Jump to content
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong?

Recommended Posts

ShadowBorn

Salubrious

I tried to practice fox walking and found it difficult, but yes it does take practice and time to perform. I can see how this would work on stalking animal on windless days since you are using your feet and toes to feel the ground. if well I can not say if since I have seen tracks where the toes are dug in more then the heel and I always thought that this was odd. But then this could be from them stepping off from the toes, but then one would figure that their next step their heel would be more dug in from the weight of the step. But again the toe would still be dug in with in the forest floor, almost in a way to conceal it's print with in the forest floor.

 

I would find these faded tracks where you would have to place your fingers in the track to feel for toes. But then I would find prints that are just plain flat footed prints where they are wide in the front and not so wide in the rear. The print would be like a complete roll off of it's foot , like what we would leave on sand.

 

I have tried to do the inline walk while I hike out in he woods to see how it feels and found that it was difficult to perform for long distances but not for short distance. I also tried the bent leg approach while in the woods and that this was comfortable but when I tried it with the inline walk found it very difficult, since it created a twisting motion of the knees. Now this is just my opinion. But I will be practicing the fox walk Thank you Salubrious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jayjeti

. I also tried the bent leg approach while in the woods and that this was comfortable but when I tried it with the inline walk found it very difficult, since it created a twisting motion of the knees. Now this is just my opinion.

 

Wow ShadowBorn, that underscores what Dr. Jurgen Konczak said.  He's a professor at the University of Minnesota who studies motor control.  He studied Patty's gait in the Patterson/Gimlin film and noted the odd knee action that humans were unable to duplicate.  It seems sasquatch anatomy might work differently than ours, contributing to how it walks in line.

 

 

I transcribed the following from the video beginning at around the 12:55 minute mark.  it states:  "The most telling problem is in the subject's knee movement.  There was a long sequence of frames where we were able to look at it pretty good and we can clearly see there is this lateral rotation at the knee where the foot is kind of like going outward, and so that is something that seems rather strange."  

 

As the video continues at around the 14:15 mark it says they had a person they wanted to mimic the sasquatch's walk, as they had observed it, and it states, "The athlete couldn't do it.  He couldn't walk like whatever or whoever was caught on film."

 

Here's a link to that video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekcyPgbCRxs

 

I just thought that was interesting that you experienced a problem with your knees twisting while attempting an in line gait with the knees bent like sasquatches do.  As the above linked video states their model was unable to duplicate the leg motion that Patty made.  It would seem sasquatch leg anatomy works differently than ours.

Edited by jayjeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

Having gone barefoot for at least 90% of the last 15+ years, as well as the whole arthritic knees thing, and having experimented quite a bit with alternate ways of walking, I can tell yo straight out that one can produce inline trackways without requiring the "Fox walk". As a matter of fact, you can do it with heel first steps, ball of foot first, whole foot down at once, or even rolling front to back or back to front on the outer edge of one's feet and produce in line tracks.

Simply put, it's not about how you land your feet, but rather where, as the inline tracks can be produced in a number of ways.

I do believe that in their case, the compliant walk does lend itself well to inline trackways, perhaps especially so when used in conjunction with the "whole foot down" manner of stepping. To really get a sense of it, one needs to focus on the whole system, and keep doing it for a good while. One way I worked on it was to walk with a compliant gait along the 4-6" edge of curbs, both uphill and down, after a couple months it'll be second nature. Of course resultant knee pain is a great motivator to find and implement alternate potential means of walking about, and the compliant gait has been the most effective(relatively painless) form I've tried.

I've also found that by leaning my torso forward a bit, I gain some measure of that falling forward imbalance which when combined with the compliant gait not only seems to add some speed but also facilitates a longer stride length which also contributes to the potential for inline step placement which while using this technique lends to a more centered balance in the plane of one's shoulders, sorta like on a bike once up to speed moving in a straight line rather than in a more serpentine left right left right that leads to overall instability as momentum increases.

In the Fox walk video, the fellow speaks of the advantage of feeling the ground as you walk, allowing one to adjust the step far more effectively than when wearing shoes. While this is certainly true, I think there's more to it. As I watched the clip, he stepped on the branch, then pulled back, stating that being shoe-less allowed him to sense it before breaking it(somehow I think he knew it was there beforehand...) and it was then I had the thought that the old mid-tarsal break would certainly facilitate stepping on such a fallen branch and instead of pulling back one's foot or at least shifting it's placement mid-step, it would allow the foot to form around the branch without necessarily breaking it.

