All  
Is Bigfoot Real? Emerging Scientific Evidence

Is Bigfoot Real? Emerging Scientific Evidence

Is Bigfoot real? A better question would be why has mainstream science failed to put the question to the test?

Science is duty bound by definition to explain the unexplained, yet in 2016 some people are still debating its existence rather than examining emerging scientific evidence. Some of this evidence has emerged from unexpected places.

Sighting from “Patterson–Gimlin film frame 352” by Patterson-Gimlin film. This is the familiar or popular face of Bigfoot.

Sighting from “Patterson–Gimlin film frame 352” by Patterson-Gimlin film. This is the familiar or popular face of Bigfoot. ( Wikipedia)

One of these places is Mount St. Helens in Washington State, U.S.A, where in 2013 and 2014 I along with one of my former college students located three different ungulate rib prey bone assemblages (elk and deer rib bones) that had seemingly inexplicable chewing marks left in them.

Mount S. Helens, Washington, USA.

Mount S. Helens, Washington, USA. (Pixabay.com/ PixMtSt.Helens)

We conducted a two year Zooarcheological field research project, which culminated March 26, 2016 at the 69th Annual Anthropological Research Conference, where I presented our conclusions to a room full of respected academic and governmental anthropologists and archeologists.

Tooth and Bite Marks

I presented data in the form of incisor, molar and pre-molar dental signature evidence that we were able to very carefully link with current scientific literature describing historical and contemporary hominin chewing evidence. This published, peer reviewed  literature described a diagnostic framework for accurately separating and identifying hominin mastication evidence recovered from both pre-archaic sites and comparative contemporary chewing studies upon ungulate rib bones.

Furthermore, we proposed the evaluation of a new category of incisal dentition signature termed a Notch, which consolidated the applicable literature and accurately described some of our field research evidence. 

The conference gave us a chance to demonstrate the links between the teeth mark evidence that we recovered in the field with current peer reviewed scientific research covering the same subject.  This current research provided a framework by which we could compare our tooth mark descriptions.  It also helps provide a very effective tool that enables scientists to re-examine other suspected human chewing evidence upon bones.

A new category of incisal dentition signature termed a Notch.

A new category of incisal dentition signature termed a Notch. (Photo courtesy writer)

All three locations contained the same evidence profiles of ungulate (deer and elk) rib evidence with clear and measurable evidence of hominin mastication activity. The dentition of other known local ecosystem specific predators and scavengers was compared against Homo sapiens dentition. Of the 25 total hominin incisor measurements taken from all three sites, 92% are outside the average lateral incisors size range for modern Homo sapiens . In this same sample 80% are outside the average measurement for central incisor. From this evidence, Upper Inter-Canine measurements can be accurately estimated.  All of the comparative analysis demonstrated hominin dentition physio-morphology of at least two times the size of modern humans. 

Fossil jaw of Neanderthal.

Fossil jaw of Neanderthal.
(Credit: P Sémal, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences)

The evidence was clear and consistent across all three locations.  The teeth marks and jaw shapes of bear, cougar, humans, porcupine, and wolverine along with every other potential species that might have been responsible was examined and eliminated or included. After identifying the teeth marks as “Hominin” we measured the geometry of the individual marks and were able to determine that they were primarily outside the upper size range for current humans. From these measurements we were able to estimate mouth size, which again was over double the size of a modern human.

Rib Peeling 

The Pre-Molar and Molar dentition signature evidence analysis is perhaps the strongest indication of hominin mastication evidence that emerged from the field research. The current peer reviewed scientific literature describes Rib Peeling as a clear hominin assigned bone surface modification diagnostic characteristic. The physical act of rib peeling entails putting a rib in a hominins mouth and using their hands as levers to move the rib in cooperation with using their pre-molars and molars to masticate the ends. This specific force application procedure has been evaluated over several peer reviewed studies both pre-archaic and contemporary as clearly diagnostic of hominin mastication activity. This process creates specific secondary dentition signatures in consistent hemispherical regions of masticated ungulate rib specimens. The pre-molar impressions were triangular in shape while the molar evidence is characterized by double arch shapes. The evidence recovered from all three sites demonstrated clear and consistent rib peeling evidence. 

Rib Peeling.

Rib Peeling. (Photo courtesy writer)

The physical act or process of Rib Peeling is very simple.  It consists of using your hands to put a rib in your mouth and using those same hands to move the end of the rib around as you chew on the opposite end.  This creates very specific damage and tooth marks in predictable locations on a rib.  It also creates secondary tooth marks in expected locations. This predictable combination of damage and individual teeth mark impression evidence is clearly supported in current scientific research and is an accurate tool that enables the separation of hominin verses predator chewing evidence in bones.

Bone Stacking and other Hominin Behavior

Behavioral evidence analyzed from each site supported the forensic evidence. A review of the applicable scientific literature also demonstrated that ungulate ribs were a central and connecting theme. We have proposed the addition of three behavioral manifestations or categories illuminated by the Neoichnological analysis of the supplementary data. All three are fundamentally connected to ungulate rib mastication evidence.

The first is called Bone Stacking and has a very long history in hominin evolution. In the case of our data, bone stacking was present at all three locations. We propose and the literature supports the assertion that hands are required to accomplish this behavior.

The second revolves around prey of choice. Ungulate ribs were statistically the most prevalent bone evidence preservation medium recorded in all of the literature examined. Contemporary chewing studies initiated to understand hominin mastication strategies have all produced ungulate rib evidence in alignment with pre-archaic studies. The overall prevalence of this type of bone evidence modification medium is a central theme throughout the literature and the field evidence recovered from Mount St. Helens.

The final behavioral expression that we illuminated centered upon the behaviors associated with Rib Peeling. Rib Peeling is a behavioral act that requires hands to accomplish. As previously described it requires putting a rib in a hominins mouth and using hands as levers to help apply additional forces during mastication activity. This association of hands and rib peeling is clearly supported in the literature and the analyzed field data. The central themes throughout that emerged were the statistically high incidence of ribs, the requirement of hands, and the assignment of associated dentition evidence coordinated with behavioral evidence as a reliable diagnostic framework for assessing potential hominin attributed mastication activity in bones. 

Bone stacker.

Bone stacker. (Photo courtesy writer)

Humans throughout time have behaved in certain predictable ways when selecting food and processing these foods. The accurate coordination of physical evidence with behavioral evidence is a well-developed field in criminal science. We were able to demonstrate a clear connection throughout our research with the physical evidence. This connection was clearly centered upon the use of hands, eating in a predictable manner, and selecting ungulate species as a primary food source.

The conclusions generated by a careful analysis of the applicable peer reviewed literature and a cross comparison of the field data enable the construction of a currently unclassified hominin profile. The dentition evidence demonstrates hominin incisor measurements primarily outside the possibility of Homo sapiens. Evidence based reconstruction of inter-canine distances demonstrate a measurement that is over two times the size of a modern human’s mouth. The statistically high presence of rib peeling and required associated supplementary regionally located evidence is perhaps the strongest indication of hominin dentition mastication evidence. The behavioral evidence mutually supported the forensic dentition evidence and is further confirmation of reliability across the applicable literature and field evidence profiles. When taken in totality both the Neoichnology and Taphonomy evidence is mutually supporting and grounded in applicable peer reviewed literature.

Conclusions image from Mills and Townsend 2016

Conclusions image from Mills and Townsend 2016

The data is mutually supporting and clearly illuminated in the current literature. The conclusions are accurate, well supported, repeatable, and construct physical and behavioral profiles of a currently unclassified hominin living (Bigfoot) at Mount St. Helens.

The evidence and analysis that I presented at the 69th Annual Anthropological Research Conference represented an opportunity for mainstream anthropologists and archeologists to examine part of the credible evidence that is slowly emerging. The Zooarcheological field research project that we conducted used the most current scientific theories and analytical techniques to illuminate data that clearly constructs a profile of a hominin with associated dentition physio-morphology and definable behavioral characteristics. Our conclusions are based upon clear and repeatable data grounded in and supported by contemporary peer reviewed science. They refer too, build upon and expand currently accepted mainstream scientific theory.

The anthropological research conference gave those in attendance the opportunity to hear our conclusions and review the evidence we based them upon.  They had a chance to analyze our process and framing theories. The audience’s reaction to our presentation was one of encouragement and astonishment. Attendees were very encouraged by our comprehensive efforts and broad based analysis.  They were astonished by the results.

Comprehensive Investigations Required

As we emerge full circle, once again we are faced with the central question of why mainstream science has failed to comprehensively examine the possible existence of what some people refer to as Bigfoot. Credible multi-disciplinary evidence continues to emerge from unlikely places yet in general it has failed to attract the professional scientific attention it deserves. By conducting this type of transparent research, writing a paper, and presenting it at a prestigious academic conference we hope to encourage deeper analysis of our own conclusions as well as inspire further scientific attention into the questions that surround the possibility of a giant, unclassified hominin living and thriving in the Pacific Northwest. Our research has provided a place to begin for those willing to take up the task and put credible evidence to the test. 

At the end of the day why are we still asking the same questions? We encourage the deep examination of our efforts as well as that of others in this emerging area of research. Science has an obligation by definition to explain the unexplained, whatever that may be. By presenting our conclusions at a prestigious anthropological research conference and authoring this article I hope to highlight a place where researchers can start.

Featured image: Deriv; Bigfoot (Flickr/ CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ) in natural habitat ( CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 ).

By Mitchel N. Townsend

References

Chu, S. J. (2007). Range and mean distribution frequency for individual tooth width of the maxillary anterior detention. Journal of Practical Procedures and Aesthetic Dentistry, 19, 209-215.

Lyman, R. L. (2009). What taphonomy is, what it isn’t, and why taphonomists should care about the difference. Retrieved from [Online] Available here.

Fernandez-Jalvo, Y., & Andrews, P. (2010, August 4). When humans chew bones. Journal of Human Evolution, 60, 117-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.08.003

Harvati, K., Darlas, A., Bailey, S., Rein, T. R., El Zaatari, S., Fiorenza, L., Psathi, E. (2012, February 1, 2013). New neaderthal remains from mani peninsula, southern greece: the kalamakia middle paleolithic cave site. Journal of Human Evolution, 1-14(14), 1-14. http://www.academia.edu/10788830/New_Middle_Palaeolithic_sites_from_the_Mani_peninsula_southern_Greece

Pickering, T. R., Dominges-Rodrigo, M., Heaton, J. L., Yraveda, J., Barba, R., Bunn, H. T., ... Brain, C. K. (2012, June 26). Taphonomy of ungulate ribs and the consumption of meat and bone by 1.2 million-year-old hominins at olduvai gorge, tanzania. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 1295-1309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.09.025

Saladie, P., Rodriguez-Hidalgo, A., Diez, C., Martinez-Rodriguez, P., & Carbonell, E. (2012, February 13). Range of bone modifications by human chewing. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(), 380-397. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440312003524

Townsend, M. N., & Mills, G. (2016, March). Using forensic biotic taphonomy dentition signature analysis and neoichnology profiling to determine the identity of the predator responsible for the deposition and mastication of three independent ungulate rib prey bone assemblages in the mount st. helen’s ecosystem of the cascade mountain range: a zooarcheology field application case study.  Paper presented at the 69th Annual Anthropological Research Conference, Tacoma, WA. Retrieved from https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=25bbcabf2de517ff&id=25BBCABF2DE517FF!123&authkey=!AE9vh_ZHn84PpUw

Viegas, J. (2012). Prehistoric people ate each other, bones show. Retrieved from http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/cannibalism-early-humans-bones-101213.htm

Comments

Here's your scientific proof naysayers. Physical evidence, outside of a body. There has been thousands of footprint evidence, but that was always brushed aside. More and more scientists are growing away from academia. The schools in America are the root for a lot of misinformation. Tenured professors don't provide any new information, techniques, or do they obtain any new training. Once tenured, they forget to learn.
Bigfoot, has been known for centuries to the Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific Northwet of America and Canada. The Yeti has been known to the Tibetan people as well for centuries.

I haven't read Brian Sykes' latest book, but, as far as i know he examined a dna sample from Northwest Coast Area. Guess what, that sample had similarities with a Neanderthal fossil from Uzbekistan.

My latter sentence should have been "that sample was similar to a Neanderhal fossil from Uzbekistan. Sorry about grammar mistake.

Hair samples and scat are among the evidence indicating a large hominid presence in remote areas of America and Asia, but to answer the question of why more serious attention hasn't been paid to the evidence, its just this; science is as jealous of it's dogmas as the Church and, as always resists any challenge to it.

Very True.That British guy wired a human jaw bone to a monkey scull and it stood for 80 years as an example of early man.Why? because "scientists"liked the location where it was found.In the meantime the guy who actually discovered the earliest origins of man died without ever getting credit.

Pages

Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Next article