I am going to post all the pictures I took at the meeting - in-focus, as well as fuzzy, but still viewable.

Photo #1 of 9-

Photo #2-

Photo #3-

Photo #4-

Photo #5-

Photo #6-

Photo #7

Photo #8-

Photo #9-

What bone is it??

It looks like a vertebra from.. ???

Thanks for the pics Tug.

What was said about it?

THANKS TUG!

The speaker claimed that he believes it is a Sasquatch bone.

He located it near "a burial mound" and thinks it is the bone that is located directly below the skull. He stated that the bone's shape would not allow for as much head movement that humans demonstrate.

After holding the bone, I was left with the feeling that it should have been much larger and definitely heavier. It hardly had any mass at all!

I will report back with more results as I find them.


The BoneWatcher!

These are photos of a piece of bone shown by speaker Rhettman Mullis, Jr. at Saturday night's International Bigfoot Society meeting.
Go here to read the original report on the meeting

If you read the original thread you'll see what the bone was (or more importantly, wasn't from).

Well, I’ve done a little work thus far on “the bone”…

Mullis stated that “the bone” was the one “that the skull sat on”. That would make it the “Atlas”.

Atlas – “The first or uppermost cervical vertebra, which supports the skull, being articulated above with the occipital bone.”

The atlas is the first of the seven cervical vertebrae, and is called such because it bears the direct weight of the skull, just as the mythical Greek hero Atlas bore the world on his shoulders. The atlas vertebra meets with the occipital condyles which flank the foramen magnum in the basilar part of the occipital bone of the skull. This junction forms the atlanto-occipital joint, and is responsible for the
primary articulation between the spine and the skull. It is the only vertebra in the spine which has no vertebral body. The atlas vertebra, in turn rests upon the axis vertebra, which is the second of the cervical vertebra in the spine, with the articulation between these two vertebra occurring at lateral articular surfaces and an unique juncture between a concave facet (on the atlas) and an
upward-protruding structure on the axis called a dens.

When comparing the photo below (a human atlas) to the photo of “the bone”, I am left with many questions… are you?!?

The BoneWatcher

From Grays:

As Mrs. Tug (BTW, Kathy, she laughed at the name) pointed out to me on the way home, the bone appeared to have been "sawed" off. This can be seen in photo #9, and to a greater extent in photo #5 (inspite of the poor phorography.)

What he showed WAS NOT an atlas...

...but

#1 - A small mammalian skull that has been sawed

or

#2 - A vertebrate of a large animal (cow, elk, whale, dolphin, etc.)


Using my otherwise useless $100,000 degree.


Just My .02,
The BoneWatcher

You don't need a degree, it's #1.



From the other post

It's probably the back of a deer skull.

I'm sitting here holding one comparing, and it's looking very deer-like.

I'll try and take a digital pic later tonight and post it.

Um......Stacy and I busted this one out in about 30 seconds...see the thread referenced by orygun.
It's a small animal skull, likely deer,..nothing more.
All the pics here just re-affirm that fact(and yes...in this case, I will use the term fact).
Below is the image I posted in the other thread...

I just got done taking a forensic anthropology class last semester. I can do a proper report (in fact I would appreciate the practice). Not sure if it's a deer. The condyles (the two smooth pieces of bone at the back of the skull are all wrong). It is the base of the skull of something in the deer family, but as has already been said that is in no way shape or form even remotely primate.

My guess at this point would be immature female elk. The skull sutures (where the bones join together) haven't fully closed yet.

The one thing that has surprised me after reading this thread as well as the other one concerning this piece of bone is this; several people have commented on the fact that the bone was cut but no one has ventured the why of that (personally I thought Nightwing would have already said something about it, that's why I just read all of both threads ). I think the picture below will answer that question all on it's own. If I'd found that piece of skull in the woods I'd have glanced it over, seen the cut portion and then pitched it because I would have been about 99.99% sure of what it was and what had happened. Three biologists examined it and couldn't identify it??? C'mon! :rolleyes:

Exactly... I find that VERY hard to believe. Not that they couldn't identify it, but that any biologists ever examined it in the first place.... a real biologist would know what it is in a second.

Fish, it was so obvious to me I never thougth to mention it!
I still don't understand how(and like stacy...I am questioning if...)3 biologists looked at this and didn't ID it in about 2 seconds...

I'd imagine that most hunters who have cut the antlers off a spike would think the same way, NW. It's just too obvious.