Creature Suit Analysis - Part 9 - A Study of Probability

[wolftrax]

Or they made it up because they figure it's an ape and it could do that. One makes it up, another reads it and makes it part of their made up story, and so on.

In the end, you have people using it to support a skinny bear and calling it a baby squatch that is quadrupedal as a juvenile and bipedal as an adult.

And the credibility of the field sinks lower...

Edited April 1, 2009 by wolftrax

[Guest]

Or they made it up because they figure it's an ape and it could do that. One makes it up, another reads it and makes it part of their made up story, and so on.

In the end, you have people using it to support a skinny bear and calling it a baby squatch that is quadrupedal as a juvenile and bipedal as an adult.

And the credibility of the field sinks lower...

Do you EVER look at the half of the glass that is FULL, wolftrax?

Aren't you one of the ones who is always saying that you form a hypothesis to fit the facts not pick the facts to support a favored hypothesis?

Edited April 1, 2009 by Mulder

[wolftrax]

The facts are that we have all kinds of bones of apemen, even footprints that are 3.5 myo, yet they don't support a "Bi-modal" locomotion. Do you have any facts to support this claim of bi-modalism?

[Guest Carolina_Dog]

The facts are that we have all kinds of bones of apemen, even footprints that are 3.5 myo, yet they don't support a "Bi-modal" locomotion. Do you have any facts to support this claim of bi-modalism?

Which gets us right back to Patty, who could never move in 4x4 mode. Either Patty is not a bigfoot or bigfoots do not 4x4.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Carolina_Dog

[Guest]

Which gets us right back to Patty, who could never move in 4x4 mode. Either Patty is not a bigfoot or bigfoots do not 4x4.

And exactly WHY could she not should she choose to?

The facts are that we have all kinds of bones of apemen, even footprints that are 3.5 myo, yet they don't support a "Bi-modal" locomotion. Do you have any facts to support this claim of bi-modalism?

Your problem is in insisting that Patty is a hominid. If she is in fact more ape than human, (and the traits she displays seem to indicate this) she would be properly classified as an ape.

[Guest Apeman]

Tontar-

I'm right there with you on just about all of this but will try to help clarify a couple things to try to keep this discussion on track:

And I also assume that a bigfoot would have shared our own human ancestors in the past, and not ape ancestors, at least not in the "relatively" recent past.

and

Considering that I am talking about human lineage as opposed to ape lineage, I

Since humans are apes (reminder for all here) I'm guessing here you mean the direct lineage leading to humans as opposed to an earlier line shared with humans and other nonhuman apes? I.e. that sasquatches are humanoid. If you mean something else please clarify.

Hyenas also have longer front limbs...

I'm glad you reminded to check this (I've always meant to) so after finally do so, and just for the record and not pertinent to this discussion, it is only partly true based on the data I can find. IMI for brown hyenas is indeed ~101 but for spotted it is ~96 and for striped it is just under 100 (Bertram and Biewener. 1990. JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY, 204: 157-169. Differential Scaling of the Long Bones in the Terrestrial Carnivora and Other Mammals- would love to see other refs if anyone can find them). A large part of how we see hyenas -with longer front legs- is based on posture (crouching kind of like many German shepherds are trained to do) rather than strict anatomy.

So I don't have a problem with bigfoot having longer arms, if they are longer, but I don't think that makes them any more ape-like.

and

Likewise, if bigfoot actually exists, I believe it is equally evolved as we are, over the same amount of time, to fit its environment as perfectly as possible. If that evolutionary process favored keeping longer ancestral arms, then so be it. It has longer arms, not more ape-like arms.

I think part of the problem here is that longer arms are, by some definitions, more "apelike"- if we are assuming that to mean nonhuman apes. Kind of like saying Michael Phelps is more fish-like than I am. A lot more.

I have far more hair than my buddy Rob, but I don't think that makes me more ape-like....

Scientifically and evolutionarily, no of course not, but semantically, yes, being more hairy (or long armed) is more "ape-like" because (other) apes are more hairy than we are. I hope you understand what I'm saying? I think this gets tricky in this conversation between scientists and laymen (kind of like the term "belief"). I totally understand what you are saying but it might not be clear to everyone.

Looking at that Randi site and reading a lot of the skeptical views is a bit of a reality check for me. Sure, they can also be blindly determined to undermine the PGF as a hoax, or the whole matter as a hoax, but they also post some good points. Like completely different and seemingly fact based studies about how the arm length is not unusual or beyond the norm for humans.

If you have found such an argument please point me to it because I have yet to see a convincing rebuttal to this and consider it one of the strongest points in favor of the PGF being what it is purported to be.

****

As for the locomotion issue, if any sasquatches were ever quadrupedal during any stage of their life or under any circumstances, why has no one ever found track evidence of this with all the supposedly authentic tracks that have been found? A: Because, if they exist, they are bipeds and all accounts suggesting otherwise are clearly misidentifications.

-Apeman

[Guest Tontar]

Your problem is in insisting that Patty is a hominid. If she is in fact more ape than human, (and the traits she displays seem to indicate this) she would be properly classified as an ape.

I don't think it is a problem to insist that Patty is a hominid. The evidence supports it. The eyewitness accounts also support it. The ONLY thing which supports bigfoot as an ape relative physically is that it has hair, lots of it. Shave the hair, and you have a form that is not all that different from us. Hands, arms, biceps and deltoids that look just like ours, legs that look just like ours, kneecaps, calves, quads, and feet that all look like ours. A face that looks like ours, all according to eyewitness accounts, as well as what can be seen in the PG film. A walk that looks like ours, breasts that look like my mamma's. Aside from the coat of hair, everything physically points to a human form. Also, consider how many people claim patty is a man in a suit, an OBVIOUS man in a suit. There has not been one account that I know of which claims it is an ape in a suit, or that it is any known form of ape. The evidence supports human, not ape, and there are striking anatomical and morphological differences between the human form and the ape form. Hair does not make an ape.

And besides, my mental mantra keeps telling me that if patty does turn out to be a man in a suit, every single ape comment flies right out the window. hair does not make the ape.

Ah, and while it may be hard to find a human that has the proportions that Patty seems ot have, it has been said that it is not impossible to find humans with the arm to body to leg ratio that Patty has. Nor is it impossible to find people that have her posture, or her walk, or her robustness. You CAN find people that would make a good stunt double for Patty. Yet nowhere on this planet will you be able to find an ape, that is a gorilla, a chimp, an orangutan, no known ape in the world who would make even a halfway comparable stunt double for Patty.

Bigfoot, if real, is a form of hominid, a form of human. Not a form of ape.

Aaron

[Guest]

As for the locomotion issue, if any sasquatches were ever quadrupedal during any stage of their life or under any circumstances, why has no one ever found track evidence of this with all the supposedly authentic tracks that have been found? A: Because, if they exist, they are bipeds and all accounts suggesting otherwise are clearly misidentifications.

-Apeman

I think you are WAY overreaching with that claim.

Timberghost has posted a "knuckleprint" track photo on his site some time ago, for one.

For two, given the scarcity of tracks in general the relative scarcity of knuckle tracks is not all that unreasonable. Just how often do you actually find the track of ANY creature in the woods? 99.999-however many 9's% of the time, animals are not moving over ground that is suitable for the leaving of tracks (too hard, too much ground litter, etc). The rest of the time, they are crossing ground suitable for the leaving of tracks, but not necessarily the preservation of tracks. You only have a certain amount of time to find the track before it degrades away.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Mulder

[Guest Apeman]

Mulder- I wasn't really making any claim so much as making a point and trying to offer the likely explanation. Also, an isolated hand or knuckleprint is meaningless- I can find hand and fingerprints all over my house but am pretty sure my wife isn't crawling around or walking on her hands. Lastly, sorry but I'm not going to be baited into speculating on what tracks or trackways might be legit, my point was just that you'd expect some of them to show all four appendages for an animal that is regularly quadrupedal.

-A

Edited April 1, 2009 by Apeman

[Guest]

I don't think it is a problem to insist that Patty is a hominid. The evidence supports it. The eyewitness accounts also support it. The ONLY thing which supports bigfoot as an ape relative physically is that it has hair, lots of it. Shave the hair, and you have a form that is not all that different from us. Hands, arms, biceps and deltoids that look just like ours, legs that look just like ours, kneecaps, calves, quads, and feet that all look like ours. A face that looks like ours, all according to eyewitness accounts, as well as what can be seen in the PG film.

Sasquatch seen up close are often reported to have an "ape like" face (broad mouth, snub nose, heavy facial ridges around the eyes. "Patty" does not look all that human to me. Their feet are clearly not ours, as many tracks have demonstrated a mid-tarsal" break that human feet do not have. The limb ratios are closer to ape ratios than human.

A walk that looks like ours,

Not natually, unless your're Groucho Marx

Aside from the coat of hair, everything physically points to a human form.

Mere reassertion of your claim does not change the evidence otherwise.

there are striking anatomical and morphological differences between the human form and the ape form.

Indeed there are, and Patty displays them.

Ah, and while it may be hard to find a human that has the proportions that Patty seems ot have, it has been said that it is not impossible to find humans with the arm to body to leg ratio that Patty has. Nor is it impossible to find people that have her posture, or her walk, or her robustness. You CAN find people that would make a good stunt double for Patty

.