I myself have done similar sorta stuff being barefooted when there were kittens in the house that would rest under bedcovers and sheets hanging down off the bed yet still within foot space and in the course of a potentially cat crushing step, sensing it underfoot and shifting my step so as not to put my weight down on it. So I could easily see that, with a lifetime of practice, these guys could walk and step in most any manner they chose.

 

Plussed.

 

Yes, you don't have to foxwalk to do an inline trackway! I find that if I'm doing any sort of stalking or stealthy movement in the forest that my trackway tends to be more inline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

In that I've never witnessed any of the big furries, I have no personal observational experience to draw upon in regards to other sasquatch' s walking styles or physiologies that would lend to drawing conclusions concerning the knee motion as a species-wide phenomena.

Presuming that it is makes the questions of how and why this motion arose, and what function/benefit does this form of inline walking provide, the pertinent point..is it distinct enough of a difference to possibly imply an additional evolution of bipedal locomotion, which would certainly impart the notion that they are not so close a relative, or is it more of a variation/adaptation of our line of bipedalism that has developed to accommodate their greater size and weight and the skeletal stresses that come with it?

I'm sure there are a good number of other possible selective factors that contributed to the nature of this gait, once again, presuming this is a wide spread trait rather than one found mostly in older female individuals as they move away from those little monkies with the camera and gun that sometimes frequent the habitat.

Is there any record of walking patterns displayed by juveniles of lesser bulk and stature that might shed some light upon whether or not the gait is just how they all walk or if it manifests once they attain a certain size/weight?

I suppose it's possible that it's something taught or demonstrated to the next generation as they become more independent or begin foraging on their own, or for some other reason at some point in their adolescence, but, of course, I don't know if it is an innate or introduced/implemented form of getting around. Maybe by using inline walking, they can better mask their presence/numbers when traveling as a group. Or perhaps they do it so they can distinguish themselves from all the hoaxers...."Quit that! You're walking like those hairless dwarves again!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

I'm sure there are a good number of other possible selective factors that contributed to the nature of this gait, once again, presuming this is a wide spread trait rather than one found mostly in older female individuals as they move away from those little monkies with the camera and gun that sometimes frequent the habitat.

Guy what are you trying to say with this statement, It's funny! In my opinion I think their gait is a trait that is bred in them. I tried walking with the knee bent with out the inline step in the woods and found it comfortable. Some of the steps that I have found looked liked hops since they were long strides so would be difficult to find the next track. Still they would be inline and this was odd and how could this be faked out in the middle of no where kind a of thing in Michigan.

 

Patty's stride was long as well was it not? So if she was walking like this and this walk is hard to reproduce with the same stride with the same rotation of the knee. Then there must be some thing true to what is on that film, No! Then what we are seeing is a living specimen on film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

The reason has to do with bi-pedal-ism and how it evolved as hominids left living in the trees.

We adapted to open plains and Bigfoot evolved to mountain slopes and canyons.

So he does not stand full upright, can't fully extend the leg and land on the heel, and can't run.

But due to strength can walk faster than a horse can run.

The foot is still somewhat a monkey foot and is more like a hand, it may be the Squatches also have a good tree climbing ability based on the more ape like hand and foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FarArcher

The reason has to do with bi-pedal-ism and how it evolved as hominids left living in the trees.

We adapted to open plains and Bigfoot evolved to mountain slopes and canyons.

So he does not stand full upright, can't fully extend the leg and land on the heel, and can't run.

But due to strength can walk faster than a horse can run.

The foot is still somewhat a monkey foot and is more like a hand, it may be the Squatches also have a good tree climbing ability based on the more ape like hand and foot.

 

Cryptic, I don't know about that other stuff, but there may be a bit of controversy as to whether they can run or not.

 

For certain, they don't run like us.  It's more like a guy really pushing his cross country skiiing hard!  There's something wrong with their knees or ankles - or maybe there's something wrong with ours.

 

Whatever it's called, they can giddy-up and cover some country fast.  I remember thinking "that thing could run down a deer."

 

Are we talking the same, but using different words and descriptions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

 

The reason has to do with bi-pedal-ism and how it evolved as hominids left living in the trees.

We adapted to open plains and Bigfoot evolved to mountain slopes and canyons.

So he does not stand full upright, can't fully extend the leg and land on the heel, and can't run.

But due to strength can walk faster than a horse can run.

The foot is still somewhat a monkey foot and is more like a hand, it may be the Squatches also have a good tree climbing ability based on the more ape like hand and foot.

 

Cryptic, I don't know about that other stuff, but there may be a bit of controversy as to whether they can run or not.

 

For certain, they don't run like us.  It's more like a guy really pushing his cross country skiiing hard!  There's something wrong with their knees or ankles - or maybe there's something wrong with ours.

