• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot is a human!

The fact that this explanation has even cryptozoologists expressing skepticism shows just how far through the looking glass we are.

Meanwhile, I saw the Patterson film normed to keep the "bigfoot" in the center of the frame. You would have to be out of your mind to think it was anything but a guy in a suit after seeing that.

That footage here.
 
Last edited:
On the Paterson film, the ''animal's'' rear end, especially the right cheek, doesn't move along with the right leg. It should move up a bit when the upper leg moves back.
 
Sorry to burst MK's bubble, but it can't be a human because Sweaty says the arms are of inhuman proportion.

Case closed.
 
GT/CS said:
Sorry to burst MK's bubble, but it can't be a human because Sweaty says the arms are of inhuman proportion.

Case closed.
Click to expand...

It can't be human if it has a flexible midfoot.

It can't be human if it has a size 3X our size.

It can't be human if it has different type of hair.

And by human I mean Homo sapiens.
 
Says the author of that article, who admits he is in the minority:

"... many evolutionary biologists state as if it were an unquestionable fact that humans are apes. I disagree."​

Nomenclature is somewhat invented and imprecise. The author's assertion: ""Ape" is an English word. It is not a taxonomic term. English words do not need to be monophyletic." is factually correct, but also dismisses the fact that the way most scientists use the term in English is monophyletic.

The author further states:

"If we must accept that humans are apes, then we must equally accept that chimpanzees are monkeys, and those awful parents at the zoo are right. I don't. I see value in precision about phylogeny, and for that purpose I have taxonomic terms. Humans are hominoids, and anthropoids, and haplorhines, and primates. And mammals."​

He makes some good points and raises some thoughtful questions. But mainstream anthropology and primatology disagree with his conclusion. Ultimately language is about conveying meaning, and the meaning that mainstream science has agreed upon is that humans are apes.
 
I guess you miss my point

Bigfoots are humans, humans are not apes, therefore, Bigfoots are not apes, thus they must be human, thus Dr. Ketchum's hypothesis is born.
 
Then we all must have a little bigfoot in each and every one of us ! Or is it there is a little bit of each of us in every bigfoot ?
 
Gawdzilla said:
Fictional creature has all the attributes of a human. How...interesting.
Click to expand...

Well.. sort of reminds me of Werewolves, Dracula, UFO Creatures, the Jersey Devil, Frankenstein, Ultra Man,zombies, the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Bat Man, Super Man,Mermaids, Aqua Man, Cyclops, and of course, the Shaggy DA !

We humans are a bit funny, eh ?

Oh.. I forgot Mr. Ed.
 
When I was younger and naive I thought bigfoot might be a tribe of inbred Indians with giantism and hypertricosis. Native Americans near Mt. St. Helens used to warn the young ones in their villages that a huge tribe of tall hairy cannibals lived near the mountain.

Its my guess that this was an effort to keep people from settling too near the mountain for obvious reasons.
 
Indian legens also say that bigfoot is attracted to human women which if true would mean they are human or perhaps a species similar to an orangutang which also sometimes has an attraction to human women.

I personally feel that belief in bigfoot is patent nonsense.
 
Indian Legends do not say BIGFOOT is attracted to human women.
Reread your Native American legend reference, and find the part where they talk about 'Bigfoot'.

Then provide the link.
 
There are two problems with the "Indian Legend" line. One problem is that there are too many native myths with too many contradictory characteristics. The 'footers both distort and use myths selectively to their ends. Many of the myths for example have talking cannibal monsters but since there are no documented cases of a human being killed and eaten by talking cannibals in thousands of years of human history, including the very natives who have these myths - it contradicts the use of such legends in supporting the current bigfoot myth that cannibalizes no-one.

The second problem is that native people understand the difference between myth and the real monsters they regularly killed, ate, or made tools out of - at least one of which was a hundred times bigger than bigfoot and captured on the open seas in skin boats with primitive stone, bone and wooden weapons. It's like pretending fairy tales are believed as real by western civilization.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom