Matt Crowley shoots down Bigfoot dermal ridges?

[LAL]

Yes Lu, I know all about how the Bigfootologists have shown that Patty's back and butt look like a gorilla. I have also shown you a picture of a gorilla suit that looks just like Patty's butt, which you conveniently ignore.

I didn't ignore it at all. You seemed to ignore the mismatch on the rest of it. I'm no expert on female butts, but I happen to own one. If it were covered in hair it would probably resemble the Gemorra suit butt too. There's no evidence a Gemorra, Morris or any other suit was used in the film. Knights found a witness for Bob Heironimus with yet another suit.

"Below are listed the main objections (though I've probably missed a couple) to Bob Heironimus's (BH's) claim to have been Inside The Suit at Bluff Creek in 1967.

A. BH's initial description of the suit that he wore, supposedly made by Patterson, is very different from the suit he later agreed that he wore, supposedly supplied by costume-maker Philip Morris. Morris made a unibody-type union suit that zipped up the back and into which one stepped (p. 449). It has no "torso part" or "top." Patterson (supposedly) made a top-and-trousers affair that had a zipperless upper "torso part" that BH donned "like putting on a T-shirt" (BH's words, pp. 344-45). At Bluff Creek he put on "the top" (BH's words, p. 349). That was a salient distinction he couldn't possibly have mistaken or forgotten. And there were other differences, too, that would have been hard to miss, such as the pronounced difference in hand-feel between the supple, rubbery horsehide in Patterson's suit and the fabric-like Dynel in Morris's. There might be an innocent explanation for BH's changing his story to accommodate Long's Morris-Suit theory--but it's hard to think of one.

B. BH implied he possessed an ape-suit for only a few days before Patterson reclaimed it. BH let that implication stand when he reviewed the manuscript.

But there is testimony (e.g., pp. 47-48, 232, 331 & 397) that indicates that he showed off a suit (not described in detail) from his trunk several times over the years (no dates given). (Long avoided confronting what this implied, and instead-I think as a distraction-fretted over the minor issue of when BH confessed to his buddies to being in the suit (pp. 366, 370-71 & 412).)

In addition, I've located a witness, GR (seen in a photo on p. 409), to whom BH showed the suit in 1968, a date he is sure of because he was in the armed forces throughout 1967. He described the suit to me in detail, and its features match neither the Morris suit shown on p. 460, nor Queen Kong (the creature in the PG Film). Its features were described by me in Bigfoot Times, 12/04 & 1/05, as follows: a top-and-trousers affair, lacking a zipper in the back (i.e., not Morris's back-zippered jump-suit); no rubber waders in the legs; no latex chest piece; no breasts; not made of leather; cotton-lined or -padded; lightweight (upper portion only two or three pounds); no shoulder pads; not oversized (no barrel chest or thunder thighs); hair four or five inches long (Morris suits' hair was 1-3"); head not oversize; no helmet inside.

Further, BH indicated to others that he currently owned the suit used by Patterson at Bluff Creek. For instance, on p. 397, Bernard Hammermeister described being shown the suit in the trunk, and said that BH said to him, "That's what I wore when we went down and did our thing." No date was given (why didn't Long ask-or print the answer!?), but the familiar way he referred to the filming as "our thing" suggests that it had by then achieved enough fame to be referred to off-handedly like that. Certainly, if the suit had been displayed the Friday night BH returned from Bluff Creek, his listeners wouldn't have known what he was referring to, since there had been no media coverage of the filming at that point. And on p. 398 there is another clue that the date was long after the filming. Hammermeister said, "when he told me he did it, and he didn't want it spread around for awhile ... he had the suit ... and he showed us. And ... there was still supposed to be payola on this thing, and he didn't have it." The word "still" pretty much rules out the possibility that he displayed the suit just after returning from Bluff Creek and before driving on to his mom's."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591021391/104-1952500-8489508?v=glance

Patty cannot have the musculature /shape of a gorilla and not walk like one.
Gorillas and all animals look the way they do because of how the move and get around. They don't just happen to look like something, but behave differently ...

Who said she has that? The glutes are better developed as is to be expected in a heavy biped.

It's like trying to say you have a bird that looks like an Ostrich except that it can fly.

All higher apes, including us, tend to resemble each other in some ways, such as musculature, shape, hands......... Goes back to that common ancestor. I seem to detect some adaptationism here. Read Gould.

 

[LTC8K6]

So, why is such a fuss raised when sceptics bring up inconsistencies in the stories told by P/G?

It's certainly possible that more than 1 suit was tried out by Patterson. It's even possible that a bigfoot was filmed more than once to see what the end product looked like.

If the P/G film is a hoax, I would think it unlikely that there was only 1 take.

 

[Correa Neto]

While I do not own a female butt, I do enjoy looking at them, and there are a few points I must raise. First of all, human female butts are variable in size, as all humans know. Also, the bigger ones, those that could be compared in shape with Patty's, own their shape due to fat tissues. In other words, they usually belong to fat individuals. This is also valid for male humans. Fat tissue accumulation creates not just big bellys but also big butts.

Now, if Patty is a female bipedal hominid, its anatomy must be similar to ours, it must share a number of features with ours. Thus, that gorilla-like butt can not be due to a muscle disposition similar to the one found in gorillas, since gorillas are knuckle-walkers, and Patty walks just like a genus of bipedal primates adapted for long distance locomotions named Homo. So, the option left is that, assuming what's in PGF is not a bloke in a gorilla suit, Patty's butt size and shape is due to accumulation of fat tissue. Note that fat tissue is not muscle.

Well, animals in the nature, unless they are coming close to hibernation period or prepairing fo the winter, are not fat. Humans living confortable sedentary lives and eating at fast food chains become fat. Animals in the wild don't, since they have to spend a lot of energy to find food, for example. And even when accumulating fat for the winter, there is little localized fat such as what could account for Patty's butt. This is just another inconsistency in bigfeet's anatomy as inferred by investigators.

 

[LTC8K6]

All higher apes, including us, tend to resemble each other in some ways, such as musculature, shape, hands

J Lo's back would impress Patty....

 

[LAL]

Yep. She has the butt of an unidentified hominid primate wearing an unidentified gorilla suit.

Do gorillas walk as Patty is seen walking in PGF? Can they? Or those are not muscles but fat tissue, and Patty is Fatty?

I had a friend in school with a butt like a Hottentot. It was all muscle. You could have broken your hand on it. You don't have to look farther than our own species to see how much variation there can be.

Bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances have gorilla-like butts? Any species of the Homo genus have? Australopithecines had?

Gorilla glutes look similar when the animal is standing, especially when the animal is rather overweight. They look about as much like the Gemorra suit butt as Patty's does. I offered the photos for comparison. I didn't say she had a Gorilla butt.

Are mid tarsal breaks likely to be present in large bipedal primates adapted to walk long distances? Or 3-m tall bigfeet spend long times dangling in trees?

The rigid arch seems to be a Homo trait. We're lightweight enough for it. Would a rigid arch be likely in a bipedal animal heavy enough to break it down?

Broad shoulders are an arboreal adaptation too. Seen Arnold Schwartznegger dangling from a tree lately?


There were many bipedal primate species. How many foot fossils have been found? What do we really know about their foot anatomy? The rigid arch seems to be the exception rather than the rule, so far.

Here's Deloison:

http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/deloison/deloison.htm

Why Patty is so different from the "standard" bigfoot as described at BFRO site, for example? Because she´s actually a bloke in asuit and not a real bigfoot?

Because she's female and the "standard" bigfoot is a male? Seems to be quite a bit of sexual dimorphism in the species.

Not to mention that, assuming Patty is the "real deal", rather the most likely explanation of a bloke in a suit, without a body or live specimen to study its internal anatomy there´s no way anyone in the world can say she´s an "unidentified hominid primate" or a bipedal marsupial.

Sorry, I don't buy bipedal marsupials even in my wildest nightmares.

I don't have time to catch up with all your posts, but here are a couple of points:

Of course Neandertals didn't have horns and hooves, but there could be a core to the legend just as the infilling of the Black Sea may have been the core event behind flood legends, fossilized elephant skulls may have given rise to the Cyclops myth and so one. I'll try to get around to reading that article later. I have no idea what kind of case the author made.

I've read recently that there hasn't been time for proper fossilization of bones since the Wisconsonian glaciation. Such bones would be highly perishable. The unidentfied bipedal primate may have been a latecomer, as was the identified bipedal primate.


How many people do you know with 29" shoulders (lowest width estimate)? I thought you read Krantz. He answered every one of your objections with the possible exception of roadkill (I haven't finished thoroughly rereading the book yet).

 

[LTC8K6]

Seems to be quite a bit of sexual dimorphism in the species.

What species would that be?

You have no evidence whatsoever to make such a claim.

That doesn't seem to matter to you though, so go right ahead.

I really can't understand why this sort of statement and others like it are allowed in the bigfoot community. All it does is undermine the whole community.

No matter how much you believe in bigfoot, if you have an open mind you have to realize that all the stuff about habits, range, food, etc., is made up out of whole cloth and shouldn't be considered factual. You can put the supposed structure and motion of the foot in there as well. There is no evidence at all for the claims by Meldrum and Krantz regarding the feet, no matter how much you'd like to believe it.

Patty walks just like me, yet she supposed has a completely different foot.

The fact that these claims are bandied about as if they are real says a lot. Any new bigfoot research group would do well to distance itself from such claims and stick to actual evidence.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where is the evidence that shows that bigfoot's shoulders are unusually wide?

 

[Correa Neto]

I had a friend in school with a butt like a Hottentot. It was all muscle. You could have broken your hand on it. You don't have to look farther than our own species to see how much variation there can be.

See what I wrote at my previous post. Wild animals are not fat. Patty's butt -assuming she's not a bloke in a suit- must be fat tissue, not muscles. It is thus, an inconsistency.

Gorilla glutes look similar when the animal is standing, especially when the animal is rather overweight. They look about as much like the Gemorra suit butt as Patty's does. I offered the photos for comparison. I didn't say she had a Gorilla butt.

So, bigfoot investigators never point to the similarity of Patty's butt with those of gorillas?

The rigid arch seems to be a Homo trait. We're lightweight enough for it. Would a rigid arch be likely in a bipedal animal heavy enough to break it down?

Can you be sure it would break down?
Are you sure its a trait from the genus Homo?

Broad shoulders are an arboreal adaptation too. Seen Arnold Schwartznegger dangling from a tree lately?

Aren't broad shoulders usefull to sustain Arnie's muscles? Strong shoulders are not something usefull to have even if you are bipedal? Thowing spears, fighting, lifting weights... Without strong and broad shoulders, these actions would be at least a bit hard. So, the feature is kept during the evolutionary process. Now, why would mid-tarsals breaks be kept?

There were many bipedal primate species. How many foot fossils have been found? What do we really know about their foot anatomy? The rigid arch seems to be the exception rather than the rule, so far.

Here's Deloison:

http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/deloison/deloison.htm

Have you really noticed the points she make?

I'll summarize here. If you don't agree, just look at the graphic at the bottom of the page.

Humans are specialised bipedals, gorillas and chimps are arboricolal and australopithecines were bipedal and at least a bit arboricolal. Thus, humans have rigid feet specialized for walking, gorillas and chimps have flexible feet that can be used to grab branches and climb trees, while australopithecines, that despite being bipedal, still spended a lot of time in trees have feet that are not as flexible as those from chimps neither as rigid as ours. Not to mention that one could also see their as an early adaptation for bipedalism that would later be perfected by becoming rigid feet.

Thus flexible feet for a bipedal primate adapted for long distance walking are an unlikely feature. And inconsistency, among others, of bigfeet alleged anatomy.

Because she's female and the "standard" bigfoot is a male? Seems to be quite a bit of sexual dimorphism in the species.

LAL, that's just baseless speculation. What reliable data was used to back such and others claims?

Sorry, I don't buy bipedal marsupials even in my wildest nightmares.

Again, with the avaliable data, you can't say anything about bigfeet -assuming they are real. You need a body or a live specimen to say if they are -assuming they exist- placentary or marsupial. Can someone say the Tasmanian Tiger is a marsupial and not a canind by analising the avaliable footage from the last captive specimen?

Can you prove Patty is not a bloke in a gorilla suit? I love the "bloke in a suit" line, LOL.

Of course Neandertals didn't have horns and hooves, but there could be a core to the legend just as the infilling of the Black Sea may have been the core event behind flood legends, fossilized elephant skulls may have given rise to the Cyclops myth and so one. I'll try to get around to reading that article later. I have no idea what kind of case the author made.

What core? Neanderthals would never fit with satyrs or fauns when it comes to anatomy or lifestyle.

Its as ridicule as Coleman's interpretation that Gilgamesh epic tells of Gilgamesh having gay sex with a bigfoot named Enkindu.

I've read recently that there hasn't been time for proper fossilization of bones since the Wisconsonian glaciation. Such bones would be highly perishable. The unidentfied bipedal primate may have been a latecomer, as was the identified bipedal primate.

LAL, your information is at least incomplete. Some fossilization processes may not have had time to be completed. Others had more than enough time. Encasing of bones by calcite in caves may take just a few decades, for example.

How many people do you know with 29" shoulders (lowest width estimate)? I thought you read Krantz. He answered every one of your objections with the possible exception of roadkill (I haven't finished thoroughly rereading the book yet).

Where you've been in the 80s? LOL

One can not create costumes that create the impression of larger shoulders?

 

[Correa Neto]

Sorry, double post.

Move along, nothing to see here, no bigfoot...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

"Below are listed the main objections (though I've probably missed a couple) to Bob Heironimus's (BH's) claim to have been Inside The Suit at Bluff Creek in 1967.

You wasted a lot of time typing all of that..

Who, here, has calimed that Heironimus's story is indisputable.. I agree, a lot of it sounds fishy.

In case you haven't noticed,Heironimus's story is not what we are arguing here.

Guess what, proving Heironimus's story is false, doesn't make Patty real .. ( beyond a person in a costume )

Surely you know that .. Don't you ?

 

[LAL]

What species would that be?

You have no evidence whatsoever to make such a claim.

That doesn't seem to matter to you though, so go right ahead.

I really can't understand why this sort of statement and others like it are allowed in the bigfoot community. All it does is undermine the whole community.

Since I'm not part of the "Bigfoot community" I doubt they'll send the thought police after me.

The average adult male height seems to be 7.7', females 6.6'. Footprints tend to fall into two size ranges, 14.5" and 17". With foot length 18.6% of stature, a rough measure of sexual dimorphism can be made. Males are 60-65% larger on the average. Human males average about 30% larger than females. (See Krantz, pg. 155)

No matter how much you believe in bigfoot, if you have an open mind you have to realize that all the stuff about habits, range, food, etc., is made up out of whole cloth and shouldn't be considered factual. You can put the supposed structure and motion of the foot in there as well. There is no evidence at all for the claims by Meldrum and Krantz regarding the feet, no matter how much you'd like to believe it.

There've been many observations, even of them picking apples. (I wish I'd know that when I got into a debate on whether one would go for "unfamiliar fruit" in Skookum Meadows - which isn't all that far from orchards ieast of the Cascades.) Krantz studied over 500 reports collected by Green and interviewed witnesses when he could. Some observers were able to watch activity over a period of time. A top archeologist from the Smithsonian saw undoubted Sasquatch footprints in Northern Canada heading straight into a substantial pond that a human would have walked around. That says something about behaviour around water. Even though observations haven't been made by teams such as Fossey's and Goodall's, some information can certainly be gained from them.

I don't suppose you've read the whole article here, have you?

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v18n1a5.php

I was planning to purchase it, but it seems to be a free download now.

Patty walks just like me, yet she supposed has a completely different foot.

You have a compliant gait? And a rotating motion at the knee? I didn't know that.

The fact that these claims are bandied about as if they are real says a lot. Any new bigfoot research group would do well to distance itself from such claims and stick to actual evidence.

Isn't that what the Skookum Expedition did? The PNW Expedition did too, but their evidence was lost after Slick's death. The evidence seems to have come in mostly from individuals who were not part of any group. Noll seems to be investigating independently, but I seem to recall a post where he suggested guidelines for gathering and sharing information.

Of course, if you could convince a group to throw out all the evidence so far, you could then claim there is no evidence.

Oh, wait, you've been doing that already.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well Lu, you still don't seem to have any evidence to support these claims. I've looked and looked at all your links and still nothing but speculation.

You have a compliant gait? And a rotating motion at the knee? I didn't know that.

I stroll just like Patty. Patty has no compliant gait that I can see, and no rotating knee either. More bafflegab.

Speculation by a guy with a degree is still just speculation, not evidence.

Oh well.....

A top archeologist from the Smithsonian saw undoubted Sasquatch footprints in Northern Canada heading straight into a substantial pond that a human would have walked around.

Undoubted eh? What sasquatch specimen did he match them too, and why do people say such stupid things? Undoubted indeed! He didn't doubt it, I guess, which means nothing.

Which Smithsonian archeologist was this stupid Lu?

Somebody went swimming or fishing? How unusual for a human. Walked right into a pond you say?

Better call the

 

[LTC8K6]

Bear track in Meldrum's paper.

Lu, in that link to Meldrum's report, figure 9 really looks like a bear track to me. I see the front and rear paws of a bear overlapping. I am really surprised that this is being called a sasquatch track with a midtarsal pressure ridge.

In fact, I am absolutely certain it is bear tracks.

 

[Correa Neto]

Here's where bigfeet investigators publish remmarkable papers.

Cutted-and-pasted from Society for Scientific Exploration 's site:
Some are of great public interest and touch deep philosophical questions. Is the mind a machine or an entity that is in some sense independent of the body? Is there credible evidence that intelligent life exists on other planets near other stars in our galaxy, or that our solar system has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings? Some areas have technological potentials that could be of great benefit to mankind: Do some human beings have the capability of locating water and other life-giving resources? Are there sources of energy available to mankind other than sunlight, fossil fuels, and nuclear energy?
http://www.scientificexploration.org

Am I the only one who translates this as UFOs, Von Daniken's claims, dowsing, NDEs and OBEs, cold fusion, etc.?

Am I the only to find all of this... uhmmmm... Perhaps a bit fishy?

 

[LAL]

See what I wrote at my previous post. Wild animals are not fat. Patty's butt -assuming she's not a bloke in a suit- must be fat tissue, not muscles. It is thus, an inconsistency.

So, bigfoot investigators never point to the similarity of Patty's butt with those of gorillas?

I have no idea. Both are hairy.

Why would it have to be fat? And why wouldn't fat be stored on the buttocks? It is in our species. Animals can store fat internally as well.

Can you be sure it would break down?
Are you sure its a trait from the genus Homo?

With adult weight upwards of 500 lbs., it's unlikely the ligaments would hold up.

Aren't broad shoulders usefull to sustain Arnie's muscles? Strong shoulders are not something usefull to have even if you are bipedal? Thowing spears, fighting, lifting weights... Without strong and broad shoulders, these actions would be at least a bit hard. So, the feature is kept during the evolutionary process. Now, why would mid-tarsals breaks be kept?


Have you really noticed the points she make?

I'll summarize here. If you don't agree, just look at the graphic at the bottom of the page.

Humans are specialised bipedals, gorillas and chimps are arboricolal and australopithecines were bipedal and at least a bit arboricolal. Thus, humans have rigid feet specialized for walking, gorillas and chimps have flexible feet that can be used to grab branches and climb trees, while australopithecines, that despite being bipedal, still spended a lot of time in trees have feet that are not as flexible as those from chimps neither as rigid as ours. Not to mention that one could also see their as an early adaptation for bipedalism that would later be perfected by becoming rigid feet.

Thus flexible feet for a bipedal primate adapted for long distance walking are an unlikely feature. And inconsistency, among others, of bigfeet alleged anatomy.

In her words (in English translation):

"In addition, it is not possible to pass from the arboricolous foot to the biped foot. The Australopithecus had feet in arboricolous matters thus besides that the hands what excludes them from our ancestors. Lastly, the Large Monkeys currently living have an anatomy entirely reserved for the arboricolous life, which does not prevent them therefore from having the possibility of moving in biped, which could also practise the Australopithecus but, with the difference of the Man, it was surely not their usual mode of locomotion just as it is not that of the Large Monkeys. When the Gorilla, the Chimpanzee or the Orang-outang move on the ground in quadrupedalism, they do it while being pressed on the second phalange of the hands, which is very different from the quadrupédie small monkeys. This represents a specific character of the great Primates.
In short, the ancestor of the large monkeys, the Australopithecus and the Man was to be a biped Primate with members not specialized from which these three groups diverged. With time, these kinds acquired specializations corresponding to their particular mode of locomotion, namely an arboricolous specialization of the ends for the Australopithecus and the Large Monkeys and a specialization for the permanent bipedalism of human type at the man."

The trait may just not have been completely lost, like broad shoulders. The Australopiths were clearly bipedal as evidenced by the pelvic structure and the femur. Orrorin evidently was too.

Can you prove Patty is not a bloke in a gorilla suit? I love the "bloke in a suit" line, LOL.

Been done. The IM index and torso to shoulder ratio should be enough for anyone objective enough to actually review the calculations.

What core? Neanderthals would never fit with satyrs or fauns when it comes to anatomy or lifestyle.

Its as ridicule as Coleman's interpretation that Gilgamesh epic tells of Gilgamesh having gay sex with a bigfoot named Enkindu.

Or of the Bible's plagarism of the Gilgamesh Epic, which was inspired by the Ziasudra Epic. People elaborate in storytelling. It's expected in Africa. A good storyteller is known by his additions.

