Jump to content
norseman

Sasquatch brain size

Recommended Posts

NathanFooter
10 hours ago, norseman said:

I cannot speak for what you saw Nathan.

 

But I think your skull above is way too domed for Patty’s head. Patty has a huge brow ridge and no forehead. The top of her skull is very flat. And I’m not so concentrated on the jaws and teeth as they really have no function to the size of the brain.

 

And then walking away her head is slung out to the front like a Gorilla with no neck. It doesn’t look like a Neanderthal or other more modern Homo species at all.

42F44F5A-49FD-4AD4-B783-973248E94F03.jpeg

335B9CA1-ADFA-4B67-92A1-753BB22754DD.jpeg

B9208FC8-8614-4F28-97D7-31FE5821EB3C.jpeg

 

 I can agree that Patty has a head that is fairly flat and clipped a bit shorter in skull length then homo erectus reconstructions but you are wrong on the significance of the dentition and jaw protrusion as the muscles that operate them are loop up, under and through to the top above the ear then continue up the side of the head to generate the power required, this account for the outward cupping of the bone structure  from the crest on down to the check bone itself.  Patty has a framed face with very little outward cheek bone expansion and that suggests that the muscle groups both did not have the space nor the demand to account for interior cranium recession such as we see in the gorilla. 

image.png.76b66f10a95505df0d2fe62dc3be4fb5.png

 

 I am sure there are others out there that would fit better but aferansis could not be even close to her, it has to be something a bit higher on the bush.  Something a bit more between the two ( 40-60 ) with a head large enough to fill a 5 gallon bucket.  Just my thoughts on it all. 

 

image.png.43861d399024165f2bf62b7d99253cfb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
24 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 I can agree that Patty has a head that is fairly flat and clipped a bit shorter in skull length then homo erectus reconstructions but you are wrong on the significance of the dentition and jaw protrusion as the muscles that operate them are loop up, under and through to the top above the ear then continue up the side of the head to generate the power required, this account for the outward cupping of the bone structure  from the crest on down to the check bone itself.  Patty has a framed face with very little outward cheek bone expansion and that suggests that the muscle groups both did not have the space nor the demand to account for interior cranium recession such as we see in the gorilla. 

image.png.76b66f10a95505df0d2fe62dc3be4fb5.png

 

 I am sure there are others out there that would fit better but aferansis could not be even close to her, it has to be something a bit higher on the bush.  Something a bit more between the two ( 40-60 ) with a head large enough to fill a 5 gallon bucket.  Just my thoughts on it all. 

 

image.png.43861d399024165f2bf62b7d99253cfb.png

 

Im not so sure. We see prognathism even between Homo Sapien races. Afarensis also did not having the chewing ability of a Gorilla and had a larger brain. But much stronger jaw and teeth than we do.

 

http://humanphenotypes.net/metrics/prognathism.html

 

Obviously we know that within humans prognathism has nothing to do with intelligence. But I will admit that the overall trend is more prognathism the more archaic the species. Along with larger teeth, sloping forehead, larger brow ridge, sagital crest, etc.

 

Just fun to contemplate! We won’t know until we have one.

A1AB0224-6514-4A6A-8077-5CA01A1958F2.jpeg

6F51DCE4-E952-4AB3-ABA1-97EB9D4EFB2F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
3 hours ago, norseman said:

.........But she simply could not bring herself to kill anything.........

 

Mrs. Huntster is a caribou killer, and she would shoot a moose if she had a shot. But bulls only now. if she shoots a cow, she gets extremely upset. She's sexist........LOL.

 

Once she shot a cow caribou, and when we walked up to it I could see that it was lactating. I squirted Mrs. Hubtster with caribou milk. She about cried thinking she'd killed Bambi's mommie, but no calf was in sight. While she held legs open for me to skin and cut, she scanned the horizon looking for a calf. Never saw one. 

 

I don't think I could ever get her to shoot a cow again.

 

There's no way she would ever slaughter any of our livestock. She's at home as I type here on the beach at Kasilof petting and loving our lamb and ewe.

 

Women are natural nurturers, not killers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Both of those Humans in the photos could be PhD's for all we know. I have yet to see a Bigfoot doing it's thesis at Harvard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor

I'm pretty sure a Bigfoot skull is many times the volume of a human skull. Not sure about brain size though.

 

BF-3D-printer-skeleton.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ Right.    There's plenty of room in that skull for 3x the bone mass AND 2x the brain matter of a human.    People saying sasquatch having more bone, heavy brows, etc means less brain in there are not accounting for the sheer size of the the overall skull "assembly."    Besides those two unknowns, we don't know what the relative proportions of various regions of the brain are so we don't know what specializations they might have.   With truly prodigious size to work with, darn near anything is possible.

 

MIB 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo

The above image is a plastic skeleton on a stand. Do you really think that is a skeleton of a Sasquatch?   The skull is not a Sasquatch skull. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
22 hours ago, gigantor said:

I'm pretty sure a Bigfoot skull is many times the volume of a human skull. Not sure about brain size though.

 

BF-3D-printer-skeleton.jpg

 

Human vs Gorilla

7D5D8C23-1148-4AC8-A31B-ED1C54FDBAD4.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
13 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

Do you really think that is a skeleton of a Sasquatch?  

 

It's a very good educated guess. A scientific model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

That thing would be over 10' tall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

I have stared at that skeleton off and on ever since the first time I saw it. I just spent a few minutes looking at it again from head to toe. The thought that has ALWAYS jumped out is this: Does anyone seriously think this thing can gat away without being noticed on some kind, any kind, of surveillance system? Or that is has somehow escaped the attention of F&W? I mean, seriously? I find such a thought, at the minimum, to be ludicrous. There should at least be footprints that are out there so deep and large as to be undeniable. And no one can tell me that some F&W person, or a game warden, hasn't had one rock, or pinecone, or one stick thrown at them. Doesn't F&W and science ever discuss this even once? Is it really all that taboo? There's a huge "WHY" following that question?

 

We can't just simply gloss over any of these issues. Have we become that desensitized over the subject to the point that these kinds of question don't matter?  Are we so convinced that we will somehow experience an encounter when F&W people are "out there" all the time? It's getting to the point where F&W's hush-hush makes no sense. Look at that skeleton with these thoughts, imagine the thing all fleshed out and in the forest, and the magnitude of what I'm saying may become clear. At what point, or what would have to happen, in order for anyone in authority to say anything? Is a body- publicly dead or alive- the ONLY thing? F&W KNOW there are people out there trying to shoot one. Isn't that enough to speak up considering the seriousness of killing one? I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

I have stared at that skeleton off and on ever since the first time I saw it. I just spent a few minutes looking at it again from head to toe. The thought that has ALWAYS jumped out is this: Does anyone seriously think this thing can gat away without being noticed on some kind, any kind, of surveillance system? Or that is has somehow escaped the attention of F&W? I mean, seriously? I find such a thought, at the minimum, to be ludicrous. There should at least be footprints that are out there so deep and large as to be undeniable. And no one can tell me that some F&W person, or a game warden, hasn't had one rock, or pinecone, or one stick thrown at them. Doesn't F&W and science ever discuss this even once? Is it really all that taboo? There's a huge "WHY" following that question?

 

We can't just simply gloss over any of these issues. Have we become that desensitized over the subject to the point that these kinds of question don't matter?  Are we so convinced that we will somehow experience an encounter when F&W people are "out there" all the time? It's getting to the point where F&W's hush-hush makes no sense. Look at that skeleton with these thoughts, imagine the thing all fleshed out and in the forest, and the magnitude of what I'm saying may become clear. At what point, or what would have to happen, in order for anyone in authority to say anything? Is a body- publicly dead or alive- the ONLY thing? F&W KNOW there are people out there trying to shoot one. Isn't that enough to speak up considering the seriousness of killing one? I don't get it.

 

 Many have had the rocks bounce of the state SUV or hit the ground next to the stream survey site.  I have spoken to them in person on several occasions and have been confided in only after prefacing my position to the point of it becoming a monologue.   It all makes perfect sense,  in all things government ( when it comes to money ) is don't ask don't tell for the sake of employment or election.  There is a massive loss on all sides if the beans are spilled so the lid is kept on tightly through a variety of ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
35 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

There is a massive loss on all sides if the beans are spilled.....

 

To be sure, and "massive" is a true understatement. It would be a downward spiral few if any would recover from. In light of that how does one safely proceed with the search? Is it possible that there were researchers that we never knew about and, if successful, that we will never know about? Not saying anything beyond a severe warning/confiscation of evidence ever would or has happen to them. It would seem that after all these years with so people out there looking for Bigfoot that no one had succeeded? There was a member here some years back that claimed a good official source about there being a frozen BF arm somewhere in a locker in California.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×