1 chance in 100 TRILLION, at a minimum, (since you have added several factors, the liklihood DEcreases, not increases.) Put another way, 1 chance in the combined population of 16667 Earths of our current population size.

Bigfoot, if real, is a form of hominid, a form of human. Not a form of ape.

Morphologically speaking, the facts do not support your statement. Bigfoot displays a mix of human and ape traits, favoring the ape.

Mulder- I wasn't really making any claim so much as making a point and trying to offer the likely explanation. my point was just that you'd expect some of them to show all four appendages for an animal that is regularly quadrupedal.

I never claimed they were "regularly" quadrapeds. I said that bi-modalism is the hypothesis that best fits the obersvational data currently to hand. They can be primarily bipedal and still revert to quadrapedal motion at need/will.

[Guest Apeman]

They can be primarily bipedal and still revert to quadrapedal motion at need/will.

..which would be regularly quadrupedal in my book: moving quadrupedally with some regular (albeit perhaps very low) frequency. I do not mean that it would their regular/normal/standard mode of locomotion, just that it happens with "some" regularity- like bipedalism in wild chimps (rare but happening "regularly" during displays, etc.) See what I mean?

Sorry about the semantics.

-A

[Drew]

Mulder-

Your statements that Patty is out of proportion for a human are based on what?

1. Bill Munns has stated that the proportion issue is not even a concern because it looks like Patty falls within human dimensions.

2. If it was out of proportion for a human, it certainly wouldn't be out of proportion for a costumed human.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Drew

[Hairy Man]

I found this article interesting:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/081119-gibbon-feet.html

Jeanna Bryner

Senior Writer

LiveScience.com

Our ape-like ancestors might have walked like today's gibbons, whose super bendy feet give them a floppy strut.

The modern human foot first evolved in our ancestors around 1.8 million years ago, said Evie Vereecke of the University of Liverpool in England. But studies suggest that even before our advanced feet emerged, our mostly tree-climbing ancestors were walking upright for short stints.

Vereecke wanted to find out how they would have done that without specialized walking feet.

She turned to gibbons. This family of primates shares a common ancestor with the great apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans and humans). Gibbons walk upright up to 12 percent of the time, Vereecke said.

Like other modern apes, gibbons sport a flexible joint midway along the foot. While we still have the joint, we don't have the flexibility that gibbons and other apes have. That flexibility is essential for climbing trees and grasping onto branches, but perhaps not for ambling around on flat surfaces.

Vereecke videotaped gibbons walking about at Belgium's Wild Animal Park of Planckendael. She then digitized the animals' foot movements and developed a computer model, which showed the animals moved sort of like ballerinas, landing on their toes before the heel touched the ground. This allowed the animals to stretch the toes' tendons and store energy in them.

Once their toes touched down, gibbons then lifted the heel first, effectively bending the foot to form an upward-turned arch. That bending maneuver stretched the toes' tendons even more, storing more elastic energy for use as the foot eventually pushed off the ground.

Unlike gibbons' flat feet, we have arched feet with an elastic band along the sole. When we put weight on our feet, the arch stretches that band, storing elastic energy. At push off, the elastic band recoils, releasing energy for propulsion at the end of the stride.

In essence, our feet go from an arched or upside-down "U" shape to flat when walking, while gibbons' feet change from flat to "U" shaped.

"This gibbon research shows us that even if you have these flat, flexible feet, you can walk upright quite efficiently," Vereecke told LiveScience, "and that it doesn't restrict or limit your abilities even though you don't have this specialized foot structure as modern humans."

She said gibbons aren't a perfect model for how human ancestors, such as the early human ancestor dubbed Lucy, walked about. At 3.2 million years old, Lucy is one of the most famous early human ancestors and the first Australopithecus afarensis skeleton ever found.

But gibbons could still shed light on how early humans walked. "We have some fossil remains of hominin feet, and those indicate that our early ancestors had floppy, flexible feet," Vereecke said. "Although they didn't look like a gibbon, they likely had flexible feet and walked upright."

The research is detailed in the Nov. 14 issue of the Journal of Experimental Biology.

[Drew]

http://life.nthu.edu.tw/~labccc/PP_files/A...Science2004.pdf

The human body vs. chimp is mentioned here. Note: the article HM cites, is regarding walking only.

Bipedalism, with a robust ACHILLES heel, lack of floppy feet, and other adaptations, relates to running as well.

If someone can access a text version of this, please post it. I can't cut and paste the PDF file.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Drew

[Guest Apeman]

Yes Hairyman, we discussed that one a little bit here and I posted yours Drew here, but there was little interest.

-A