Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Dfoot]

Dfoot,

You revealed the bias ( understandably ? ) that exists over there ..


They can't allow free speech when it constitutes treason..

Rather than welcoming hoaxes ( which they should ), analysing them and exposing them for what they are, they just ban those they feel are engaging in them.. " Whoa, don't you dare try to trick us.. You will make us look stupid .. It's hard enough not to look that way as it is .. Yuk, Yuk .. "

It shows they are a religious site and not a scientific one...

Here is aother place you can get banned real fast..

http://www.raptureready.com/

Just start using reason and logic, and you are out of there...


Hey, you have got a good excuse to spend more time over here...

Thanks. But most people over here don't seem to lose control of themselves and repeat mantras in an effort to make what's in front of them go away. It's amusing to watch though... and a little scary at times. One begins to wonder if part of the reason Gimlin sticks to his guns is due to a fear that he might be shot by a crazed Bigfooter if he ever admits what he was involved in. It appears that wacky sometimes.

I'm on a 7 day suspension from over there due to the apparent upset my joke caused so I'm not able to respond to anything that was said or being said now. So let me answer here since several also post at this forum:

Here are some of the comments I got after the first pic of the "new suit" (actually Patty) was shown walking in front of my house --

SOARWING says - How is your picture anything like the PGF?
Have someone get into your suit, and show us something like.......

(*Soarwing then shows me Patty in motion. Since my pic also shows Patty in motion one might get an idea that he's not really being open-minded about my "new suit" here.)

WOLFTRAX says - Dfoot, have you ever held an animal skin? The difference between that and a fake fur is obvious.

(*Since I told them this "new suit" was made with black fake fur Wolftrax is schooling me on the notion that Patty has real hair and this obviously fake fur isn't close to her realness)

HUNTSTER - * Photo not very clear; needs to be cleared up like Patterson film
* Legs too long and skinny
* Torso looks about right
* Arms too skinny, and not at similar length ratio with legs like Patterson subject

(*Again... it's just Patty. Lifted directly from the PG film. The PG film was never "enhanced". That is something we all have done ourselves. What you see in the pic is simply the PG film image. It is that bad and those are her arms and legs.)


ROGERKNI - One simple task would be to reproduce just shoulder width and arm length (with natural swing and elbow-bend, which was part of Green's requirement--and finger bend, which was not on his list but should have been). Forget the head, forget the trousers, forget the body definition, breasts, muscle movement, and hair quality. Start with this, then add on other items as you go. (Next up would be torso depth, then a head with a mouth that opens (as Owen Caddy's latest work reveals) and that is in the same proportion to chest width as Patty's.) Simple, right?

Or maybe not.

(*I've already shown how all of these things are found in gorilla suits and helmet heads of the 60's. Demonstrating all of that again won't help you. You'll still swear this cannot be the same thing. In fact, IF you were presented with photos of Chambers - or anyone else - working on Patty you'd swear that wasn't her. Of this I'm quite convinced.)

LAL - Oh no! Not another blobsquatch..............

(*No. Not another. Just the same blobquatch.)

GIGANTOFOOTECUS - Dfoot, your photo is TOO blobsquatchy. You're trying to crap-up the photo quality too much. You certainly can't measure anything from your photo let alone determine if any features are "inhuman". That aside, looking at your fuzzy image, I'd say the legs are obviously undersized.

(*Here Gigantofootecus inserts a photo of the suit I made for my dummy for Halloween - which has nothing to do with the image of Patty I'd just posted and makes these calculations to show that my "new suit" is far from being up to Patty's standards.

Dfoot's costume: ASH RATIO = 1.2 Patty: ASH RATIO = 1.3

*Therefore... how could Patty possibly be a suit? This kind of thinking is fascinating to me and one of the reasons I have been posting about this subject.)

SASKWATCHER - Who ARE your .....um... 'mentors', on this quest ?
I suspect their identity(s) will remain a mystery ...depending on the out-come of Dfoot's experiment.

If it looks REAL GOOD... somebody will probably try and take credit for it alongside Dfoot !!! And, rightfully so....cuz somebody sure 'got to him'.

If, however, this suit, IN MOTION, looks like some 'PowerRangers/Godzilla crappola, Then,
we may never know....or care !!!!
(Cue Dramatic Orchestral Swell !!!!)
(Cut to close-up of Greg Long...laughing Maniacally !!!)
(End Scene)

(*The "show us the suit in motion so we can mock it more" idea seems to be the go-to argument. But it fails to hold up because this already IS Patty in motion. And I don't have any mentors as I've been experimenting from the point of view of being Patterson and finding out what he might be capable of himself.)


