Gigantopithecus

[Guest DWA]

1) PURPORTED hand prints

2) ASSUMING the PGF is an actual sasquatch

I am not assuming on both accounts. Get a body and then we'll have the FACTS

Well, certain things have to be assumed in science or there is no science.

Unless it is assumed (based of course on review of evidence) that these things that have been found constitute leads worth following, the search doesn't go anywhere until there's a body.

But without a search, how does one get one? We don't wait for meteors to hit us to know they're real.

[Guest]

another thing to think about is why would someone fake hand prints and not make them look either human or ape like. Why would they make fake hands with pseudo-opposable thumbs? Also the hand prints came from two different sources. There is also witness testimony from seeing BFs handling things.

[Guest wudewasa]

another thing to think about is why would someone fake hand prints and not make them look either human or ape like. Why would they make fake hands with pseudo-opposable thumbs? Also the hand prints came from two different sources. There is also witness testimony from seeing BFs handling things.

Witness testimonies are anecdotal, not empirical. Bears don't have opposable thumbs and make prints. If people want to explain evidence as squatchy, then they will. MM is poster child of such behavior.

[Guest]

another thing to think about is why would someone fake hand prints and not make them look either human or ape like. Why would they make fake hands with pseudo-opposable thumbs? Also the hand prints came from two different sources. There is also witness testimony from seeing BFs handling things.

Would a hoaxer necessarily produce anatomically correct prints? Believe it or not there are many people who are ignorant of many of the features of their own anatomy let alone the anatomy of a species they are pretendng is real.

I am not convinced by the idea of a bipedal, giant lemuroid in North America. I accept the possiblity but I am not sold on it. Most of the stories I've heard sound much more human-like and there have been numerous human-like species in the fossil record. Perhaps not in the amercas but certainly in places close enough for some of them enter via the Bering land bridge.

[Guest]

Would a hoaxer necessarily produce anatomically correct prints? Believe it or not there are many people who are ignorant of many of the features of their own anatomy let alone the anatomy of a species they are pretendng is real.

I am not convinced by the idea of a bipedal, giant lemuroid in North America. I accept the possiblity but I am not sold on it. Most of the stories I've heard sound much more human-like and there have been numerous human-like species in the fossil record. Perhaps not in the amercas but certainly in places close enough for some of them enter via the Bering land bridge.

I think the point here is two different sources produce identical prints. I guess it is possible that two hoaxers would not know enough about own anatomy to really screw it up.

Where do you get lemuriod? That is not what I am saying.

The only similarity with humans is it is bipedal and primate. Their bipedalism is very different from ours.

[Guest]

"All old world primates, except the most primitive like lemurs and aye ayes, have opposable thumbs. All new world primates except spider monkeys have psuedo-opposable thumbs. Spider monkeys have lost their thumbs"

I may have conflated this with the knowledge I had that North America was once home to lemurs. My bad. But I don't think South American primate as origin of BF is simpler or more parsimonious than hominid arriving from Asia.

Also considering how many people seem to think the subject of the Patterson film is really a man in a suit tells me the walk isn't too different from a human one. As for showing the whole sole during walking, someone wearing a big pair of feet or someone with big actual feet might have to lift his/her foot a bit higher to maneuver around in them. This would likely expose much more sole than usual human feet.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

PGF would be hard to fake. try walking so you expose the whole sole of your foot.

That's a result of the lower leg being raised close to the upper leg. To this day, I have not seen anyone who can walk like that

Edited March 14, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest DWA]

When I first saw P/G, I stifled a giggle. IT'S A GUY IN A SUIT!

Now, in order to be a Proper Bigfoot Skeptic, one can never, ever, ever, ever, EVER look at the film again, and must carry that view throughout life, unsullied by information.

Well, I cheated. I kept looking. Those stills were just too weird to pass it off based on one look. And I soon found out that Patty's walk is as much like a human's as, say, a penguin's tux is like a human's.

Patty's not human. That's what the evidence says.

Edited March 14, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

With big fake feet on, it would be even harder to walk like that. There is no way a person could have a gait like that. try it yourself. The gait is real jerky trying to make sure the sole of your foot is showing. The tibia and fibula are at 90 degrees to the femur.

I liked this analysis:

[MarkGlasgow]

I guess you will have seen this vid before but it always makes me smile. Nails it for me.

Edited March 14, 2013 by MarkGlasgow

[Guest DWA]

I guess you will have seen this vid before but it always makes me smile. Nails it for me.

Cool indeed.

Back in the days of wha? just an ape man!

(and btw....just how many "ape woman" suits have we seen since Patty...???)

the chances you are gonna get a guy, in a huge clunky ape suit with gi-normous feetie parts, to do a walk that subtly yet distinctly different - while, you know, not looking where he's going, and, you know, giving two guys with guns plenty opp to fill him full of holes - are...well, they seem less than the chances that bigfoot's real.

Edited March 14, 2013 by DWA