 

Whatever it's called, they can giddy-up and cover some country fast.  I remember thinking "that thing could run down a deer."

 

Are we talking the same, but using different words and descriptions?

 

Yup  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

 

The reason has to do with bi-pedal-ism and how it evolved as hominids left living in the trees.

We adapted to open plains and Bigfoot evolved to mountain slopes and canyons.

So he does not stand full upright, can't fully extend the leg and land on the heel, and can't run.

But due to strength can walk faster than a horse can run.

The foot is still somewhat a monkey foot and is more like a hand, it may be the Squatches also have a good tree climbing ability based on the more ape like hand and foot.

 

Cryptic, I don't know about that other stuff, but there may be a bit of controversy as to whether they can run or not.

 

For certain, they don't run like us.  It's more like a guy really pushing his cross country skiiing hard!  There's something wrong with their knees or ankles - or maybe there's something wrong with ours.

 

Whatever it's called, they can giddy-up and cover some country fast.  I remember thinking "that thing could run down a deer."

 

Humans can run down a deer too, but for entirely different reasons. See "Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

Only a controversy if you think they exist.

So no corroboration any how.

Lack of a reality test.

On the other point I talked with some Mayan satanists that mentioned running down deer and drinking the blood from the neck :vampire: .

Had the help of a canine.

So yup, you can exhaust them because they run in sprints but humans can run for hours, so with a dog tracking you can run them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

Perhaps the distinct knee motion is a residual physiology from the stage of their development when they were primarily on all fours, which I would think might dictate different A&P, some of which may still be in transition, or has been retained so as to facilitate both forms of locomotion.

From what I've read, they seem able to go at quite a clip while down on their hands and feet. It is intriguing that they are so proficient in both modes...I can't think of any other creature so capable in this regard.

Shadow- what I was saying is there are probably a number of reasons or benefits that they developed their mode of walking..stealth, speed, big feet, chronic joint pain, evolutionary path of adapting bipedalism to their context reflecting previous quadrupedality, narrow game trails, "deer dont spook if you walk like this", messing with the researchers, keeps the badgers away, who knows what all the potential environmental elements that may have played a role in the rise of their current gait might be? Maybe the she-squatches do it because it has a slimming effect...could be most anything. But chances are it came into use for more than one or two reasons or selective factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

Perhaps the distinct knee motion is a residual physiology from the stage of their development when they were primarily on all fours, which I would think might dictate different A&P, some of which may still be in transition, or has been retained so as to facilitate both forms of locomotion.

From what I've read, they seem able to go at quite a clip while down on their hands and feet. It is intriguing that they are so proficient in both modes...I can't think of any other creature so capable in this regard.

Shadow- what I was saying is there are probably a number of reasons or benefits that they developed their mode of walking..stealth, speed, big feet, chronic joint pain, evolutionary path of adapting bipedalism to their context reflecting previous quadrupedality, narrow game trails, "deer dont spook if you walk like this", messing with the researchers, keeps the badgers away, who knows what all the potential environmental elements that may have played a role in the rise of their current gait might be? Maybe the she-squatches do it because it has a slimming effect...could be most anything. But chances are it came into use for more than one or two reasons or selective factors.

Hominids have been walking upright for millions of years and our divergence from Patty happened at a time when both groups would have been equally evolved in upright walking. If it is residual, however, we would have as great a likelihood of residual physiology, but I think that is a misapprehension of evolution role in physiology of this nature. 

More likely is that Patty evolved a type of locomotion specific to it's ecological niche, that niche being as different as possible from Homo Sapiens. The other theory is that it is a second evolution of upright walking that occured in hominids but their is little fossil evidence of that.

Perhaps that is because it is not studied or because their are so few foot fossils that are ever found since foot bones are the most poorly preserved of the bones (along with the hand bones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

Ok, but if we're equally evolved in regards to bipedal locomotion how is it that they've retained the ability for effective quadrupedal motion while we have not?

There must surely be some degree of anatomical accommodation for this ability, some structural configuration that supports that form of motion, one that we either no longer possess, and have not for millions of years.

One possible pathway may be that they have redeveloped quadrupedal locomotion after attaining bipedality as it served some action that proved to be a selective factor at some point, removing those incapable from the population...Ok, that one's pretty unlikely.....

One might well think that the capacity for both modes was sustained as part of their strategy of generalized survival as opposed to locking their species into a more specialized niche within the environment. This could well have been a result of existing and interacting within the context of the megafauna, with its superpredators. I don't know which form of locomotion is faster or more versatile, but I'm sure it didn't hurt to have options when dealing with such creatures.

In that they are still around, one could infer that their bi-modal means of getting around most likely contributed to their continuance as so many other species fell to the shifting climates and the arrival of those pesky hairless dwarves.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cryptic Megafauna

Ok, but if we're equally evolved in regards to bipedal locomotion how is it that they've retained the ability for effective quadrupedal motion while we have not?

There must surely be some degree of anatomical accommodation for this ability, some structural configuration that supports that form of motion, one that we either no longer possess, and have not for millions of years.

One possible pathway may be that they have redeveloped quadrupedal locomotion after attaining bipedality as it served some action that proved to be a selective factor at some point, removing those incapable from the population...Ok, that one's pretty unlikely.....

One might well think that the capacity for both modes was sustained as part of their strategy of generalized survival as opposed to locking their species into a more specialized niche within the environment. This could well have been a result of existing and interacting within the context of the megafauna, with its superpredators. I don't know which form of locomotion is faster or more versatile, but I'm sure it didn't hurt to have options when dealing with such creatures.

In that they are still around, one could infer that their bi-modal means of getting around most likely contributed to their continuance as so many other species fell to the shifting climates and the arrival of those pesky hairless dwarves.....

I think your assuming quadrupedal locomotion.

 

For instance apes and chimps have it but don't go on two for very long.

chimps are still tree adapted.

Humans go on all fours as infants.

 

No reason to go on all fours unless going back up into the trees.

In fact I can go on all fours now and if climbing a steep slope that is what it would look like.

 

Probably not what is meant in Anthropology about evolving upright walking though.

It's is the adaptation of the bone and muscle structures of foot, ankle, knee sockets, and hip girdle to accommodate an upright stride in the most efficient way possible.

 

The heavy musculature of the shoulder area and long arms are your best argument in regard to Bigfoot.

 

These adaptations were present during the split between Homo and Australopithecus though (bipedalism, arm length, etc.) and Australopithecus was still considered bipedal and the same as Homo Habilis except for brain size and social organization and collective social focus, what the real change was is brain structure (size) and secondarily the evolution of human speech (between moderns us and an Australopithecine type).

 

All things being the same the Human invested in brain power (size and abstract complex social thinking) at the expensive of robust physiology and Bigfoot invested in physical supremacy at the expense of a larger brain and absence of complex social group abstract and symbolic thinking.

 

Not saying the have none, just a lot less of the kind we have.

 

Pure awareness is not a function of brain size or whales and elephants would be much smarter than us (they still could be more "aware").

 

We need the processing power to model complex social interactions and outcomes.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

There are numerous accounts of these guys moving more than effectively on all fours, even a few video clips of fairly convincing presentations of large black creatures moving quite adeptly in a primate styling, very non-bearlike manner, so one might do well to at least consider if not integrate the possibility of the behavior/ability being present in the species, lest one's fixed conceptualization impede unexpected discovery.

Human babies on all fours is due to incomplete brain construction(neural pathways&networks, and such) leading to yet to be installed motor coordination...

As for there being no reason to "go back to"(which may not be the case should it prove out that they never divested themselves of the ability) quadrupedal locomotion, how can anyone really say what possible reasons or benefits might be had through a bi-modal approach to getting around for these creatures, especially in light of just how little we actually know of them?

And yeah, I can move around on my hands and feet some as well, not for long or comfortably, or with much forward/vertical vision, but I wouldn't want to fight a badger that way, much less run off/away from a bear in that position!

In regard to skeletal adaptation moving towards "the most.efficient" form of bipedalism, at least as has developed so far, what's to prevent the "sacrificing" of the very most efficient form for still quite rather effective bi-modality which contributes to greater versatility and options to better deal with a wider variety of contexts.

After all, if you can simply catch a deer, you wouldn't need the ability to run it to death through exhaustion, and thereby wouldn't need to "make the sacrifice" needed for that ability.

And the heavy musculature and long arms do further enable quadrupedal motion without much impact anatomically that would dictate an inability for upright walking.

Until we have a specimen, their brain size is relegated to the realm of conjecture. As is the nature of their neural networks and sensory perception/processing.

As for their capacity for abstraction, or that of any creature for that matter, we have yet to attain significant levels of interspecies communication that might lend itself to investigating or ascertaining its presence nor have we technology that can discern abstraction, much less it's extent or degree. So to say it's not there out of hand seems a bit premature.

Perhaps their "social cognition" led them to a path that simply didn't lead to a technological dependency that ultimately renders them helpless without it,to overpopulation and the resulting ever expanding drain of resources we have brought to be, nor a mindset that views their species as above and apart from the rest of nature.

Modeling complex social interactions and outcomes? They've kept their ENTIRE SPECIES almost completely unknown by our culture, that's not the workings of a simple mind.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...