Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
norseman

Patty in taxidermy form and comparisons

56 posts in this topic

Ken Walker (artist) Patty recreation

IMG_0510.JPG

Female lowland Gorilla with offspring

IMG_0511.JPG

Lucy (Afarensis) recreation

IMG_0512.JPG

Edited by norseman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homo Ergaster female and mate recreation

IMG_0513.JPG

Neanderthal female recreation 

IMG_0514.GIF

Female Hobbit (Flores) recreation

IMG_0515.JPG

Edited by norseman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, it really chaps my butt when I see these really dishonest artist renderings.  The trend is to put a primitive head on a human body - or as close to a human body as they can get away with - and the anthropologists love it - as that's what they want everyone to see.

 

The bones of those things are so very much thicker than human bones - and really thick bones are indicative of very robust, very strong muscles - nothing like the more frail human builds.

 

Then their pelvis bones are much wider than human pelvises - meaning they'd be almighty knock-kneed - viewed head on.  And I'll go way out on a limb here, and suggest that when BF is found - their pelvis will be much wider than human pelvis's proportionally - lending some explanation of the odd cross-country skiiing appearance when they decide to really cover some ground.

 

I did personally note that there seemed to be something "wrong" with their knees and ankles - they weren't like us.  The more I learn about other things, yep - their ankle is probably significantly more forward on the foot, and their knees - aside from not locking like ours - I doubt they can even stand straight up, and lock there knees.  Their knee differences probably have a bit of an awkward looking wobble because of the increased wideness of their hips and the knock-kneed (per me) stance.

 

They actually walk more efficiently than us.  It's like evolution went backward with us.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

For some reason, it really chaps my butt when I see these really dishonest artist renderings.  The trend is to put a primitive head on a human body - or as close to a human body as they can get away with - and the anthropologists love it - as that's what they want everyone to see.

 

The bones of those things are so very much thicker than human bones - and really thick bones are indicative of very robust, very strong muscles - nothing like the more frail human builds.

 

Then their pelvis bones are much wider than human pelvises - meaning they'd be almighty knock-kneed - viewed head on.  And I'll go way out on a limb here, and suggest that when BF is found - their pelvis will be much wider than human pelvis's proportionally - lending some explanation of the odd cross-country skiiing appearance when they decide to really cover some ground.

 

I did personally note that there seemed to be something "wrong" with their knees and ankles - they weren't like us.  The more I learn about other things, yep - their ankle is probably significantly more forward on the foot, and their knees - aside from not locking like ours - I doubt they can even stand straight up, and lock there knees.  Their knee differences probably have a bit of an awkward looking wobble because of the increased wideness of their hips and the knock-kneed (per me) stance.

 

They actually walk more efficiently than us.  It's like evolution went backward with us.

 

Can you elaborate on what you call "dishonest artist renderings"? Lucy and the Hobbit are barely 4 ft tall. The Neanderthal looks way more robust than a modern woman through the arms and chest. We can't just make blanket statements about the recreations. Need to go through one by one. I choose representations of females of each species because Patty represents a female of her species. Which wasn't an easy task....far more male recreations out there.

 

How does the Patty recreation look to you?

 

And humans are extremely efficient long distance runners on fairly flat ground. Dr. Meldrum has posited that Sasquatch is much more efficient on steep uneven ground.

It is theorized that our direct ancestors practiced "persistence hunting" in which we basically jogged behind prey for days until they died of heat exhaustion on the open plain.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patty?

 

Patty was as bowlegged as a newborn or toddler.  To start with.  Her valgus knee angle was 15 degrees, ours is nine degrees.  The rendition doesn't show her to be bowlegged.  I don't know why - but that jumps right out at me.

 

Next up, did you see her hands?  Look human, huh?  Lucy's hand are even more curved than in a chimpanzee, and morphologically look like a chimpanzee hands.

 

Lucy's assembled ribcage looks like a chimpanzee rib cage - but the artwork really doesn't depict that.

 

Lucy has long, curved toes and a mobile ankle joint - making her well suited for grasping limbs and climbing trees - not exactly depicted in the rendering.

 

But truly - Lucy has a divergent toe - do you see a divergent toe in the rendering?  I don't.

 

Lucy was is just another extinct ape - no antecedent of humans.  But boy, our BS artists we call anthropologists - sure would like us to believe that - and so they prefer all of those primitive apes as appearing more human.

 

Their paycheck depends on it.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a fact check here, this is Lucy's skeleton. So how do you know she had curved toes or a mobile ankle joint or a divergent big toe?

IMG_0517.JPG

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this.

 

 

 

IMG_0518.JPG

Edited by norseman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you post a photo of Lucy, and not the rest of her family she was found with - ostensibly?  You DO know that pieces of several individuals were found and declared to be of her immediate family?  Yes?

 

A. afarensis?  Lucy and the others' bones were found scattered ON THE SURFACE?  Dated in some manner - but not quite so scientifically?  Yet anthropologically acceptable?  You realize other Australopithecus Afarensis bones have been found?  All the same thing?  Per anthropologists?  Yet they have a blade like hip angle - just like a chimp?  

 

You posted a photo of Lucy's particular skeleton, but didn't notice the lower part of Lucy's fibula, the part that connects with the ankle, is different from that of a human being, and almost identical to that of the pygmy chimpanzee?

 

On every single thing one cares to examine - this is simply an extinct ape.  Pelvis.  Hips. Fingers.  Hands. Feet.  Toes. Shoulder blades. on and on, and on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension.  It's an invaluable tool.

 

Read your article again.  "At a species level  .  .  .  "

 

That means if they dated the footprints correctly, and if they dated the A. afarensis correctly - that's the most likely species that fits in that time period.

 

It doe NOT mean Lucy and her ilk made the footprints.   

And I'm going to bed.

 

I'm just not in the mood to recount very detailed and lengthy events of Johanson and White's discoveries, reversals, suppositions, and intentionally misleading statements that anyone who got into the details would exclude.

 

I'm simply not giving a crip course in anthropology.  Not getting paid.

 

The information is all available - many, many books in great detail are available - somewhat more detailed than Wiki.

Edited by FarArcher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well go to bed then....you can debate this tommorow.

 

But the anthropological consensus is that Lucy's species made those tracks. Which were NOT made by a knuckle Walker with a divergent big toe. Besides the later Kadanuumuu find confirmed that A. Afarensis did indeed have a modern human like pelvis.

 

As you seem to be a Sasquatch equals human hybrid proponent? I'm a little surprised your trying to distance Lucy and her kind from humanity.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, norseman said:

Well go to bed then....you can debate this tommorow.

 

But the anthropological consensus is that Lucy's species made those tracks. Which were NOT made by a knuckle Walker with a divergent big toe. Besides the later Kadanuumuu find confirmed that A. Afarensis did indeed have a modern human like pelvis.

 

As you seem to be a Sasquatch equals human hybrid proponent? I'm a little surprised your trying to distance Lucy and her kind from humanity.

 

 

The Laetoli foot prints are not inline like they say Sasquatches are.

So what you can deduce is they here not Sasquatch ancestors.

However inline walking might have been a development of the extreme weight and more recent evolution.

Or, conversely, it may mean that the split between our ancestors and bigfoot occured earlier than the  Laetoli foot prints.

Meldrum tries arguing that the evolution of bipedalism in hominins have have evolved twice although I find that suspect.

Hominins have been walking upright for 5-6 million years at least.

The hominin making the track is what we call Afarensis which was before what I would think of a split with a potential bigfoot relative so the evolution of online walking would be more likely be an adaptation be due to size and inertial weight.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is arguing the Laetoli footprints were made by Sasquatch ancestors. The debate between FA and I is thus..... Are the recreations of A. Afarensis correct? Or is science wrong, and is the species really a non human ancestor knuckle walking extinct ape?

 

Back on topic.

 

What do you think about the recreation of Patty above?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a pretty good recreation but I'd like to see more angles. Also, Patty looks black on film to me so the color sort of throws me off, even though I believe it was B Gimlin who said she actually was that brown/reddish color. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0