection Control conference.  It was peer reviewed as part of the acceptance process, concurrently published in the American Journal of Infection Control, and happened to win the top award at the conference.