ioyza Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 42 minutes ago, David NC said: Maybe if more scientists actually observed something it would get the ball rolling quicker. Yes! That too, definitely. But for that to happen randomly as in that BFRO report is extremely rare... so this is another thing where you have to drag them out to the woods hiking or camping, and those are activities for friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 I agree mostly, however a lot of us do go out in the woods. I camp, hike, fish and enjoy the great outdoors with family and friends. I have friends and family members who believe in the creature and not one of them has any definitive convincing evidence that the creature exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share Posted June 16, 2018 4 hours ago, ioyza said: I just don't see how it comes from an average anthropologist or zoologist suddenly taking an interest. Baby steps. When at square one which first to make contact with a credentialed I go to the top. The leader of the gang so to speak. The one with the most exoerience and the highest respect and reputation. A sate biologist perhaps, or someone renown in a particular forensics field. Something coming from a scientist on a roster of scientists may not get mush of an ear at the top of the field but it may work better if the top of the field relates something to a roster of scientists a top person oversees. A forensic odontologist with a reputation may not listen to a dentist but a dentist just might listen to a respected forensic odontologist. And I do not think a zoologist would take a sudden interest but an unsolved aspect of a subject presented may eat at them for a time before they begin thinking about looking into things for themselves. And it could take a while too. I private internet search will probably find little or nothing to satisfy curiosity. They may wonder just how the information given them about the puzzle was even found. It probably would not, and maybe should not happen suddenly unless the person dealing with the puzzle is able through knowledge to see right away that there is something remarkable going on. For most of us here, including myself, it has take a long time to individually get where we are today. So one shouldn't expect anyone looking at a conundrum to suddenly have the light bulb turn on. Only someone who is so advanced in their specialty would be able to immediately see an anomaly. Give these scientists time, no pressure and patience. Email once and wait. Always wait for the response no matter how long that takes. There may never BE a response but often enough, if the evidence or issue is clearly presented followed by a specific question then eventually the response will more than likely come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 5 hours ago, David NC said: Like BFRO report 42978 from a biology degree holding person with a camera in their hands Why would you just assume the degree part to be true? Not that it matters all that much, imo. A person with a degree can make the same mistakes as anyone else. Their perception is no better than anyone elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 On 2018-06-14 at 9:18 AM, dmaker said: Falsifiability is a requirement for any scientific claim or evidence. In order to be tested, something has to be falsifiable. A claim must be falsifiable. As in, the truth of it can be determined. A non falsifiable example would be "I saw bigfoot last night". There is no way to determine the truth of that claim. This is not a question for dmaker, I know he doesn't care already. I'm just wonderin' the falsifiability claim sasquatch doesn't exist, how do some claim it doesn't exist , if they have no way to determine the truth of said claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 16, 2018 Admin Share Posted June 16, 2018 Any replies this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 4 hours ago, PBeaton said: This is not a question for dmaker, I know he doesn't care already. I'm just wonderin' the falsifiability claim sasquatch doesn't exist, how do some claim it doesn't exist , if they have no way to determine the truth of said claim. Paleontologist, biologists and anthropologist I am friends with agree that the creature is mostly folklore. However, some are intrigued by the reports and the Patterson film. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, norseman said: Any replies this week? Other than the initial response to the tooth with its evaluation as being indigenous Human there has been nothing coming in. I have send out a correspondence as a follow up to see if the size of the tooth is an issue since the point was not really addressed the first time around. I also sent out the tooth images and description to a paleo-archaeologist who specializes in forensic odontology. I am most interested in the aspect of size and of course age. I am also going to bring forward from a previous post the reason why I am zeroing in on this: On 6/14/2018 at 2:07 PM, hiflier said: A large sized First molar in a Human male can measure as much as 11.9mm which equates to a fraction over 7/16". The molar that I am emailing about measures 15.8mm or nearly 5/8". That is a major size increase. Edited June 16, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 6 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: Paleontologist, biologists and anthropologist I am friends with agree that the creature is mostly folklore. However, some are intrigued by the reports and the Patterson film. Several years ago we took our dog to the vet. I had a tablet with me and asked her opinion of the stabilized PGF. She said