WOLFTRAX says - I know you did a comparison of Bob H and Patty, I used that to make the attached animation. Anybody can see they don't match in the way Bob H walks. This has got to be the 5th time I've posted this.

I know how feet for suits are made. You're not the only one building a Patty suit.

(*Wolftrax attaches an image of Bob H. and Patty side by side and they match perfectly. At least to anyone who has worked with creature suits for a few years.

*This is an example of simply saying it isn't so and waiting for applause from like-minded people. Wolf is stating the opposite of what is clearly seen by any real expert in the field of actually putting creature suits on film.

*I'd thought that after the first obvious pic someone in the crowd would say, "Hey... wait a minute.." But they didn't. I had to post THREE MORE photos, each being more obvious than the last until finally one person seemed to realize that I was merely showing Patty with a different background.)

PEILTCH says - Dfoot's newest suit might be a photoshop job. I don't have photoshop, I have "microsoft picture it". Using this, I put Dfoot's pose next to the actual Patty.

(* Suddenly the tone changed from the "new suit" being nothing like "Patty" to a kind of backtrack attack mode. As expected.)

WOLFTRAX - Did I just see somebody's credibility go down the toilet?

(*Yes. The credibility of those PG apologists claiming to be able to discern anything regarding suits when it comes to this icon of hoax.)


RONNIE BASS - First off, the photos you presented were to dark to make out anything but a hairy dark something, and second when peiltch presented his photos I actually thought to myself you might be making a case for it being faked while also wondering myself if you were up to no good, so I call BS on your theory that proponents of Patty will always say "It's not Patty".

(*I see... my theory that proponents of Patty will always say it's not good enough to compare to Patty isn't proven when these proponents say that Patty isn't good enough to be Patty. There it is in a nutshell... no offense.)

soarwing says - It may be Patty in the hack-job pics Dfoot posted, but to say that these were anything like the film is moronic.

Now Dfoot's claiming that Patty is a "blobsquatch" and that he's sorry about having to break the news, so to speak. Wasn't it Dfoot that was using CLEAR PGF enhancements to make unfounded claims about thigh pads, cannibalized Chambers suits, breasts riveted to horsehide and the like?

If I were Dfoot, I'd probably terminate my "Dfoot" account on this forum and start fresh.

It's been fun, Dfoot - - - I'll be waiting to help demolish your next farce.

(*I only used actual frames from one of the better quality versions of the film. SASQUATCH ODYSSEY to be precise. MK's "enhanced close ups" are nice and helpful for looking at the details of the suit, that's not what I posted. I posted real images from the actual film as seen on your DVD.

It goes on and on... I'm asked to show a suit that has a, b, or c that was made pre-1967. I do. Then I'm told I haven't shown this.

I show the INSIDE of creature suits and how the thigh pad works. I even put a similar pad on my own leg and demonstrate this IN MOTION. Doesn't matter.

I show behind-the-scenes footage of creature suits being made and worn for film that exactly duplicate the problems seen in the PG film suit. I'm then told to "show me a suit that does that" when I've just done this.

What we sometimes have passing for research is merely childspeak. Simply saying "no it isn't" over and over.
Drawing lines on a suit's shoulders shouldn't be used as an argument to support a con job anymore than saying the shoulder slant in a home-made gorilla dummy isn't like Patty so Patty must be real. This kind of rubbish has to go.

So there you have it. This is a good indication as to why this hoax keeps going despite the evidence and confessions.
DeAtley may have been right when he said that he didn't think people investigating this really wanted to know the truth about it. This hoax has become like a religion or special club that must be maintained at all costs.

The con has grown beyond Roger Patterson's wildest hopes. Three people could clear up this matter if they had the courage and integrity to do so. Pat Patterson, Bob Gimlin and Al DeAtley. But to me, they are true cowards who would rather allow sincere people to ruin their reputations and sometimes waste decades of their lives on a bit of fakery.

- Dfoot

 

[Z]

Excellent work, dfoot. Well done.

That's about it, folks. Nothing more to see here.

 

[RayG]

Quiet? With Dr. Meldrum posting on two threads?

Dr. Meldrum has only recently become 'active' however, as his 8 posts in two years demonstrates.

Maybe I could point you to the one where a poster characterized the posters here as a "peanut gallery".

One can also find reference to the BFF being called a "cesspool crowded with wallowing idiots", by the head of the BFRO himself.

Hoaxes of any kind aren't taken lightly.

Yes, admitted hoaxes are not tolerated in the least. The credibility of the 'hoaxer', like Robo or Dfoot, is forever tarnished. This doesn't seem to happen with other hoaxers like Freeman or Marx, whose contributions are still used as supportive evidence by some in the bigfoot camp.

RayG

 

[LAL]

Just some pointers to help the Gentle Reader stay on track:

Huntster (who will likely return, and soon) is also the same religious creduloid who mindlessly follows the dogma of the RCC and believes he has no authority to question the beliefs fed him by the church.

As for Lu - well, she lives in NC. Need I say more?

Yes.

I was born in Chicago, spent most of my life in California and Washington State, live in a very diversified area and am a charter member of WNCatheists.

Just what were you trying to say here?

 

[LAL]

Since Correa evidently didn't have time to present his argument to Dr. Meldrum, I did it for him. This is the reply:

"LAL,

Sorry, but after taking a quick scan through the other lists you are participating in, I don't think it is worth my time to respond more than just briefly to the latest criticisms. They are of a different nature than the points raised by Jim. Neto clearly has no concept of the calculation of the mechanical advantage of the triceps surae (calf musculature) as evidenced by his comments and attempt to diagram his point. The model of the sasquatch foot is a very natural extension of trends displayed in a size-graded sample of ape feet from gibbons to chimps to lowland gorillas to mountain gorillas, not only in relative elongation of the heel but in lessened divergence of the great toe. Humans have departed from this pattern by adopting a fixed arch.

The MT break has little to do with the loss of divegence of the big toe, until the fixation of the arch, at which point the aligned big toe becomes the distal support of the arch. There are a number of interacting modifications at play during the evolution of the modern human foot. (Some people should do the research required before asserting their opinions with such conviction.)

The comments about the casts and footprints illustrated on my webpage and the comaprisons made between the Laverty photo are simply without merit.

The particular cast you asked about is one of Timus's casts."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14342&st=40&#entry300929

Nice of him to take the time to reply, wasn't it?

 

[tube]

There is no evidence Freeman faked prints, except for Dahinden's opinion on one because he found dermal ridges under debris. I still don't know what kind of dermals they were. Krantz borrowed twenty out of thirty Freeman casts for mold making.

QUOTE]

Of course there is evidence Freeman faked prints, it is well detailed here: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm

What I think you mean is that there is no "proof" that Freeman faked tracks, and therein lies the problem: there is as yet no scientific standard as to what constitutes a "real" Sasquatch footprint. I can't can't "prove" Freeman hoaxed tracks anymore than you can "prove" any track ever recorded was made by a Sasquatch.

This is not the case, however, with differentiting animal hair from synthetic fibers, which is of course what Freeman submitted as "Sasquatch hair". Obviously submiting Dynel as "Sasquatch hair" qualifies Freeman as a hoaxer.

 

[Dfoot]

There is no evidence Freeman faked prints, except for Dahinden's opinion on one because he found dermal ridges under debris. I still don't know what kind of dermals they were. Krantz borrowed twenty out of thirty Freeman casts for mold making.

QUOTE]

Of course there is evidence Freeman faked prints, it is well detailed here: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm

What I think you mean is that there is no "proof" that Freeman faked tracks, and therein lies the problem: there is as yet no scientific standard as to what constitutes a "real" Sasquatch footprint. I can't can't "prove" Freeman hoaxed tracks anymore than you can "prove" any track ever recorded was made by a Sasquatch.

This is not the case, however, with differentiting animal hair from synthetic fibers, which is of course what Freeman submitted as "Sasquatch hair". Obviously submiting Dynel as "Sasquatch hair" qualifies Freeman as a hoaxer.

TUBE -- Here's part of his article regarding what Freeman had to say to GOOD MORNING AMERICA when being confronted about this...

The legend of Bigfoot is not about to die with the passing with Paul Freeman. Last year, after the death of Krantz and Dahinden, a rumor made the rounds that Paul had not actually confessed to the ABC crew and that my reporting of his statement was out of context. I'm sure that at least some among the older Bigfoot buffs still have a copy of the Good Morning America program. Should they decide to play the tape again they will see and hear ABC'S Steve Fox ask, "You tried to make fake footprints?" with Freeman answering, "Yes, I did." Fox then asks, "To create prints?" and Freeman again says, "Yes, I did." Fox is bent on being absolutely clear and so he asks, "You admit those were fake foot prints," and Freeman is seen nodding in agreement. But this is the land of Sasquatch research and it's possible that Freeman's credibility will be resurrected yet. Unbelievable!


Unbelievable? Not to me.

- Dfoot

 

[Aepervius]

To enlighten the mood

Funny CArtoon

Credit to TheBoyPaj which posted it today : http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53141

edit:spelling

 

[fsol]

How does the mid-tarsal break work? I presume elongated heel to mid-tarsal break is analogous to a humans heel to toe joint (force wise), and then you have "extra" toes stuck on the end. I wonder what the musculature of such a foot/ankle/lower leg would look like next to a real primate. If it would be possible to see the common features in structure that you might expect, or if it would need to be something more radical in order for it to work.

 

[LAL]

There is no evidence Freeman faked prints, except for Dahinden's opinion on one because he found dermal ridges under debris. I still don't know what kind of dermals they were. Krantz borrowed twenty out of thirty Freeman casts for mold making.

Of course there is evidence Freeman faked prints, it is well detailed here: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/skeptical.htm

What I think you mean is that there is no "proof" that Freeman faked tracks, and therein lies the problem: there is as yet no scientific standard as to what constitutes a "real" Sasquatch footprint. I can't can't "prove" Freeman hoaxed tracks anymore than you can "prove" any track ever recorded was made by a Sasquatch.

This is not the case, however, with differentiting animal hair from synthetic fibers, which is of course what Freeman submitted as "Sasquatch hair". Obviously submiting Dynel as "Sasquatch hair" qualifies Freeman as a hoaxer.

Fahrenbach noted people bring in such samples precisely because they don't know what they are. He specifically referred to Freeman on this.

Krantz knew in one case who planted synthetic hair and when, but didn't name the culprit in his book.

Are you referring to this part of the article?

"In 1987 Freeman admitted he had tried to fake Bigfoot prints prior to his 1982 discovery of the Mill Creek tracks. In 1989 I wrote an article in this journal (Dennett 1989) detailing evidence strongly suggesting the hoax possibility of the Mill Creek imprints.(2) My article cited an investigation by the Forest Service that concluded the tracks were fakes. Since then more evidence against the authenticity of the tracks has surfaced."

This "admission" was on Good Morning America. He said he'd faked tracks to fool the neighbors. There've been lengthy discussions here and on BFF about this.

There's a point by point rebuttal of Joel Hardin's report somewhere (still looking). His objections actually argue for their authenticity. These are the tracks one ranger called fakes before he even saw them.

Even if he faked the trackway Dahinden saw, which is not the one Hardin examined, it doesn't mean he faked nescessarily everything, does it? My link to Lonnie Somer's field notes seems to have gone dead, unfortunately. It's a shame. It detailed what appeared to be a territorial challenge.

I've posted this before, but I think it's worth a repost:

"It seems to me the only way to evaluate the merits of such a narrative was to gain a better appreciation of the people and events myself. There was no shortage of individuals eager to enlighten me about the character of Paul Freeman and incredibility of the Walla Walla evidence. Freeman had achieved notoriety in 1982, when he claimed to have encountered a bigfoot on the border of the Mill Creek watershed. The events that ensued focused national attention on the region. Dr. Grover Krantz, of the Department of Anthropology at Washington State University described the appearance of dermatoglyphics in the footprint cast, but received a cool reception from both the scientific and bigfoot communities. Joel Hardin, an acclaimed U.S. Border Patrol tracker pronounced the l982 tracts to be fakes. Later in l984, Rene Dahinden, a life long Bigfoot investigator, examined a trackway and declared it hoaxed. Then, in l989, Edward B. Winn "surreptitiously" removed fibers from a twisted tree branch presented by Freeman at the l989 Membership Meeting of the International Society of Cryptozoology and tested them for chemical composition and melting point. He later concluded that the fibers were a synthetic modacrylic fiber and he labeled the entire presentation as "scientific vandalism" (Edward B. Winn, l99l Physical and Morphological Analysis of Samples of Fiber Purported to be Sasquatch Hair, Cryptozoology, Vol. 10: 55-65) Others promptly hopped aboard the bandwagon."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/reviews/blues.htm

There seems to be neither proof nor evidence Freeman faked tracks. Is that better?

 

[LAL]

TUBE -- Here's part of his article regarding what Freeman had to say to GOOD MORNING AMERICA when being confronted about this...

The legend of Bigfoot is not about to die with the passing with Paul Freeman. Last year, after the death of Krantz and Dahinden, a rumor made the rounds that Paul had not actually confessed to the ABC crew and that my reporting of his statement was out of context. I'm sure that at least some among the older Bigfoot buffs still have a copy of the Good Morning America program. Should they decide to play the tape again they will see and hear ABC'S Steve Fox ask, "You tried to make fake footprints?" with Freeman answering, "Yes, I did." Fox then asks, "To create prints?" and Freeman again says, "Yes, I did." Fox is bent on being absolutely clear and so he asks, "You admit those were fake foot prints," and Freeman is seen nodding in agreement. But this is the land of Sasquatch research and it's possible that Freeman's credibility will be resurrected yet. Unbelievable!


Unbelievable? Not to me.

- Dfoot

Yes, it's out of context.

 

[LAL]

Dfoot,

You revealed the bias ( understandably ? ) that exists over there ..


They can't allow free speech when it constitutes treason..

Rather than welcoming hoaxes ( which they should ), analysing them and exposing them for what they are, they just ban those they feel are engaging in them.. " Whoa, don't you dare try to trick us.. You will make us look stupid .. It's hard enough not to look that way as it is .. Yuk, Yuk .. "

It shows they are a religious site and not a scientific one...

Here is aother place you can get banned real fast..

http://www.raptureready.com/

Just start using reason and logic, and you are out of there...


Hey, you have got a good excuse to spend more time over here...

What were you warned for here?

I'm sorry the thread's been closed. It was a good one. I may even write Paul begging him to reopen it.

Other posters have been suspended for similar antics. It woudn't be fair to suspend them and not Dfoot, IMO. He probably would have been okay if he'd merely posted the pics and asked for opinions instead of leading people to believe this was the long-awaited suit, IMO.

Was anyone fooled besides you?

And note, another BFF member exposed the hoax.

As far as your assessment of the board, you are way off base. But then I've already seen your regard for rules and your opinion of the posters there in general and Roger Knights in particular.

 

[tube]

Let's follow where LAL logic takes us; Suppose Paul Freeman never hoaxed ANYTHING. Suppose he has been misquoted and his comments taken out of context by those damn "scoftics". Suppose the Dynel was put there by someone else. All his films, track finds, and "hair" are all real. He didn't fabricate the Mill Creek tracks with his own hands, someone simply "touched them up".

If one assumes this, then the opinions of Bob Titmus, Rene' Dahinden, John Green, and Peter Byrne that Freeman was a hoaxer are all totally wrong. If these leading lights of Bigfootery can be so wrong, then Bigfootery has a big problem...

For anyone familar with the UFO field, Freeman has a counterpart in Billy Meier, a Swiss UFO "contactee". Both are multiple contactee types who put forth a steady stream of "evidence" that is disputed and dismissed EVEN WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS. And like Meier, Freeman has his dogged defenders, regardless of how flimsy or bogus the evidence is.

 

[LAL]

The wallace foot you posted is not the one with the crack in it..

I didn't have time to do a search so I uploaded what I had.

I know I've posted this before:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=80


It's clear here:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9553&st=100&p=192592&#

Good bear tracks photo on the thread, for those who don't know what bear tracks usually look like.

Rant Mullen's feet don't look like any Wallace set, yet he claimed he carved them.

 

[RayG]

With the evidence at hand, we are all equally qualified to talk about, and speculate on, anything concerning sasquatch.

Now, once there is some actual evidence that sasquatch exists, and evidence of exactly what it is, that will change. Then we can all look to experts in the field of whatever sasquatch turned out to be, or turned out to be related to.

Right now, there isn't anyone who knows anything concrete about sasquatch. Anyone may be correct with their theories or ideas at this point.

There is also that fact that experts are expected to meet higher standards than laymen. It's generally okay for a layman to do what Meldrum and Krantz have done with sasquatch, speculate wildly with very little hard info, but it is not okay for professionals and experts to do so.

Excellent points, though I would guess that laymen and scientists alike begin with speculations.

RayG

 

[RayG]

That is speculation.

Yeah, so is stating that a set of prints were made by bigfoot, so is saying that the PGF shows a bigfoot, so is drawing bone shapes inside a cast of a footprint. So is the mid-tarsal break theory, the birthing and mating rituals, the population density figures, and on and on and on.

I just don't get how an expert on primate feet can transfer that expertise to an undiscovered, uncatalogued, unknown species. Isn't it all a good guesstimate at best?

RayG

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...For anyone familar with the UFO field, Freeman has a counterpart in Billy Meier, a Swiss UFO "contactee". Both are multiple contactee types who put forth a steady stream of "evidence" that is disputed and dismissed EVEN WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS. And like Meier, Freeman has his dogged defenders, regardless of how flimsy or bogus the evidence is.

Or Adamski and at least two copycats here in Brazil that I am aware of (surely there are others in North America and Europe).

Again I will say that if footers (I am not using this "neologism" in any offensive meaning here) want to be taken seriously, all crappy data and interpretations made over it must be purged. And I think I am not the only person who says this. Use critical thinking, stop blindly accepting dogmas. Do your own thinking.

Attempts to "convert the infidel skeptics" by somehow trying to validate crappy (OK, I'll be more polite - dubious, substandard, inconclusive) data are futile.

I may not -and quite probably do not- fully agree with Tube or Dfoot regarding data and conclusions on bigfeet. However, I think they are on the right track by checking what is usually taken in the footer community as facts or "flawless" interpretation.

 

[LAL]

I just don't get how an expert on primate feet can transfer that expertise to an undiscovered, uncatalogued, unknown species. Isn't it all a good guesstimate at best?

RayG

Why don't you ask him? He's still posting.

There seem to be a lot of crickets chirping around his reply to Correa's argument. Does anyone understand what he said?

 

[Correa Neto]

Though I understand the 'meaning' you're associating with the word creduloid, there seems to BE no such animal on dictionary.com:
...snip...Any definitions I can find by Googling are almost exclusively associated with skeptical websites. ...snip...

Yep. Its the same with "woo" and "woo-woo". Skeptic lingo.

Note that since the begining of these threads, my position was "bigfeet may be real, but the avaliable data is inconclusive, and I think the possibility of their existence as real creatures is unlikely". As I wrote, that's not enough for the creduloids. They want full conversion to their beliefs and dogmas. It's still my position, and will be utill someone brings a specimen or nice footage with no lingering suspect of hoaxing.

I agree, it's all about the evidence, not name-calling. (and that should be the goal for both sides of the argument).

There are numerous quotes that come to mind whenever debates about bigfoot occur, but these three invariably apply:

RayG

Same thing happens when you are debating UFOs, Atlantis, Edgar Cayce, etc. Creduloids don't really get happy when questioned. And skeptics are th close-minded ones...

I was really disappointed by how the discussion degraded, since I had the feeling that maybe this time I could question bigfoot data and interpretation with a footer without the standard ending. Anyway, it took some time -more than the usual- before the decay started...

And yes, I had my share in the name-calling exchange, I admit. After some (some?) acusations and insinuations, my patience run out.

 

[LAL]

Perhaps you missed it?

"QUOTE(djmeldrum @ Mar 4 2006, 11:52 AM)

LAL,

Sorry, but after taking a quick scan through the other lists you are participating in, I don't think it is worth my time to respond more than just briefly to the latest criticisms. They are of a different nature than the points raised by Jim. Neto clearly has no concept of the calculation of the mechanical advantage of the triceps surae (calf musculature) as evidenced by his comments and attempt to diagram his point. The model of the sasquatch foot is a very natural extension of trends displayed in a size-graded sample of ape feet from gibbons to chimps to lowland gorillas to mountain gorillas, not only in relative elongation of the heel but in lessened divergence of the great toe. Humans have departed from this pattern by adopting a fixed arch.

The MT break has little to do with the loss of divegence of the big toe, until the fixation of the arch, at which point the aligned big toe becomes the distal support of the arch. There are a number of interacting modifications at play during the evolution of the modern human foot. (Some people should do the research required before asserting their opinions with such conviction.)

The comments about the casts and footprints illustrated on my webpage and the comaprisons made between the Laverty photo are simply without merit.

The particular cast you asked about is one of Timus's casts."

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=14342&st=40&#entry300982