Guest WesT Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I'm pretty sure he modeled the skull after Paranthropus Boise. I don't see how a Giganto skull could have been used as a model since one has never been found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Yes, as I said, he verified that to me in an email. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) [bTW covered it] Edited December 21, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The skull looked a lot like giganto but comparing them now I can see that the cranium and crest is a little different. I still don't think that skull on this model fits the evidence and description. Just me. http://www.paleo-science.co.jp/images/img/PSF-F002-0001.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Dang. I thought i would never need a 3-D printer. But how cool would that be to have? Sort of this generation's Visible Man model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Oh, I didn't realize they made a mock-up of the rest of the skull based on the teeth and lower mandible. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 They did that for the Gigantopithicus skull. Not sure how much they have of the Paranthropus boisei skull. At this point it's all just speculation anyway. Bigfoot may have something more like a neanderthal skull with a slight crest and a little more distance between the nasal cavity and mouth. They got the no neck part right. Looking at Patty I think the shoulders could be wider, as a couple others stated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I think I may have read that they also used Patty as a model. Not very scientific as there is more than a very good chance the Patterson creature is a hoax. t. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted December 21, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) I think I may have read that they also used Patty as a model. Not very scientific as there is more than a very good chance the Patterson creature is a hoax. t. Don't make wild claims like that unless you want them challenged. There is NO chance the Patterson "creature" was a hoax. If it was, by now someone would have shown how it was done in a believable way rather than resorting to feeble excuses why they didn't match it exactly. Instead, every attempt to debunk it fails so horribly that it adds credibility rather than taking it away. MIB Edited December 21, 2015 by MIB 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Well MIB, every single life form on this planet that has ever been photographed/filmed once has been photographed/filmed again. All we have other than this one good clip is blurry, hoaxed or misidentified stumps, animals or shadows. That's not very scientific either. That being said, I know you think you've had an encounter so you know better than I. In any case, all the arguments have been made as to whether Patty is real or not. We're all just waiting for the next capture on film that can't be disputed. t. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 They did that for the Gigantopithicus skull. Not sure how much they have of the Paranthropus boisei skull. At this point it's all just speculation anyway. Bigfoot may have something more like a neanderthal skull with a slight crest and a little more distance between the nasal cavity and mouth. They got the no neck part right. Looking at Patty I think the shoulders could be wider, as a couple others stated above. With Gigantopithicus a handful of teeth and a lower mandible is all that has been found. To date. There seems to be more examples of Paranthropus Boise . The skulls do look similar though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Well MIB, every single life form on this planet that has ever been photographed/filmed once has been photographed/filmed again. All we have other than this one good clip is blurry, hoaxed or misidentified stumps, animals or shadows. That's not very scientific either. That being said, I know you think you've had an encounter so you know better than I. In any case, all the arguments have been made as to whether Patty is real or not. We're all just waiting for the next capture on film that can't be disputed. t. Most people don't know how much effort goes into every single photo/video of an animal...and how little has gone into photo/video of this one. Again, I've gone into that in so much detail so many times here that I won't do it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 ^^ There's a term for that: Special Pleading. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 ^^^Especially for him. (No: it's called knowing whose opinions are relevant...and whose are not. The truth needs no special pleading; the ignorant simply need to read up and get up to speed, and recognize that one can't use the divine fallacy to bulldoze one's way past the truth. At least not if one wants to be taken seriously.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Well MIB, every single life form on this planet that has ever been photographed/filmed once has been photographed/filmed again. All we have other than this one good clip is blurry, hoaxed or misidentified stumps, animals or shadows. That's not very scientific either. That being said, I know you think you've had an encounter so you know better than I. In any case, all the arguments have been made as to whether Patty is real or not. We're all just waiting for the next capture on film that can't be disputed. t. Most people don't know how much effort goes into every single photo/video of an animal...and how little has gone into photo/video of this one. Again, I've gone into that in so much detail so many times here that I won't do it again. However the hard to photograph animals are captured on film, video and digital stills. This can't be said of bifgoot and it's pretty obvious why. How can you even present the argument that there are insufficient numbers of photo armed researchers out there. How many people are members of your society? How many photos and videos show up on youtube? How many researchers have youtube channels posting photos and videos day after day, week after week? There are more bigfooters tramping about than there are legitimate scientific wildlife photojournalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts