norseman Posted August 21, 2016 Admin Posted August 21, 2016 5 hours ago, SWWASAS said: I wonder if the human arch is traceable back to common ancestry with chimps where they are tree dwellers and need to grasp limbs with both hands and feet. Once we came out of the trees and became savana walkers, we lost the grasping need and our feet evolved into that needed for bipedal ground walkers. We have little need to grasp anything with our feet by folding them like we do our hands. Could it be that BF either never lived in trees or came out of them before humans did and lost the arch altogether? More questions to ask Meldrum when I have a chance. No, what that means is that arch places us further from the trees. If Bigfoot has a mid tarsal break he is much closer akin to a tree climbing chimp than we are. Other than the diverged big toe of course.
FarArcher Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 When I see us run, we tend to come down on our heels if we're really stretching it out. I don't think they come down on their heel like we do - more - I don't know, maybe "flatfooted?" And they don't move up and down so much, like we do. Not jerky like we are. Would this compliant gait explain this - and forgive me for my descriptions - there's nothing really to compare it to exactly - just what it reminds me of.
guyzonthropus Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 PG- that's precisely when it's put to best effect...where a locked leg style is inappropriate...when most people walk they completely straighten the advancing leg, locking the knee for better pole-vaulting within the course of the stride. This reduces the time both feet are on the ground simultaneously, the rear foot pushing off to then move in the manner of the previous step. In a compliant gait the legs never fully extend/straighten in the above manner, but rather remain a bit bent at the knee through the step. This keeps both feet on the ground simultaneously for a greater percentage of each stride, reducing the weight load on each individual foot/knee/leg/hip joint as the being walks about. It is a notably different feel in gait to walk this way, but it has its advantages... at least in some contexts... And it is quite maintainable over longer distances or lengths of time once one either stays aware of the gait, or has sufficient pain in which ever joint is relieved by this mode of walking, such that reverting to the standard gait reminds one of a less painful alternative availble
salubrious Posted August 21, 2016 Moderator Posted August 21, 2016 47 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: ↑ A good description . It can be duplicated by humans for a short period of time . Not likely to be done by humans for long periods of time especially in rough terrain. Actually we can walk and run indefinitely using a compliant gait. It is the natural way that all humans used before the introduction of shoes. The same gait is still employed by the few primitive cultures that still exist. If if you have ever wondered why we have so many nerves and bones in our feet this is why. The gait we use where we lead with the heel is something we learn to do because we wear shoes. It's hard to understand because we grew up with with shoes but leading with the heel is not natural for humans.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 So ,the Patterson creature walk is quite human. You are not helping me believe. Lol.
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 P-G, you gotta start thinking about stuff more like a scientist. Here's the first step: not grasping at the first thing a layman tells you that comforts you in staid belief.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 I was only joking. Anyway ,please share your opinion on the compliant gate. Do you think humans can walk like the subject in the Patterson film for extended periods of time ?
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 What's an "extended period of time"? I have never attempted it nor would I; my way works and there is no reason to. But my short-burst applications of it indicate that an animal evolved to do it would occupy - and efficiently traverse - mountainous areas, which this one temds to. Humans evolved our gait on grasslands; technology took care of the rest to the extent that we stopped having to worry overmuch about gait. (Never mind not having wings.) I think it strange in the extreme that someone would think to tell a faker to do that, when no other ape faker ever has, and when the very development of the idea that this animal does it stems from scientific analysis of P-G. As another poster here puts it: we ain't that good.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 Thanks for replying. I remember Grover Krantz saying it could not be done in a documentary for very long. He did however demonstrate it could be done at least for a short time.
norseman Posted August 21, 2016 Admin Posted August 21, 2016 I don't think it can be done at all when done to scale. Patty's thigh is as big as mcClarin's waist. A mcClarin in a Patty suit would be walking like a sumo wrestler.
guyzonthropus Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 Walking downhill using the "standard human gait" for most anything longer than ten to fifteen minutes wears poorly on my knees, and inevitably leads to pain/soreness either during or after such a stroll. However, should I employ a compliant gait in the same context, my knees will last far far longer. Rather than starting to ache 10-15 blocks down a hill, I've gone 1&1/2-2 miles downhill without pain using a compliant gait. I've gone hiking in the local hills, barefoot and compliant(no jokes, now...) with little to no pain during the excursion, nor later that evening, whereas when I hike while not using that gait mode, I'm down for the night and creakin' the next day. I don't know if that qualifies as "extended periods" but I can and do regularly, if not "normally" walk with a compliant gait over more than front door->car distances.
guyzonthropus Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 Norse- they might have contoured the inner thighs to facilitate easier/smoother leg muscles. That'd be a cinch compared to making the fur look real, or the subcutaneous muscles to move in a manner anywhere near proportionately realistic PG-I don't mean to disrespect Dr. Krantz by any means, but....it can be done over distance, though I must confess, I've never done it in a documentary for very long.....
SWWASAS Posted August 21, 2016 BFF Patron Posted August 21, 2016 14 hours ago, DWA said: I think it strange in the extreme that someone would think to tell a faker to do that, when no other ape faker ever has, and when the very development of the idea that this animal does it stems from scientific analysis of P-G. As another poster here puts it: we ain't that good. There was not a lot of literature out there describing BF walk when the P/G film was produced. Why would they, someone in a costume, or whoever even think that BF would need to walk different than humans? After all, the tracks looked like large bare human footprints. If anything if the film was hoaxed, Patty should have waddled like a large ape since that was the description of BF at the time. That is what Roger and Bob were looking for. Now we have all of these reports of BF gliding, complaint walk, nearly every time someone sees them walk for any distance. Either all hoaxers are copying the P/G film walk and fooling witnesses, or there is a creature out there that walks differently than us. Common sense tells me it is the latter.
Guest DWA Posted August 21, 2016 Posted August 21, 2016 Common sense should. First. Right. We all know what bigfoot fakers do. They cast outsize human feet; they put obvious fat guys in obvious baggy ape suits. They're all human-size ape fakers, walking just like humans or imitating apes all in pretty much the same way. No. ALL OF THEM. Pay attention here. You won't find another bigfoot video showing the gait clearly visible - and copy-able in the extreme, were that possible - on this film. And have we seen it again? Never. So. Here - no bigfoot fake film had ever been shot to this point - we have an animal constructed considerably like a human but a lot bigger, and different. Not hugely, but across the scale, on every measurement, beyond human norm. And here we have this anomalous gait. Not big-time sci-fi different. But different, subtly but distinctly not the way a human walks. Every ape faker puts a guy in a suit to do a ham-fisted gorilla shuffle. Every one. Until this one? The suit doesn't even look like any ape suit before...or since. NO ONE HAS COME CLOSE, with the model put could-not-be-clearer, right in front of them. Second. We have all these different descriptions of the animal's walk, from laymen, all using their own unique reference points....that all refer back to this. Including from people who never saw the film. Common.Dang.Sense. Not that common. Is it.
norseman Posted August 22, 2016 Admin Posted August 22, 2016 22 hours ago, guyzonthropus said: Norse- they might have contoured the inner thighs to facilitate easier/smoother leg muscles. That'd be a cinch compared to making the fur look real, or the subcutaneous muscles to move in a manner anywhere near proportionately realistic PG-I don't mean to disrespect Dr. Krantz by any means, but....it can be done over distance, though I must confess, I've never done it in a documentary for very long..... I don't think so. Those legs are massive especially when compared to a 6 ft 6 man.
Recommended Posts