human in a suit; definitely not a real animal. I received the same response from from a friend who is an occupational physiotherapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 16, 2018 Admin Share Posted June 16, 2018 2 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: Several years ago we took our dog to the vet. I had a tablet with me and asked her opinion of the stabilized PGF. She said human in a suit; definitely not a real animal. I received the same response from from a friend who is an occupational physiotherapist. Which I find logical. Bigfoot is a humanoid. If I could snap my fingers and make Paranthropus Robustus appear before you? You would swear it was a dude in a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 No Norse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) Seeing that photo, Norseman, is just a wow factor when thinking such creatures actually existed for maybe thousands of years, functioned, and are now gone. Mindblowing really if one is not too desensitized about it because of all of the scientific dialogue and the sheer amount of information. 6 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said: No Norse. Oh I don't know about that. If there was a film clip I strongly suspect that the ISF would be hammering 'believers' just as much as they do over Patty. And the "PRF" would have the same dialogue from both camps with all of the circles and arrows and IM index arguments and everything else the PGF has gone through. Especially if a Paranthropus Robustus was caught on film back in 1967 by a couple of cowboys out in Northern California. Edited June 16, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 16, 2018 Admin Share Posted June 16, 2018 Millions of years......certainly much longer than we Homo Sapiens have been around. In my other thread, with a new scientific fossil discovery? Bipedalism may be 7 million years old!!! And our species is 200,000 years old? Give or take 20-30k? 1/50th of the time our ancestors and cousins were running/walking/jumping and using freed up hands and thumbs! Incredible! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David NC Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) Hiflier, I am assuming that measurement is for current known sizes taken from current data from people all around the world. The tooth was fairly old if it was fossilized, so you would need to compare it to the known population of people that were supposed to inhabit the place you found it during the time scale the tooth came from. The people that lived in the area at the time might not have been of the stature of some of the population as a whole that we get data from now. The tooth you have is almost 33% larger compared to current population data. If the people that lived there at the time were of smaller stature that percent could actually be closer to as much as 50% larger than the people of the area at the time. Edited June 16, 2018 by David NC add detail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 16, 2018 Author Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) Hi David NC, yes of course and the first reply I received went through all of that is fairly scientific detail. Here is a small excerpt from that response: "The tooth size, coloration, and morphology are all thoroughly consistent with a human tooth. The roundness of the crown and the blunt, compressed roots suggest that this is probably a third molar (a.k.a. a wisdom tooth). The lumpiness you can see on the root surface is known as hypercementosis, and it's found in adult dentition-- it's caused by excess production of cementum, which is the substance that helps hold the teeth in place in their sockets. The lumpiness is believed to occur in teeth that aren't solidly housed in their sockets (as will often happen due to periodontal disease, but can also result from weakening of the jaw bone by osteopenia, trauma, or infection), so the roots produce extra cementum to try to compensate for the loose gomphosis (the "joint" between the tooth root and the bony socket). Unfortunately, that's all that these photos can tell us. Since the specimen is unprovenienced, we can't tell anything about its antiquity, and despite how horrible the cavity appears, teeth in this condition can be found from Paleoindian straight through modern times. I've seen teeth like these in every population with which I've worked-- the Ancestral Puebloans from Chaco Canyon and Puye, the 19th Century Huntington Collection, the 20th century Terry Collection, Egyptian mummified heads, and modern forensic cases. There is no way of telling from looking at it whether it was lost a year ago, a century ago, or a millennium ago." So, as you and everyone can see, first of all I am actually doing these correspondences , and secondly size is addressed along with the rest of some of the features. As I mentioned, it was a lengthy evaluation (for which I was grateful) DID in fact address the size issue (which I had overlooked) and under the circumstances was pretty thorough. But a second opinion is always good and if that second opinion comes in and aligns with the first assessment then I will consider the matter closed. Any evidence presented to anyone can and should have a certain level of corroboration attached to it. Otherwise any peer review processes would be entirely unnecessary. And while peer review no doubt is involved here it does not hurt to get a second evaluation considering the sensitive subject of this Forum. My wish is to be thorough and show this Forum that I am being thorough and not have its members just take my word for it Edited June 16, 2018 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts