Mutation: Bigfoot

So when we had all those discussions on how Big Foot could see in the dark and other things.
Skeptics were going on about how it is unlikely to happen.
Taken from the Front Page of the Evidence Blog

An intriguing, but very rare result, of natural mutations is that sometimes an animal can have features that prehistoric relatives had. This is known as an atavistic trait. Example of this include the dolphin found with four flippers, the chicken embryos with archosaur like teeth, and the breed of dogs that are being bred to look like Dire Wolves.

So it is possible that since Evolution says all Life split from the same initial life that it is Possible that thru Mutations Big foot could have the ability to see in the dark and have EYE SHINE. It would be a Mutation that has stuck to them, and became a species trait.

I don't think it's a matter of evolution, but the old fashioned "If you don't use it you lose it." All of our cousins (Except Homo-Sapiens, which now evidence supports being different from sapiens-sapiens) had those huge eye sockets. Becoming diurnal probably shut off a lot of genes we used to have and we probably began evolving differently from that point.

Sasquatch probably never lost any traits because it seems to be living the same way our ancient cousins lived. When you think about it.. If you buy into evolution, Homo-sapiens-sapiens are not evolving, we are devolving. If some global disaster were to happen such as a nuclear war, or Solar-flare that were to destroy the power-grid all over the world frying everything electrical simultaneously, our population would dwindle and their population would quadruple.

People rely on modern tech too much. A similar event did happen once back in 1880. A huge X-class flare hit earth and fried telegraph wires. But except for telegraph operators, no one knew a thing about it and it did not effect their way of life. If that were to happen now, the whole world would be in anarchy, people would starve, mobs, riots and nations would fall. The vast majority of the world know nothing of farming, nor hunting or even how to slaughter an animal. Even if they came across a wondering cow, would they know how to kill it? If they kill it, do they know how to skin it, or where what part of the cow gives what cut of meat?

Lots of us hunt and fish. But that is a very small percentage when compared to the worlds consumers. Humans would crash.. But For Sasquatch, Good times! They never devolved because they do not rely on technology to live.

TZ
I agree with that.
Its amazing even in my line of work how much we are dependent on Tech and the Internet.
When 9/11 hit we were in a total black out communication wise.
Or when the East coast had that black out.
Even as simple as being out of power for a week during one of the october Winter storms.
You really realize we rely way to much on Cellphones and Computers.

CMcMillan wrote:So when we had all those discussions on how Big Foot could see in the dark and other things.
Skeptics were going on about how it is unlikely to happen.
Taken from the Front Page of the Evidence Blog

An intriguing, but very rare result, of natural mutations is that sometimes an animal can have features that prehistoric relatives had. This is known as an atavistic trait. Example of this include the dolphin found with four flippers, the chicken embryos with archosaur like teeth, and the breed of dogs that are being bred to look like Dire Wolves.

So it is possible that since Evolution says all Life split from the same initial life that it is Possible that thru Mutations Big foot could have the ability to see in the dark and have EYE SHINE. It would be a Mutation that has stuck to them, and became a species trait.

Most primate species don't feature tapetum lucidum (the reflective layer of tissue behind the retina which creates eyeshine) except certain species from the suborder Strepsirrhini such as lemurs and lorises. The exact phylogeny of the Strepsirrhini is still under debate but it's pretty clear that they diverged from the suborder Haplorhini (which includes monkeys, apes and homo species) about 63 million years ago. It's unclear exactly when eyeshine developed as a phenotypical trait amongst primates and it's certainly possible that it happened before the Strepsirrhini's divergence and that it was shared by the Haplorhini suborder's ancestors and that the tapetum lucidum gene sequence is hidden deep in the evolutionary history of modern apes.
If Bigfoots were to develop eyeshine as an atavistic trait it would have to be one heck of a throwback. The only way to know for sure would be to get hold of a Bigfoot specimen and examine the structure of their retinas and until that happens we can only speculate.

wouldn't be a throwback if they never changed. Evidence suggests that all of Genus Homo with the exception of Homo-Sapiens were nocturnal. All of them had huge eye-orbits. No modern great-ape is nocturnal. We have nothing to make a comparison of.

Tzieth wrote:wouldn't be a throwback if they never changed. Evidence suggests that all of Genus Homo with the exception of Homo-Sapiens were nocturnal. All of them had huge eye-orbits. No modern great-ape is nocturnal. We have nothing to make a comparison of.

Their eye sockets weren't that big and their brow ridges make them seem larger than they are. If you plonk an Australopithecus afarensis or an Homo neanderthalensis skull down on a table next to a Homo sapiens you'll see that their eyeballs would have been very similar in size. If you compare them to a chimpanzee skull they're even closer and chimps are definitely diurnal. I've searched all over the place and I couldn't find a single palaeoanthropologist who thought that any of the hominids were nocturnal. Which source were you using?

This site has a bunch of hominin skulls shown together:
http://sta.uwi.edu/fst/lifesciences/ArchaeologicalSpecimens.asp

Squatchmaster G wrote:

Tzieth wrote:wouldn't be a throwback if they never changed. Evidence suggests that all of Genus Homo with the exception of Homo-Sapiens were nocturnal. All of them had huge eye-orbits. No modern great-ape is nocturnal. We have nothing to make a comparison of.

Their eye sockets weren't that big and their brow ridges make them seem larger than they are. If you plonk an Australopithecus afarensis or an Homo neanderthalensis skull down on a table next to a Homo sapiens you'll see that their eyeballs would have been very similar in size. If you compare them to a chimpanzee skull they're even closer and chimps are definitely diurnal. I've searched all over the place and I couldn't find a single palaeoanthropologist who thought that any of the hominids were nocturnal. Which source were you using?

This site has a bunch of hominin skulls shown together:
http://sta.uwi.edu/fst/lifesciences/ArchaeologicalSpecimens.asp

Don't try to pull that crap, I have seen it compared. The orbits are way larger in comparison to their own face.

There are all kinds of throwback genes still present. I myself have an extra spinal vertebrae. It supposedly comes from Neanderthal days. I also reflect any camera flash especially in low light. Does not matter where I am looking. If a camera flashes, my eyes reflect it. My avatar shows one such picture. I do not reflect flashlight or constant light sources at night that I know of. But have been told several times my eyes glow in certain light levels and if I get angry, they show red. A coworker told me that after being punch by a patient my eyes turned red as I grabbed the patient and restrained him. I just recently was told that the reason the patient wet himself some as I restrained him, was he saw my eyes glow red and it scared him so bad his bladder leaked. Is it true? Not sure. Never seen my eyes glow red but several say it happens. From my wife, to siblings, to friends and coworkers. I do know they reflect camera light. And that is due to my pupils being 1.5-2mm larger than normal.

So is that part of my throwback along with the extra vertebrae?

Again,
All we here is Absolutes from Skeptics.
IE NO MODERN APE has tapetum lucidum.

But if People can say a Bear has some throw back mutation.
It is possible and Probable Big foots have tapetum lucidum.

Tzieth wrote:Don't try to pull that crap, I have seen it compared. The orbits are way larger in comparison to their own face.

The Discovery Channel documentary at the end of that video was pretty good. It was a little dated but it's over 10 years old so that's to be expected. It also showed Neanderthals as completely diurnal creatures who needed fire to see at night.

The 20 minute H.sapiens/cro-magnon/neanderthal skull comparison at the start of the video was awful. The poor guy was trying really hard but he was completely basing his observations off some cheap reproductions and that was throwing him way off in a few cases. He thought that neanderthal's lower incisors were turned around 90 degrees compared to human incisors which is just bafflingly ridiculous. His cheap copy of the La Ferrassie 1 Neanderthal skull was obviously bought from one of those reproduction skull websites like this which are usually sculpted using photographs for reference and they always come with a warning that "They are not intended for advanced graduate work nor to be measured for research purposes." In the case of the incisors in his copy the jawbone is worn down so the roots were exposed and the caps were poorly sculpted which made them they looked bigger and turned around. Just awful. His human skull was particularly badly made and I was cringing when he was making a big deal about the 'missing' lambdoid and sagittal sutures which were only missing from his cast and are present in actual skulls.
In the case of the eye sockets the left eye socket of the La Ferrassie 1 skull is partially degraded and there's a big chunk of the nasal bone missing which makes the eye socket look much larger. The other socket was more intact and only slightly larger than the socket in the human skull. Neanderthals also have bigger skulls than humans so the orbit:skull ration is pretty much the same as in humans. I hope this video wasn't your only evidence because it was embarrassingly terrible.

In any case the size of the orbit in comparison to the rest of the skull isn't an absolute indicator of nocturnalism. As I said earlier, a chimpanzee or a baboon's skull will have an even larger orbit:skull ratio and they're definitely diurnal species. There's also any number of nocturnal animals that have relatively small eyes.

CMcMillan wrote:Again,
All we here is Absolutes from Skeptics.
IE NO MODERN APE has tapetum lucidum.

But if People can say a Bear has some throw back mutation.
It is possible and Probable Big foots have tapetum lucidum.

Whoa, calm your jets CM. I agreed that there's a slim chance that Bigfoots might have tapetum lucidum and those skeptics should have said "no known modern ape" instead of "no modern ape". If you find anyone speaking in absolutes point me in their direction and I'll slap them around a little.

Big Jim Jr wrote:There are all kinds of throwback genes still present. I myself have an extra spinal vertebrae. It supposedly comes from Neanderthal days. I also reflect any camera flash especially in low light. Does not matter where I am looking. If a camera flashes, my eyes reflect it. My avatar shows one such picture. I do not reflect flashlight or constant light sources at night that I know of.

Yep, humans get red eye effect from camera flashes. The light is so strong it bounces off the fundus at the back of the eyeball (and often blinds us for a few seconds) as opposed to tapetum lucidum which reflects off a layer just behind the retina and actually improves night vision.

Big Jim Jr wrote: But have been told several times my eyes glow in certain light levels and if I get angry, they show red. A coworker told me that after being punch by a patient my eyes turned red as I grabbed the patient and restrained him. I just recently was told that the reason the patient wet himself some as I restrained him, was he saw my eyes glow red and it scared him so bad his bladder leaked. Is it true? Not sure. Never seen my eyes glow red but several say it happens. From my wife, to siblings, to friends and coworkers. I do know they reflect camera light. And that is due to my pupils being 1.5-2mm larger than normal.

So is that part of my throwback along with the extra vertebrae?

My brother's sclera turn bright red when he gets super angry, it's goddamned freaky. I haven't looked into the causes of that but I'm guessing his blood pressure shoots through the roof and the vessels in the conjunctiva and the episclera on the outside of the sclera get overloaded. I've also heard of people's irises changing colour depending on their moods but I haven't looked into that either.
As for your eyes actually glowing - I'd need to see that for myself but in the meantime I'm going to assume you're part Sasquatch.

My eye shine reflection is more white or an orange shade in camera flash. I very rarely see any red eye like most people's eyes. We got to talking about it on the BFRO forum at the end of 2011 and I saw the eye doc last January after my Primary Care doc asked if I was an alien. He sounded like he was joking, but he had goosebumps on his arms. Eye doc is one who said my pupils are huge and that the reflection is due to exactly what you said. More light gets in, more light reflects and washes out the red I guess. Kinda crazy. But it is cool as you can tell where I am looking even by the reflection.

Squatchmaster G wrote:He thought that neanderthal's lower incisors were turned around 90 degrees compared to human incisors which is just bafflingly ridiculous.

hmm.. well two things here. First off, I check everything and you are right.. That skull was a copy of another skull that was put together wrong. However about the teeth? that Skull is an exact replica and the teeth are accurate.

"La Ferrassie 1

La Ferrassie 1 is a fossilized skull of a male homoneanderthalensis. It was discovered in La Ferrassie, France by R. Capitan in 1909. It is estimated to be about 70,000 years old. (Image at right, from the Smithsonian.1 Its characteristics include a large occipital bun, low-vaulted cranium, a large nasal opening, and heavily worn teeth. AAn asymmetry in the wear across the incisors was noticed during its study. Instead of wearing flat, the biting surface is beveled toward the front. Some have hypothesized that this is the result of habitually holding something in his mouth.
The La Ferrassie site has yielded skeletons from eight individuals, including adults, children, infants, and two fetuses."

La Ferrassie 1 is the standard Neanderthal skull that is used in replicas but it was pieced together long before more complete specimens were found. And as you will see, The more unmanipulated the skulls are, the less human and bigger the eye-orbits they get...(No completely intact Neanderthal skulls were ever found.) By the way, no I was not basing anything off that vid.. it was the only example I could find. This was first shown to me at a museum while on a field trip in the fifth grade.

But as you will notice.. Look at all the skulls that had to have the facial part of the skull rebuilt.. look how Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens they look compared to the skulls with an intact face. Then look at the eye orbits on those... http://www.oldearth.org/neanderthal/neanderthal_fossils.htm

By the way, that big chunk of missing around the nasal caveity? It makes the eyes look smaller, not bigger.

Tzieth wrote:However about the teeth? that Skull is an exact replica and the teeth are accurate.

No they're not, they're terribly sculpted. Go look at an actual closeup photo of La Ferrassie 1's mandible.
In any case that guy in the video you posted earlier said some really silly things about the teeth that were completely wrong. He said a lot of dumb things and none of his conclusions are trustworthy. The video is worthless junk.

Tzieth wrote:But as you will notice.. Look at all the skulls that had to have the facial part of the skull rebuilt.. look how Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens they look compared to the skulls with an intact face. Then look at the eye orbits on those... http://www.oldearth.org/neanderthal/neanderthal_fossils.htm

I honestly can't see any appreciable differences and those photos are too small to be useful anyway. Even if there WAS a difference you haven't shown why that would be significant.

Tzieth wrote:By the way, that big chunk of missing around the nasal caveity? It makes the eyes look smaller, not bigger.

That doesn't make any sense.

Tzieth wrote:By the way, no I was not basing anything off that vid.. it was the only example I could find.

So your argument is totally baseless?

None of what you've posted is particularly interesting or compelling or even relevant to the original discussion and I'm still waiting for you to present any evidence that prehistoric hominids weren't diurnal. If you want to argue that Bigfoot eyeshine isn't an extremely unlikely atavistic throwback you'll need to bring something else to the table.

Too small? Are you looking at these on a smart phone?... They are not too small to notice that the eye sockets take up damn near the whole face.. Look at Homo Erectus and they get even bigger.

Actually.. Where are you getting your information.. Everything I have found as to eye-orbits of Neanderthals puts emphasis on the fact their orbits are considerably larger than Modern Humans. I seriously doubt you have access to a real Neanderthal skull your self.

I have even went to an Anthropology forum and their are arguing as to why the orbits are larger.. No mention of them "Not being"

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4513513/1/

Tzieth wrote:Too small? Are you looking at these on a smart phone?... They are not too small to notice that the eye sockets take up damn near the whole face.. Look at Homo Erectus and they get even bigger.

Fine, let's do it your way. I downloaded all those photos from the site you linked to and took measurements of the height and width of one eye socket in relation to the total height and width of the craniums (from the top of the skull to the bottom of the teeth) to see what percentage of the cranium they actually covered:





Next I picked a random photo of a modern human skull and did the same measurements:


So the results are that one Neanderthal's eye orbits are slightly larger than a modern humans, one is slightly smaller and the other two are approximately the same. The averaged measurements for the Homo neanderthalensis eyes sockets compared to the measurements for their entire craniums comes out at 24.14% for the height and 30.66% of the width, so on average they were 00.86% shorter and 00.81% wider than a modern human's orbits which means that on average their eyes actually took up slightly less space on their skulls. I guess your maths skills are as bad as your comprehension and study skills. Feel free to measure and calculate the differences yourself and double check my results, by the way.

Tzieth wrote:Actually.. Where are you getting your information.. Everything I have found as to eye-orbits of Neanderthals puts emphasis on the fact their orbits are considerably larger than Modern Humans. I seriously doubt you have access to a real Neanderthal skull your self.

I have even went to an Anthropology forum and their are arguing as to why the orbits are larger.. No mention of them "Not being"

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4513513/1/

To start with, I don't count forum posts and amateur youtube videos as reliable sources so you still haven't brought anything worthwhile to the discussion.
Secondly, did you actually read that thread you posted? The person who posted the article about Neanderthals possibly being nocturnal described it as being "batshit insane" and the second person called it "pseudo science". And even the paper making wild claims about Neanderthals being nocturnal doesn't go as far as to claim they had tapetum lucidum.
Thirdly, if those forums posters were claiming that Neanderthals had bigger eye sockets then they obviously haven't bothered measuring then.

The entire point of this discussion was whether Bigfoots or their hominid ancestors could have eye shine and so far you've brought up all manner of dodgy arguments, unreliable websites and photos which actually invalidated your arguments when assessed competently in your attempts to wriggle out of the question.

CMcMillan wrote:http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

http://www.themandus.org/them.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/neanderthals.html

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/cro_magnon_Homo_sapien.htm

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-floresiensis

Thanks for doing the legwork, CM, and bringing a bunch of different interpretations to Neanderthal history to the discussion.

I hadn't come across the Vendramini 'NP theory' or the Real History World Wide site. They sure are ... something else.

I've downloaded the free chapters from the Vendramini book, I'll give them a read through later.

That is basically All i wanted to do.
I wanted to show that even in the scientific community they are having Opposing ideas on what the bones and all really show.

Problem is we just don't know We are putting stuff together and it may be completely wrong.
We are assuming that some kinda of evolution took place. But for me when you look at the images of what they say each evolution step was.
Some of them just don't make sense to me. Just don't look right Jumping from an obvious looking APE to more human then back to a more ape looking one. Just is all to strange.

ARE YOU FRIGGEN SERIOUS??? Jesus dude just admit you are wrong!!! You took measurements of Pictures that you blew up to look the same size??? Some of these had teeth and jaws, others did not. There is no telling their age so what exactly did you base your measurements on? You did Height and width of the actual Orbits? lol This does not tell percentage of the face. Blowing things up and shrinking them is your answer? ROFLMAO I could do the exact same thing with an aerial shot of Mt. St.Helens and come up with the same measurements on the creator if I shrunk it down enough. How come most of your Neanderthals are blown-up smaller than the human?

Also don't get me wrong.
I am very much on the side with TZ about the Inconsistency in what we are saying is factual evolution is

CMcMillan wrote:I wanted to show that even in the scientific community they are having Opposing ideas on what the bones and all really show.

I wouldn't call Vendramini or the Real History World Wide site legitimate members of the scientific community, they're more amateur enthusiasts. You'll note that Vendramini mentions that he submitted his paper to the Current Anthropology journal but there's no mention of them accepting it. He does have one published article in a journal but their submission criteria are amazingly weak so it looks like the only way he can get published is to do an end run around the peer review process and send it to a journal which will pretty much print any old thing as long as it's formatted correctly.
I haven't looked into the Real History World Wide site too deeply but from what I've seen it's pretty bad.

Tzieth wrote:ARE YOU FRIGGEN SERIOUS??? Jesus dude just admit you are wrong!!! You took measurements of Pictures that you blew up to look the same size??? Some of these had teeth and jaws, others did not. There is no telling their age so what exactly did you base your measurements on? You did Height and width of the actual Orbits? lol This does not tell percentage of the face. Blowing things up and shrinking them is your answer? ROFLMAO I could do the exact same thing with an aerial shot of Mt. St.Helens and come up with the same measurements on the creator if I shrunk it down enough. How come most of your Neanderthals are blown-up smaller than the human?

Some of the photos were too small for me to add text and the ratios will be exactly the same regardless of how big the photo is. If an orbit takes up 30% of the width of a skull it'll still take up 30% even if you increase the photo 500 times. I didn't alter the aspect ratio of any of the skulls. This is really, really basic maths. Like, pre-school maths. Do do realise that zooming in on an image won't make any parts of it suddenly change size in comparison to others, right? Try this experiment: pick up an object and move it closer to and then away from your face. See how it looks bigger when it's closer, but it's the same object the whole time? Changing the size of a .jpg works the same way.
Since some of the skulls had jaws and others didn't I measured from the top of the cranium to the tips of the top teeth and I didn't include lower jaws in any the measurements. I explained this in the post.
If you disagree with any of my maths you're free to go and measure the smaller images on the website, the ratios (and the amount of space the orbits take up on the skulls) will still be exactly the same and my conclusion will still be correct: Neanderthal orbits are not significantly bigger than modern human orbits.

I've backed up my claim with measurements and percentages up to two decimal places and you're still struggling with the concept of ratios and percentages. Like, really struggling. In any case, you still haven't explained how the size of their orbits would be relevant to whether they had eye shine.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:I wanted to show that even in the scientific community they are having Opposing ideas on what the bones and all really show.

I wouldn't call Vendramini or the Real History World Wide site legitimate members of the scientific community, they're more amateur enthusiasts. You'll note that Vendramini mentions that he submitted his paper to the Current Anthropology journal but there's no mention of them accepting it. He does have one published article in a journal but their submission criteria are amazingly weak so it looks like the only way he can get published is to do an end run around the peer review process and send it to a journal which will pretty much print any old thing as long as it's formatted correctly.
I haven't looked into the Real History World Wide site too deeply but from what I've seen it's pretty bad.

