@satanfudge
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hey Knobby,
I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m trying to understand what we’re talking about.I’ve always just assumed the Lovelock skull was huge, and it’s not.
That’s good to know. If the skull is human-sized, we should know that — it doesn’t mean it’s not a sasquatch skull.The chart you posted (above) is from an article proving some fossils found were not “dwarfs.”
193 is big compared to what they found. It is slightly small compared to a modern average human male.
Hopefully this is a clearer visual comparison:
Size Comparison 1 – Lovelock skull compared to Average Human MaleHead breadth: Smaller than average male human
Face breadth: About the same as an average male human
Vault length: About the same as an average male human
Face Height: Smaller than most average male humans
Size Comparison 2 – Lovelock skull compared to Average Human Male
Length of Vault: Slightly smaller than average male human
Face Breadth: Slightly larger than average male human
Head Breadth: Smaller than average male human
Here are three more resources for standard head measurements:
1. Statistical Analysis of the Height of Human Head in the Use of Ballistic Helmets
2. Head and Face Anthropometry of Adult U.S. Civilians
3. A HEAD-AND-FACE ANTHROPOMETRIC SURVEY OF U.S. RESPIRATOR USERSThe suborbital constriction is interesting and not modern.
– – –
Possibly related…
1
Skulls reveals that ancient Americans didn’t mix with neighbours
2
Morphological variation among late holocene Mexicans: Implications for discussions about the human occupation of the Americas
3
Flooded cave hides Naia, a 13,000-year-old AmericanThe descriptoin of her skull sounds similar…
“…a longer, narrower skull than later Native Americans, and a smaller, shorter face…”
“These facial differences have prompted some researchers to argue that Native American tribes may belong to a separate lineage from the early Americans, perhaps the result of multiple migrations, not all from Beringia.”Links to high res comparison images:
https://closetlight.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/head-breadth.png
https://closetlight.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/face-breadth.png
https://closetlight.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/length-ofvault.png
https://closetlight.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/face-height.png
https://closetlight.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/lengthofvault2.png
https://closetlight.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/facebreadth2.png
https://closetlight.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/headbreadth2.png-D
There were two different reference charts. I’ll post all of the images tonight.
Yes – they’re numbers from humans all around the world to get the best range.
The lovelock skull was in the upper percentile in vault length – but not off the charts. It was still within human range.
It was in the lower percentiles in every other category.
This may be a Sasquatch skull. If it is, I think it’s good to know their heads are human-sized.
Knobby,
They called it large.
So be it.I’m just looking at the numbers and measurements on MK Davis site compared to other measurements
RE: The Lovelock Skull
I looked at MK Davis’ site to see how big the skull is.
He has the measurements from the original study posted:
MK Davis MeasurementsI don’t know anything about skull measurements so I looked around to find a point of comparison. Compared to a human almost everything about the size of Lovelock Skull is average or smaller than average. The length of the vault is long, but not outside the human range.
If it’s a sasquatch skull, it must be a juvenile.
The skull is human-sized.Here’s a screenshot of the measurements. I found two different sources for comparison. In both cases the Lovelock/Humboldt Skull is human-sized:
The shape of the skull is strange, but not apparently not outside the range of human variation:
Brock/Skull
Lex Wotton
Nikolai Valuev
Cain Velasquez
Here’s an interesting analysis of the Lovelock/Humboldt skull by an anthropological archaeologist Andy White Analysis
I wasn’t sure what Wormian Bones were.
Their presence is associated with some unpleasant things:“…wormian bones are a marker for various diseases and important in the primary diagnosis of Osteogenesis imperfecta. Wormain bones are also seen in Pyknodystosis, rickets, cleidocranial dysostosis, hypo-parathyroidism, Down’s syndrome, etc.”
I didn’t know what Inca Bones were either. Apparently they’re not super common except in South America, Latin America, or peruvian mummies.
Here are links to some info about Inca and Wormian Bones:
Inca Bones
Inca Bones
Wormian 1There’s a chart in this paper that makes it seem like the Lovelock Skull skull could have been “Iron Age Romano-British”
Wormian 2Chris422
Matt explains in his statement the podcast will continue. It won’t be him alone and Bear’s seat is open.
He’s doing the right thing by getting everything out in the open so everyone can just move on.
-D
Knobby,
I love listening to these lectures. They cover a range of factors (climatic, geographic, ecological, social, and cultural) trying to identify the process of becoming human. Along the way, they’re introducing different questions we could ask about sasquatch and possibly new things to look for. Like lice. If lice can be found in a nest — what would the DNA of that lice tell us?
How are their ribcages shaped? They have huge jaws, but do they have chins? What does it mean if they have canines? Do they have culture? Art? If they talk, what does that mean about their anatomy and brain development? Their children grow up and develop way faster than ours, what does that mean? Do they sweat? What does it mean that they eat raw meat instead of cooked meat?
CARTA: The Upright Ape
Bipedalism and Human Origins – Comparative Anatomy from Australopithecus to GorillasBehaviorally Modern Humans: The Origin of Us
One of the enduring questions of human origins is when, where and how we “Behaviorally Modern Humans” emergedHominids | Human Family Tree
Interesting info about historical — and prehistorical — hominins.Human Origins
360 Videos answering the question, Where did we come from and how did we get here?Ketchum says
• Sasquatch is a human relative
• Arose approximately 15,000 years ago
• The mitochondrial DNA is Homo sapiens (i.e., modern humans.)
• The Nuclear DNA is primate+unknown hominin
• NO Denisovan or Neanderthal markers in the DNAThat means:
Bigfoot ancestors mated with human women about 15,000 years ago, creating a half-human hybrid species.The human women they mated with had NO Denisovan or Neanderthal DNA
We know
• All of Ketchum’s DNA samples came from America.
• The only modern humans on the planet with no Denisovan or Neanderthal DNA are Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans.
• Humans were just crossing the land bridge between Asia and Alaska 13K-16K years ago.So what does that mean?
1. Ketchum’s test is wrong.
If bigfoot/human mating happened 15,000 years ago, it would have happened somewhere in Alaska between the Gulf of Alaska and the Beaufort Sea. There would have to be Neanderthal DNA markers in her results because of the human.or
2. Ketchum’s test is right.
15,000 years ago Bigfoot ancestors (unknown hominin/primate hybrids) mated with Subsaharan Africans in Africa. The offspring (bigfoot) made their way over to America sometime before Leif Erickson did and became a healthy breeding population without introducing any new human DNA to their gene pool.If this is right…
Bigfoot is an unknown hominin + primate + Subsaharan African—-
Unrelated, but Fun Facts:
Bigfoot have thick hair all over their bodies
Human ancestors lost their hair about 3 million years agoBigfoot don’t wear clothes
Clothes became very important to humans about 70,000 years agoBigfoot don’t make tools
Human ancestors were making tools by about 1.5 million years ago.Earlier this year, tests on ancient DNA revealed a population of Native Americans that historians had previously known nothing about.
Tantalisingly, breeding with Neanderthals and Denisovans may not be the end of our ancestors’ promiscuity. A quarter of the chunks of ancient DNA that Browning found in living humans didn’t match either Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA. So we may have also had children with other, unidentified hominins.
Ancient and Modern Europeans have surprising genetic connection — a third population — referred to by many as a “ghost population” because no one knew who they were. The new population was termed Ancient North Eurasian, or ANE.
This is something I did for fun. It helped me visualize an answer to the question, “How can there be different types of bigfoot?”
It’s obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: This chart is not meant to be — or seem — scientific.
Concept: There are gaps in the story of primate evolution. Those gaps could contain undiscovered intergeneric, and interspecific primate hybrids. The gaps could also contain uncatalogued families, genera, or species that each exhibit a novel combination of adaptations. Either scenario could result in something that resembles a type of bigfoot.
The Chart: The types of bigfoot most commonly described are at the bottom of the chart. As you move up the chart, you’re moving back in time.
These fictional lineages illustrate how the modern descriptions could have come into being. This is not based on physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology or any other natural science. It is inspired by two existing concepts:
1. HYBRIDS: Think: Coywolf, or Coydog, or Wolfdog
“Research suggests that hybridization sometimes ignites helpful evolutionary changes. An initial round of interbreeding — followed parent species — can result in animals with a far greater array of physical traits than observed in either original species. [Source: Bruce Bower Science News 2016]2. NOVEL ADAPTATIONS: Previously unobserved collections/combinations of morphology/physiology. Example: bipedalism and hooded noses in a genus of primate other than Homo.