LAL, your information is at least incomplete. Some fossilization processes may not have had time to be completed. Others had more than enough time. Encasing of bones by calcite in caves may take just a few decades, for example.

Green checked for evidence of them spending time in caves. Evidently they don't. If they avoid caves, why would they go to them to die?

Where you've been in the 80s? LOL

I was living in California and the PNW. Saw Star Wars in Sacramento.

One can not create costumes that create the impression of larger shoulders?

The arms hang straight from the joints. Costuming would have to have the padding outside the joints, which would give the subject an awkward, "football player" look. Patty doesn't have that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Mugato from Star Trek 1967. No awkward football player look.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The arms hang straight from the joints. Costuming would have to have the padding outside the joints, which would give the subject an awkward, "football player" look. Patty doesn't have that.
__________________
Lu

I know what you mean.. Like the Michelin man.. Nothing like this picture of Patty..

 

[Correa Neto]

I have no idea. Both are hairy.

Why would it have to be fat? And why wouldn't fat be stored on the buttocks? It is in our species. Animals can store fat internally as well.

That's localized fat. What obese humans feeding in fast-food chains and having a sedentary lifestyle get. Animals storing fat for the winter don't get this sort of fat tissue distribution. Animals that have to walk miles to forage don't become fat.

With adult weight upwards of 500 lbs., it's unlikely the ligaments would hold up.

First of all, there's no hard evidence that a bigfoot weigths 0.0000001 or 1000 kg, since there's no solid evidence that they exist. Second, why do you think its "unlikely the ligaments would hold up"? Is it just a guess? There are heavier animals, you know, with very rigid foot structure.

In her words (in English translation):

" ..snip...
With time, these kinds acquired specializations corresponding to their particular mode of locomotion, namely an arboricolous specialization of the ends for the Australopithecus and the Large Monkeys and a specialization for the permanent bipedalism of human type at the man."

The trait may just not have been completely lost, like broad shoulders. The Australopiths were clearly bipedal as evidenced by the pelvic structure and the femur. Orrorin evidently was too.

Check the piece of text I preserved above. Australopitecines were still primitive, thus the rigid structure was not yet fully developed. That's all that she's saying.

LAL, Bigfeet, assuming they exist, are completely bipedal. They are specialzed permanent bipedals (assuming they exist). Thus, they would have rigid feet. An extra useless articulation would just be removed by the evolutionary process.

In case you have not noticed, I have already addressed your refference to broad shoulders. They are usefull, then they were kept.

Been done. The IM index and torso to shoulder ratio should be enough for anyone objective enough to actually review the calculations.

LAL, there's not enough definition in PGF for such an accuracy. IM, torso/shoulder ratios, all these will not differentiate the bloke in a suit from a real bigfeet. Why? Because a gorilla costume will be made to look like a gorilla and have similar proportions. Not to mention that the calculations were made assuming Patty is not a bloke in a suit.

Or of the Bible's plagarism of the Gilgamesh Epic, which was inspired by the Ziasudra Epic. People elaborate in storytelling. It's expected in Africa. A good storyteller is known by his additions.

LAL, what's you problem? I was referring to Coleman`s absurd twisting of Gilgamesh myth (Gilgamesh had gay sex with a bigfoot) and comparing it to the also absurd twisting of the fauns/satyr mith to make them become neanderthals.

Don't you think its a very wacko interpretation?

Green checked for evidence of them spending time in caves. Evidently they don't. If they avoid caves, why would they go to them to die?

How and what he checked? Reliable reports?

But I agree. Bigfeet do not like caves. Why? Because immaginary creatures can't like anything.

The arms hang straight from the joints. Costuming would have to have the padding outside the joints, which would give the subject an awkward, "football player" look. Patty doesn't have that.

Check the Mugato picture (gorilla suit from the 60s). Check the pictures of the gorilla suit from "Africa Screams" (gorilla suit rom the 40s).

The effects you describe are not there. And not also that Mugato has the same "Michelin man" muscles that Patty has.

 

[LTC8K6]

LAL, Bigfeet, assuming they exist, are completely bipedal.

Nope, they can't even agree on that. There are reports of quadrupedalism in sasquatch. One them was covered in these threads somewhere. You may remember it. Sasquatch was jumping 45 feet on all fours.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Nope, they can't even agree on that. There are reports of quadrupedalism in sasquatch. One them was covered in these threads somewhere. You may remember it. Sasquatch was jumping 45 feet on all fours.

Yep. When you make stuff up, you can have it any way you want..

A few perplexities remain, indeed.