Tzieth wrote:ARE YOU FRIGGEN SERIOUS??? Jesus dude just admit you are wrong!!! You took measurements of Pictures that you blew up to look the same size??? Some of these had teeth and jaws, others did not. There is no telling their age so what exactly did you base your measurements on? You did Height and width of the actual Orbits? lol This does not tell percentage of the face. Blowing things up and shrinking them is your answer? ROFLMAO I could do the exact same thing with an aerial shot of Mt. St.Helens and come up with the same measurements on the creator if I shrunk it down enough. How come most of your Neanderthals are blown-up smaller than the human?

Some of the photos were too small for me to add text and the ratios will be exactly the same regardless of how big the photo is. If an orbit takes up 30% of the width of a skull it'll still take up 30% even if you increase the photo 500 times. I didn't alter the aspect ratio of any of the skulls. This is really, really basic maths. Like, pre-school maths. Do do realise that zooming in on an image won't make any parts of it suddenly change size in comparison to others, right? Try this experiment: pick up an object and move it closer to and then away from your face. See how it looks bigger when it's closer, but it's the same object the whole time? Changing the size of a .jpg works the same way.
Since some of the skulls had jaws and others didn't I measured from the top of the cranium to the tips of the top teeth and I didn't include lower jaws in any the measurements. I explained this in the post.
If you disagree with any of my maths you're free to go and measure the smaller images on the website, the ratios (and the amount of space the orbits take up on the skulls) will still be exactly the same and my conclusion will still be correct: Neanderthal orbits are not significantly bigger than modern human orbits.

I've backed up my claim with measurements and percentages up to two decimal places and you're still struggling with the concept of ratios and percentages. Like, really struggling. In any case, you still haven't explained how the size of their orbits would be relevant to whether they had eye shine.

Okay first of all, I am going to apologize. I was almost sure that you were someone else, but in checking, unless that person moved to Melbourne Australia, there is no way you could be him... I am normally more patient with insults, but the person whom I thought you were wore my patients thin..

Secondly.. Measuring the orbits proves nothing. You are blowing up or shrinking different size pics without knowing exact sizes, but it's not only that. The orbits alone are not the deciding factor.. it's how much of the face is taken up by eyes. When I said the missing part of the nose made the eyes look smaller and not bigger you said "That makes no sense." It makes perfect sense... Neanderthals have a huge nasal cavity as it is. This is so obvious that it catches the eye and you do not even take much note of the eye-orbits as opposed to where they sit and how much space they take up. We try to give them too many Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens characteristics that they do not truly possess as it is. So we see this huge nasal cavity and instantly compare it in ratio to our own. The fact that it was broken makes the eyes all the more less noticeable as most of the face is a gaping hole.

Tzieth wrote:Secondly.. Measuring the orbits proves nothing. You are blowing up or shrinking different size pics without knowing exact sizes,

I'm using the photos you linked to. You were apparently happy with their lack of scale when you thought they backed up your claims but when I turn that around the scale is suddenly an issue?
The actual size of the eyeball alone isn't any indicator, you need to look at how big they are in relation to the rest of the skull.

Tzieth wrote:The orbits alone are not the deciding factor.. it's how much of the face is taken up by eyes.

The eyeballs can't be bigger than the orbits so they're a solid indicator of the maximum size they could could be.

Tzieth wrote:This is so obvious that it catches the eye and you do not even take much note of the eye-orbits as opposed to where they sit and how much space they take up. We try to give them too many Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens characteristics that they do not truly possess as it is. So we see this huge nasal cavity and instantly compare it in ratio to our own.

... which is why we go to the trouble of measuring the skull's characteristics (like I did) rather than make a judgement call on how their appearance strikes us. We can argue back and forth all day about how we feel they might look but you can't argue against the maths.

You still you still haven't explained how the size of their orbits would be relevant to whether they had eye shine.

You still have no skull to base the measurements off of. If you blow them up or shrink them down, to the same size, and measure the circumference you are still getting an inaccurate measurement without the specimen. You are still not considering the size of the whole creature. It's not a matter of "here is a human and here is a neanderthal." Their skulls are thicker and taller than our own. Your biggest pic was the actual human skull, which in reality would not be the same size as a neanderthals skull. Those are much larger despite the fact they don't even have a forehead. You are basically scaling holes to your own liking.

It does not matter how small or large the pic is.. When the Sockets take up that much skull and then you know that the skull is actually larger than your own, common sense should tell you they had larger eyes.