BobZenor Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Looks a lot like patty. The DNA report should be able to confirm all this happened right? The NDA on the DNA included the sex so I wouldn't expect a response anytime soon unless it is just something that someone dreamed up that is not part of the book that Mike Greene is supposed to be writing or has written about the subject. I suppose the sex could be reported wrong but Melba should have been able to determine the sex if she added that to the NDA. That made me suspect male since there is no DNA in females that isn't in males but the male Y-chromosome could be very useful to dating or tracking ancestry. I seem to remember suggestions that it was female though. It is hard to keep up with with so much incorrect facts having been leaked in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 Hmmm...... that one looks like one of the mummy corpse shots that makes the rounds....... and used to be some peoples avatar around here. Guess I'm suddenly feeling all Enochy for a few seconds here. perhaps a good doctor could give us "enoch-ulations" against future outbreaks..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 That was very witty, slicktrick... I had to +1 it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 5, 2012 Share Posted May 5, 2012 thank you see, i can use all the +s i can get . IIRC, im almost ready to break 50 might be cool to do that the same day that i attained 1000 posts/& my yowie star (shameless self promotion) lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 The NDA on the DNA included the sex so I wouldn't expect a response anytime soon unless it is just something that someone dreamed up that is not part of the book that Mike Greene is supposed to be writing or has written about the subject. I suppose the sex could be reported wrong but Melba should have been able to determine the sex if she added that to the NDA. That made me suspect male since there is no DNA in females that isn't in males but the male Y-chromosome could be very useful to dating or tracking ancestry. I seem to remember suggestions that it was female though. It is hard to keep up with with so much incorrect facts having been leaked in the past. Thanks that clears things up a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 The picture looks a lot like Bill Munns' Patty face recreation. Very striking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 I'd like to see Mr. Lindsay join the Premium area so I could factually tell him my opinion of him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Don't hold back on us non-payers Incorrigible, give us a free preview! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Latest and greatest (?) from our old friend RL........ May only be reprinted with the watermark and with this text at the bottom of the photo. “A drawing of the male Bigfoot killed at the Sierra Kills from an upcoming book by Justin Smeja about the incident which contains many more great photos and drawings like this.†Something really strikes me as fake about that sketch. It just doesn't look like what a real primate would like. For example, the jaw and saggital crest: saggital crests are used to anchor jaw muscles, but the animal in that sketch has a tiny jaw. There also isn't any widening of the face liked you'd expect to see to accomodate jaw muscles large enough to make a saggital crest. Basically, a sagittal crest is ususally followed by a large masseter, mandible, and zygomatic arch, none of which are actually bigger in that sketch, despite the saggital crest being huge. The chin bugs me, too. It looks like the jaw recedes and then a chin jets out - it's very awkward, and not something I'd expect to see on a real animal. Either a jaw recedes (as with every hominin besdies us), or there's a chin (like with us), it doesn't make sense to see both traits mixed. The forehead is pretty strange, too. There are weird bumps that seem like they might indicate a brow ridge, but they're way too high, which would mean they'd have to be muscles. However, there's no reason for muscles on the forehead to need to bulge like that, and I've never seen it before, or anything indicating it on a skeleton. It just doesn't make anatomical sense, IMO. It looks like someone cherry-picked human features and ones usually given to bigfoot (and apes, I guess) and threw them together to create an ape-ish human. I guess it worked, since a lot of you seem to buy it, but it can't. It just looks like an awkward mash-up of features that does make sense. Not a real animal, just something thrown together by someone who doesn't know a lot about primate anatomy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted May 6, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted May 6, 2012 I'd like to see Mr. Lindsay join the Premium area so I could factually tell him my opinion of him. Surely it would be all plaudits about the art school he attended to push those agenda-driven blogs, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 Something really strikes me as fake about that sketch. It just doesn't look like what a real primate would like. That may be the point. It is possible that BF is closer to homo sapiens than primate, at least that is what the leaks have been all about regarding the Ketchum report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Humans are primates. I don't care about the bigfooter debate over how close they're supposed to be to us, I was talking in purely biological and anthropological terms. People are animals, more specific than that, we're mammals. Even more specific, we're primates. Going ones step further: apes, hominids to be slightly more specific. One step past hominid puts us as hominins and finally as Homo sapien sapiens. If bigoot exists, it probably goes into one of those categories; I was commenting on how the creature in that sketch doesn't look like a real animal that would go in any of them. Edit: Rereading my original post shows some typos that I can't seem to edit, including a "does" that should be a "doesn't" and an "it" that should be an "I." Just thought I'd make a note of that. Edited May 6, 2012 by BlurryMonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 6, 2012 Share Posted May 6, 2012 (edited) Something really strikes me as fake about that sketch. It just doesn't look like what a real primate would like. For example, the jaw and saggital crest: saggital crests are used to anchor jaw muscles, but the animal in that sketch has a tiny jaw. There also isn't any widening of the face liked you'd expect to see to accomodate jaw muscles large enough to make a saggital crest. Basically, a sagittal crest is ususally followed by a large masseter, mandible, and zygomatic arch, none of which are actually bigger in that sketch, despite the saggital crest being huge. The chin bugs me, too. It looks like the jaw recedes and then a chin jets out - it's very awkward, and not something I'd expect to see on a real animal. Either a jaw recedes (as with every hominin besdies us), or there's a chin (like with us), it doesn't make sense to see both traits mixed. The forehead is pretty strange, too. There are weird bumps that seem like they might indicate a brow ridge, but they're way too high, which would mean they'd have to be muscles. However, there's no reason for muscles on the forehead to need to bulge like that, and I've never seen it before, or anything indicating it on a skeleton. It just doesn't make anatomical sense, IMO. It looks like someone cherry-picked human features and ones usually given to bigfoot (and apes, I guess) and threw them together to create an ape-ish human. I guess it worked, since a lot of you seem to buy it, but it can't. It just looks like an awkward mash-up of features that does make sense. Not a real animal, just something thrown together by someone who doesn't know a lot about primate anatomy. I don't know if the image is accurate or not, but I do know Sasquatch are known to look a lot like humans. Considering how we have yet to get a good mug shot of one, the sketch created could prove to be accurate in the future. Edited May 6, 2012 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Why are you judging so harshly? This is a sketch as described by Justin Smeja going off his view, through a scope, 80 yards away, with a massive surge of adrenaline. So this is an artists recreation based on something that is probably pretty foggy, which is understandable. Excuse it for not displaying all of the primate markers you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Hmmm? Patty's nephew? Son? Grandson? Kissin cousin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts