Summations Only

OK, I guess there really are no skeptics in this forum. They see the picture of a whale with legs, the are told they are legs, and their confirmation bias forces them to believe that they are legs without question.Well if you check out a few things, you just may discover something different.

quote:

---

I enclose herewith three photographs showing the unusual development of the pelvic Rudiments in a whale captured at the Kyuquot Station last July, of which you have the bones. It is to be regretted that better pictures in evidence of this unprecedented development were not obtained.

---

Notice how the whaling bosses are quite familiar with the term "pelvic rudiments". And isn't it a shame that the pictures aren't very good! Especially since this is such an "unprecedented development". Only one picture is even "good enough" to include in the paper. Sounds fishy already to me!

quote:

---

I have been connected with the Whaling Industry for 22 years and during my time have come in contact with prominent Naturalists such as Professor True of the Smithsonian Institute, Professor Lucas of the Natural History Museum, Brooklyn,1 and Professor Andrews of the Natural History Museum, New York, and neither in their experience or mine have the protrusion of the pelvic bones beyond the body ever been seen or heard of.

---

Now isn't that interesting? The whaling boss is hobnobbing around with major Naturalists of his time era. And one of them just so happens to be the author of this paper. I guess this is how he is so familiar with these "rudiments" and he has his whalers on the lookout for anything unusual. There he goes calling these protrusions "legs". Yes, of course he is trained to make that assessment????? Now we have two important facts here presented. It's a female humpback of average length. That means about it's about 42 feet long (this will be important later). And the legs protrude about "4 feet 2 inches" "from the body".

quote:

---

As shown in the best photograph these legs protruded on either side of the genital opening; the left leg was cut off by the crew of the vessel and lost, and the point at which it was cut off is clearly shown in the photograph. The end of the leg seen in the picture terminated in a kind of round knob like a man's clenched fist.

---

The left leg is gone?! What a shame! Especially for such an "unprecedented development".

quote:

---

The two bones of the leg which you have are connected by cartilage which I was informed had shrunk about 10 inches, and possibly more by this time. At any rate the total length of the leg before it was cleaned of the blubber and flesh was, as before stated, about 4 feet, 2 inches, from the body.

---

Ok. There he goes again with the "4 feet, 2 inches, from the body". The whaling boss is trying to establish the original in situ length as compared to their shrunken status as they are shipped to the museum. That's fair enough.______________________________________________________________So Let's do a little forensics on this photo. I gave everyone some time for something that I noticed right off the bat, simply because the story sounds "fishy". Are the "legs" really 50" long outside the body in situ in the photo?Well we have a fine looking whaler standing beside the whale which provides us a scale factor. He looks pretty average height which is 70" or so. Usually a man this height has an inseam about 30" or so. So I made a 30" scale and compared it to the "leg" and the "leg" was much shorter! Oh my!?!? By my estimation it was 16-18" long.So I sent the picture to one of my CG Nuke experts to see if he could adjust for parallax and get a measurement. Here is is the image he sent back... Now, the deck boards and structures provide the perfect alignment for the parallax grid as shown. He used 6' or 72" for the man's height to obtain a scale measurement of the "leg". As you can see the in situ "leg" is only 24" outside the body. At most the leg is 1/3rd the man's height however tall he is. That means for this "leg" to be 50" long, the this man is 150" tall (12.5 feet).Now I know that evos like to whale (pun intended) on creos about giants, but this is proof that men were giants! Or maybe it is proof that this whole whale of a tale is fraudulent. It could be the whalers hoaxing their biased bosses, or it could be the bosses looking for some fame. The irrefutable evidence is that the most important facts of this find are falsified! The in situ "legs" in this picture aren't even half as long as they need to be!So, what are those bones and cartilage then that was presented to the museum and Andrews? Normally I would leave you till tomorrow, but Percy is fussing at me.I make no specific claim here, because I cannot examine them. However, based on the information in Andrews examination, I would hypothesize that they are phalanges from the front flippers of this lady. Her flippers are probably 14-15 ft long. The longest in all cetaceans. The phalange portion alone would be about 6 foot long. The phalange bones are the exact shape of the bones in the pictures provided, the cartilage matches, and the sizes of the ossified bones are pretty close.Who knows for sure? But what I do know for sure is that this whale of a tale is false!

Not to you of course!

Evidence please? Please show me a picture of any "typical mamalian femur" that looks anything like any of the f-bones that Struthers has provided images of. There's a saying somewhere about a pot calling the kettle black?? In the way that your red herring is in any way comparable to changing the attachment end on a p-bone of a cetacean. I won't respond to this intentional red herring again. There is no valid comparison. Yet amazingly, 100% have concluded that the posterior end of the p-bone is the ischium, because of the fact of the attachment of the corpus carvernosum. And none of them hypothesize that the posterior end is the ilium. Why is that? Nope, its, because they cannot reconcile the transition from semi-terrestrials to Basilosaurus to modern cetaceans. It has nothing to do with your claims. You will see this later if you read all of the papers I will be discussing. Yes, but Struthers knew nothing of Basilosaurus' p-bone.. As do all the current hypotheses, yet they misrepresent the bones. I will get to these later, that's why Struthers anatomy is so important!Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added "p-bone" to Basilosaurus

Yes, I paid for his schooling. He is my son who is a compositing supervisor in New York City. Percy can verify this behind the scenes if you like. He is my Jr. Percy can google his name and verify that he is at a high level in his field. Please keep this private.

The brightness of the "leg" has nothing to do with lighting. They covered whatever is was with white blubber. It is contrasted with the dark side of the whale. Most likely this blubber came from the flipper also where itis relative thin and bright white.While your at it, research Roy Chapman Andrews. He has quite a reputation and was quite a marketing schemer in the fundraising for research and museums.

I can only guess. Being that I think it was a hoax, I think they tried to do both legs and one broke of or something. Most likely causing the buldge.

Read again. Four times this claim is made in this paper. Each time it is stated "protruding from the body about 4 feet 2 inches". It is rare such a fact gets repeated so often in such a short expose'.

The claim of the paper is it is covered with blubber. Look at pictures of humpbacks. There are only two colors of blubber and they are sharply contrasted . One is blackish, the other is almost white. Sure they have some variation, but normally these colors are sharply contrasted.

Exactly! And my claim is....There is no scientific evidence of terrestrial hind leg atavism in cetacea.The picture is not scientifically sound with the verbal testimony, and the bones are not scientifically sound with the inference of legs.You confirm my argument that this paper does not have scientifically accurate and verifiable data at any level, The inference of "legs by Andrews is nothing more than pure speculation and is easily questioned and the most detailed facts of the tale cannot be substantiated from the evidence before us.So this paper provides no scientific evidence for atavism. The tale is anecdotal, and the scientific inspection of the legs is sophomoric at best by Andrews. None of this would publish in any of today's journals! (well maybe I will retract that and say none of this would meet the normal standards of publication in today's journals).Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

OK, I had a long discussion with my son, so let me see if I can explain this. Compositors do this type of work every day. They take things out of scenes and put things into scenes. Often things are shot on green screen, and then a scene behind them is matched together. Parallax (camera angle) and shadows are all manipulated so that the components of the final images match for our eyes.The image of the whale with "legs" is two dimensional and pixilated. Our eyes see things relative to three dimensions. So our eyes/brains interpret the picture from multiple elements in the picture including all the parallel lines and perpendicular lines which help us convert a two dimensional image into a three dimensional image within our minds.Nuke is a software tool for compositors that takes this knowledge and basically does what our brains does to two dimensional images and creates a three dimensional framework of relationships within elements in a two dimensional image.The grid on the deck creates a two dimensional relationship for the camera angle/parallax. The man provides the third dimension, because of his height.My son doesn't draw any box around the "leg". What he does is draw the box around the man. He used 24" wide and 24"deep (but these dimensions don't matter much, because he is not using them to scale. Once the box around the man is established, that creates a 3-D relationship within Nuke.He then picks the box on the man and the drags it to the "leg" like in Photoshop, and the software looks at all the math and relationships and draws the box automatically on the "leg"in three dimensiosns. All he does is force the "height of the man axis" to be the "length of the "leg"" axis, because this is our scale.The box around the "leg" has a three dimensional relationship to the "leg" that has nothing to do with it appearing to be parallel to the whale, or the parallax grid. Within the software it is just floating in space.Now, if you are honest, when you look at the whale, the "leg" appears parallel in our brains also. That's probably because it is, based on parallax. He also said, for the leg to appear shorter, yet be longer, the angle would have to point more towards the camera angle. Which if you look at the picture, the camera is left of the man and that angle would be much greater than 90 degrees rotated out of the side of the whale.Remember, when I measured, I measured shorter. That's the literal appearance. When my son measured, he measure longer, because that's what it is. Also, in your mind imagine the "leg" pointing out 90 degrees from the whale and visualize the 24" depth box on the man. In your mind, slide that box down to the "leg", and you will recognize that the"leg" is no more than 24" long.Pretty neat Huh?

When is this going to stop with you Percy. Yes, I did! No, this paper doesn't discuss atavism, but it is extremely important to understand this anatomy, before I present the papers that do discuss atavism.My words are quite clear above.Now, I have sent you the Japanese papers that I know you can't wait to defend. Have you posted them somewhere? If not, I will proceed with my cut and pastes.

Percy this is beyond ridiculous. Now you are inserting words as if they are mine when they are not. Your mind, must be reading in a lot about what I don't say. That's not what "yes, I did" refers to. Back up and read my post again. I'm not going to requote to refute your poor comprehension.I never once claimed that the Struthers paper had anything to do with atavisms. What I claimed is that the data within is foundational to understanding whale anatomy and that provides a foundation from which to refute atavism in future papers. Now what about that can you not understand? Yes, you were arguing that the bones were homologous to the hind limbs. Now reread Message 171 which was my response to you. Read it slow. My reference back to atavism is an explicit reference back to my main claim in Message 132. What I am saying is I can accept homology of these bones, and still make my argument against atavism. Do you understand now.Homology is irrelevant to my argument about atavism. I can agree with homology or disagree with homology, and it doesn't change my Message 132 argument against atavism. Now do you understand?That's why I am using Struthers paper. I will use facts that have nothing to do with homology to refute the papers that claim atavism. Note. I do not say anything about the homology of these bones in my refutation of Andrews claims. There is other evidence that refutes it.So at this point, your comments about the homology of these bones don't matter to me.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Something more than "perhaps" will be nice. I have answered this accusation more than once from you, and you have provided nothing but "perhaps".

• Perhaps you could provide evidence that a representation of these bones wasn't made, when the museum clearly advertises these bones.
• Perhaps you could present evidence that the representation that the museum made was true, while I have presented evidence that it is completely false.
• Perhaps you could present evidence that the museum and university of Aberdeen are unaware of what is in Struthers paper, while I have presented evidence that they have Struthers paper, because they quoted from it.

Every single element of the definition of fraudulent misrepresentation is there. Perhaps you could provide evidence that the definition is faulty. Instead, you demean my evidentiary arguments while you present nothing but demagoguery. I have agreed to this multiple times now. I am not arguing the homology of these bones now. So your point is????????????????????????????????????????? Yet this is the evidence that evos claim as evidence of atavism. Thank you for making my claim that there is no Scientific evidence of atavism in this paper from Andrews it is nothing more than "meaningless speculation". You are obviously incorrectly speculating. I assume you read the Japanese papers already (that I sent you to post)and have found them lacking. Actually, none of these are frauds, but other evidence will speak against atavism. Now will you kindly post them for others to read. I will be starting with Ogawa soon.

That's not the nutshell I intended. My son is working on another way to show that these "legs" are not even 1/2 the length stated multiple times in this paper. I will post this as soon as I get it.In the meantime, don't you think if the leg was coming out at 90 degrees from the body that you could see shadowing from the end of the "leg"?. It is a cylindrical element.

Well if you notice, Andrews forces 15" of the cartilage femur back inside the whale, because he recognizes the story doesn't add up. Andrews states four times that the 50" is outside the body of the whale. Also 30" of the 50" is cartilage. At death, the cartilage goes limp, especially with no muscles or tendons attached. If this were a single leg hanging out from the sheer weight alone it would fall with gravity, before rigor mortis set in. This leg is holding against gravity with the whale on its back / side this doesn't seem reasonable as well.I don't think Andrews is hoaxing anyone here. personally, I think it is the whalers hoaxing both Andrews and the bosses. They were known to pull a stunt on Andrews during his expeditions.