Hairy Man Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 You are doing a great job Jodie - thank you for all your effort! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Long time lurker. I did not see this pic or link on this thread yet. From here: http://selmaala.blogspot.com/2011/06/mortimer.html Sorry if this has already been posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Thanks Portland!!!! We had a bunch of folks looking for a pic before and could not find one online. This helps me see what kind of space and light I have on that staircase. Looks like someone got wind that we were coming and put a photo on that website Edited June 7, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Long time lurker. I did not see this pic or link on this thread yet. From here: http://selmaala.blogspot.com/2011/06/mortimer.html Sorry if this has already been posted. The arms and legs look like what I remember, the forehead had a slant, and I remember the skull being larger than in this picture.But it has been 20 years, and memory can change with time, but I've been correct so far I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) You know Susie, it sat in a bar for most of the 70's decade, there's a good chance that his skull was knocked off and replaced. I'm getting a toe bone, though, so it won't affect the DNA analysis, at least. I'll get better pics face on and close up. Edited June 8, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 8, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 8, 2011 Hmmm...barrel chest, looks like a replacement skull, hope he wore Dr. Scholl's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Hate to say this Susie but not looking too bigfootey to me. The boots give some scale to his lower legs as not being that long, at least depending on how far in front of him the boots are sitting. His shoulder blades also appear fairly narrow and that is in definite contrast to a Sasquatch's upper 4'+ wide shoulders. But, at least you will be able to settle the mystery. I bet that photo B&W photo reveals some relevant history too. While you're borrowing his toe Jodie (which I think is going to give you a weird feeling), might as well have a look at the underside of his foot for a visible break at the Tarsal bone too. Susie, maybe have your hubby look at the pic and get his opinion as to whether its the same he remembers. You guys did good. Added note, the original photo at the blogsite blows up much larger then the one posted here. Edited June 8, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Long time lurker. I did not see this pic or link on this thread yet. From here: http://selmaala.blogspot.com/2011/06/mortimer.html Sorry if this has already been posted. Thank you for posting this, so the thread can be resolved! lol So, my analysis is this is a human skeleton: 1. If you use the tibia to estimate how long the femur is (lets say 1:1), then visualize how low the hands would extend, then you see the fingertips won't reach the knees. This is unlike BF's very long arms with hands that extend below the knee. 2. Neck joins at bottom of head. BF will likely join further back in the skull. 3. Rib cage too small for massive chest and girth reported for BF. 4. Bones overall are much too thin to sustain massive muscles as reported for BF. A BF skeleton would be expected to be much thicker than human. 5. The head, hands, and feet are too small for a BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I agree with all of you that this doesn't look like bigfoot but we have no archaeological bridge to establish anything other than the presence of modern Homo Sapiens in North America. Maybe the DNA analysis will show something a little different, maybe not, but if he ends up having a native american haplotype I will consider my trip successful either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 so, we've gone from to ..............but it was interesting. at least jodie gets a road trip & potential for some cool NA history.......the BFF, Bone Finders Forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) Wow, cool! Thanks! Great pic! There IS a chin, the forehead is dome-shaped and there is no occipital bun. The limbs are quite gracile. It appears to be a mature male, since the skull sutures are closed and the index finger is longer than the ring finger. The pelvis is hard to judge at that angle. The long bones are completely fused with no cartilaginous bits at the ends, again, a mature individual. The bones are yellowed, so either the body was buried in an iron-rich soil or they're pretty old. Given that, it would be a good idea to do carbon-14 testing. I know it would mean a big shell-out and destruction of some of the sample, but if it is many thousands of years old, or even hundreds, it would be worth it! And for what it's worth, tsalagi, the right hand little finger does look a bit crooked. Can't see the teeth from here to see if they are shovel-shaped. If so it is a very good possibility that it is a Native American individual. The orbits of the skull are rounded not square, too. Again, probably not caucasian. The teeth show some wear especially on the top (animal skin processing?), but are too good for it to be a really elderly person, it looks like someone who died in the prime of life, late 20's to mid-40's IMHO. I wonder if there are any indications of a violent death. Of course, all these skull comments are dependent on it being part of the original body. Edited June 8, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 "The bones are yellowed, so either the body was buried in an iron-rich soil or they're pretty old." Or the bones sat in a restaurant for 40 years where people were allowed to chain smoke. At some point the skeleton could have been coated in a varnish or chellac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Completely human...Next!...what's the next "believer" / "knower" thing coming down the pipe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Binky Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) I only know bones from my work in Archaeology, and I'm not an anthro type, but that looks like a male caucasian skeleton, (the pelvis looks definitely male from the iliac crest). The skull could be from another body I suppose, but it looks to have the same discolouration as the rest of the anatomy. The mental protuberance looks quite flat which is a caucasoid trait I think, and it looks as though there is a nasal sill. I must qualify this by saying that I am not sure of the traits possesed by Amerindian anatomy, so apologies if I have it all completely back-asswards. Edit addendum: It looks fairly tall if the (admittedly unscaled) boots are anywhere near the height the similar boots my B/friend has, and it makes me wonder how long it will be before the original 'spotters' are claiming it is a replacement for the 7' footer that originally resided there, if it turns out to be 'normal' in height. Replaced by the NWO, national park service or BF's themselves I shouldn't wonder. (Only kidding). Also a more learned colleague of mine says it was a 'fairly robust individual and broader than they appear in the photo'. Edited June 8, 2011 by Binky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I have been haunted by this skeleton for slightly over 20 years. At least I now know that if this is the original skeleton, I seem to remember a larger skull, but everything else looks like what I remember with the *long* arms and legs. The rib cage looks slightly *less* robust than I remembered it being. I had wondered if it could be young BF, but if the skull is *really* the original skull, what we are left with may end up being the correct labeling as a 7 feet tall NA Indian. I still wish that he *could* be treated with some respect. Has anyone here ever seen a skeleton with arms as long as Mortimer's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts