Comments on: Primate Survivors & Fossils Found

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:21:37 +0000

Thanks Loren, my fault for assuming a speciality Meldrum doesn’t have. What, specifically, is the political hold-up, if I might ask? Surely someone, somewhere, would want to study the remains, regardless of the possible CZ interpretation of them?

By: wolftrax

wolftrax — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:57:24 +0000

This page has an illustraton that is a recreaton of the Gardar skull said to be by Mark Hall:
http://home.att.net/~mhall.bigfoot/
Notice the deformation in the occipital region.

This page states that acromegaly doesn’t affect the occipital region:
http://s8int.com/giants17.html

But this page shows acromegaly affectng the occipital region:
http://www.medstudents.com.br/endoc/endoc8.htm

Some other pics of acromegaly:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.e-radiography.net/radpath/a/acromegaly1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.e-radiography.net/radpath/a/acromegaly.htm&h=443&w=418&sz=25&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=4AIlCokbyRSGBM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dskull%2Bwith%2Bacromegaly%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

Now look at this pic of a skull with acromegally and compare to the Gardar jaw, see the same prognathism in both jaws. Also notice the extended part of the jaw that hinges onto the skull (the neck and condyle):
http://www.e-radiography.net/ibase5/Skull/slides/Skull_acromegaly_2.jpg

And see the comparison of the Gardar jaw and the Heidelbergensis jaw in these 2 sites, see how the Gardar jaw also has that extended hinge on the top of the jaw (neck and condyle).
http://s8int.com/giants17.html
http://home.att.net/~mhall.bigfoot/

Compare to this page illustrating a normal human mandible:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/illustrations/figure;_ylt=A0LaXp8joQxGrHsAaIFtHokC?id=176

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:35:45 +0000

Meldrum, I must hasten to note, is not the answer to everyone’s prayers. Jeff is great with primate feet, and a specialist in studying unknown primate feet. But that doesn’t mean he would be helpful in examining skull fragments, as Grover Krantz was.

Nope, appreciate that an authority on paleoanthropology, with a subspeciality in cranial fossil investigations would have to be called into the research. But first, the Homo gardarensis remains would have to be released for study, and therein seems to be the political barrier.

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:43:29 +0000

And since the “H. gardarensis” remains are still available for study, for heaven’s sake someone should study them! Meldrum, perhaps?

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:41:56 +0000

This may be a side issue, but a good point was brought up. By themselves, all these anomalous hairs tell us little, and scientists can easily dismiss them. But if they were all to be compared together, and a commonality were to emerge from the majority of them, well, that would be less likely to be so easily dismissed, especially if they’ve already been compared to human hair, as well as sheep, yak and other hairs that may be used for hoaxes and no matches have been found.

This, I think, should be the next step. Unfortunately, as these hairs are owned by any of several dozen separate people and organizations, getting them all to cooperate seems the most daunting part of this task, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attempted.

By: wolftrax

wolftrax — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:42:30 +0000

This page claims to have Hall's recreaton of the skull.

While these pages show skulls and jaws of people who did have acromegaly:
Acromegaly & Gigantism
A deformed skull with enlarging hand and feet in a young female
Acromegaly & Gigantism

Now check out this page that compares the jaw of Heidelbergensis and the Gardar jaw.

And compare to this image of a skull with acromegaly, look at the jaw.

Look at the part of the jaw that attaches to the skull in the Gardar jaw, see how long it is compared to the Heidelbergensis jaw. Now look at the x-ray of the acromegalic jaw and the area that attaches to the skull. Also stretched out. Also the prognathism, and the deformity of the Gardar jaw. Also in the Acromegalic skulls, notice the pronounced brow ridges, and the occipital region which is swollen.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:27:12 +0000

mystery_man-

that was pretty much what i was trying to say just much more reasonably and concisely said.

thanks.

By: treeclaw

treeclaw — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:42:33 +0000

DWA: Indeed, I’ve read from the internet there are Native Indian tribes who believe BF is a substantial, physical reality just like the bear and the moose. Given the extra ordinary abilities of these BF creatures it would be interesting to hear how any human were able to hunt them. Which then brings me back to my previous musing. If at one time they were able to hunt and kill BF why couldn’t we get a native expert to track one down for observation? For example, our government has recently recruited a group of native indians to help track down Bin Laden in the remote mountains of Afghanistan. Also, we have numerous historical accounts of expret trackers who’ve successfully & relentlessly( remember the movie “sundance kid”?) hunted down lone outlaws through the wildlands filled with everything through swamps, stream beds, rocky beds for hundred if not thousand of miles. Yet we cannot with BF not even once. I have no doubts about the BF phenomena and that it’s real. IMHO, the real question is, what or who BF really is?

Daledrinnon: Personally I would not rule out any physical evidence that might relate to BF. The question is just how compelling and relevant is it to the concerns of BF’s existance. Of course this I would have to leave entirely to those who, like yourself, make it their hobby/profession to study these puzzles of bone fragments. I concur with your sentiments on the current lack of progress with BF DNA analysis. Much of this research lethargy is probably attributed from all the fakes and frauds heaped on top of a few strands of authentic fragments.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:24:50 +0000

Things-in-the-woods- I agree completely with your evaluation of depictions of various fantastic beasties throughout the ages. Some may have existed, or maybe not, who knows? They are just representations, they could be complete fabrications for all we know and to read anything into them without other supporting evidence is jumping to conclusions, I feel. They remain intrigueing, yet they are not enough to consider hard evidence of the existence of these creatures. I would hope that people in the future would not look at representations from modern times and think that all these things must have been real without looking into it further.
As far as the use of these bone fragments and what not, i largely agree. If these are remains that are supposedly so useful as evidence, if that is the case, then why is Bigfoot not recognized by science yet? If this has been enough to be used as evidence of other species before, then why not in this case? I think it should be considered that they were either poorly evaluated or not considered all that important. I really do not believe as some do here that science neccesarily has it in for Bigfoot (although understandably there is skepticism). I feel that if the evidence is there and it is strong and verifiable, then it will be considered. In my opinion that is all the scientific community demands and unfortunately as far as hard, undeniable evidence goes, Bigfoot has been coming up wanting. I may get railed by some posters here for saying that, but that is the situation as far as I see it. Great circumnstantial evidence and some compelling possible evidence, but nothing to bring to mainstream science that will verify the existence of this creature. This is not, I feel because science wants to deny the existence of Bigfoot, but rather the evidence is just not acceptable without a shadow of a doubt yet. I think it is not unreasonable to think that perhaps these remains that have been found were perhaps just not enough to amount to anything in the end and maybe there was good reason that they were never pursued besides the old chestnut “science doesn’t want to believe.” I think perhaps these remains were not as useful as some believe them to be and that is why they were not enough to dramatically change anyone’s thinking. There have been some off the wall things accepted into science after enough evidence was presented, why should Bigfoot be any different?
That being said, I do think there is every possibility that the evidence could be out there and I mean concrete stuff that science can really dig into. I am not a “denialist” at all and I am very willing to consider what is presented. But going out and finding it is where the focus should be, not speculating about long lost remains that cannot be studied at present. I think if something is shown to the scientific community and it is undeniable, I don’t think there is any reason why it would not be given importance.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:52:06 +0000

Sorry, that last one shoulda been for MBFH- I guess holding my breath is making me light-headed!