Again, you are woefully uninformed...
1. Most of the scientists who study the evidence are doing so out of their own field and don't actually study anything but hoaxed footprints and flimsy anecdotes.
...(Dr) Jane Goodall is a primatologist (chimp expert).
...Dr Jeff Meldrum is a Professor of Anatomy, specialising in foot structure as it relates to the evolution of bipedalism among hominids.
...Dr Grover Krantz was a career academic (WA Uni).
I personally know of one retired academic who has seen a Sasquatch in person.
They are working in their respective fields... fingerprints; scat; fossils (Giganto); video and audio recordings constitute the evidence so far. It's hardly a study in folklore.
2. You make far too many claims without citing evidence. Where is the proof that the two people I previously cited as being involved in the Patterson hoax were lying? It's much more likely that they weren't.
...to date, about a dozen people have come forward claiming to be the person in the suit. Yet no one has been able to reproduce the suit. Or give a consistent story. As I previously menioned, the BBC spent $100,000 attempting such a suit yet still couldn't do it.
You need to carefully re-read my previous posts.
Bob Heironimous (the latest claimant) is 5'9''... the "Patty" creature was 6'8'' to 7'2'' and 38'-40' across the shoulders (forensically measured on site by several experts and confirmed by reproduction of the film with a 6'5'' human subject retracing the path). It's musculature is consistent with a gorilla variant (barrel chest, underdeveloped pectoralis minors; high mounted trapezius; low-attaching bicep; torn outer quadricep head on the right leg (more prevalent in females); thick, high mounted glutes and overdeveloped erector spinae muscles.
I've also listed books and videos and named the respective academics involved. Your criticism is patently faulty.
3. The costume was just some basic thing, much less complex than Star Wars costumes. The distance and low quality make it seem otherwise.
...I give lectures (academics sometimes attend) in which a high resolution copy of the film always silences such claims. The musculature is starkly apparent in the seldom seen second section of the film, where the creature walks away behind the flood detritus in the river bed.
4. Any idiot can make bigfoot footprints. It just requires casting a human footprint, and then recasting it over and over until it is the desired size, after deforming it all up to make it seem non-human.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html
...there is an open reward for anyone who can do so. Anatomists have written papers detailing the consistently non-human morphology of these prints, which is self consistent (even over time) for the species.
No one has ever been able to fake the prints, even though many engineers and skeptical scientists tried. Dr Jeff Meldrum has also discovered hand prints, body prints and climbing imprints (on slopes). He too was a skeptic when he began his investigations. He dedicates a chapter of his book to faked prints; read it.
5. "Unknown primate hair"? Try again. Most hair samples were proven fakes, the only samples that you claim of "unknown origin" were simply too degraded to determine or the scientists failed to determine the species for some reason. This proves nothing.
...the purported "Sasquatch" hair is again morphologically consistent and trichologists consider it intermediary between human and chimp hair.
People tend to OVER analyze things. Replicating and increasing the size of a human footprint and then twisting it all around to change the attributes would also change the fingerprints of it. Easy as 123. Who in the heck would rely on someone like Jimmy Chilcutt, a CSI guy, not a hominid anatomy expert, to determine that some footprint is of non-human primate origin? Crazyness!
The technique you suggest does not work, gorilla expert Dr Esteban Sarmiento (a Bigfoot skeptic) has tried it several times.
...Jimmy Chilcutt is a fingerprint consultant with the FBI too. He is also considered one of the worlds preeminent experts on primate dermatoglyphics (fingerprints) and has pioneered efforts to distinguish racial/gender identifications through fingerprints in humans (which he did by analysing all sorts of primate dermatoglyphics).
Chilcutt was also a skeptic, but was won over by the distinctively non-human pattern evidenced by the casts (transverse with longitudinal lateral ridges rather than plain transverse, as seen in humans). The dermtoglyphic pattern is consistent only with a long-toed exceedingly heavy, flat footed (mid-tarsl break) bipedal creature/hominid.
His analysis was so thorough that he was able to identify six distinct individuals responsible for the tracks that caused the 1958 Californian Bigfoot Flap. As he was working from randomly numbered casts, his identification of two different sized tracks as belonging to the same individual (identical scar patters and sweat pores), further convinced him when the a subsequent data check confirmed the smaller print predated the larger one by some twenty years and came from the same vicinity.
He literally grouped casts from all over the US and Canada together (as coming from one animal) in a double-blind pattern, only later to be fully vindicated by the geographic locations the prints came from.
Liberlisimo, if you don't want to discuss this any further, that is fine with me. But please don't insult those other reading by criticizing my judgement or knowledge of the subject.
It is obvious to everyone that your position is one of blind dismissal.
Remember, it's only been five years since a population of giant chimps was discovered in the Congo (the Bili Ape). Previous to the reporting of the late Shelley Williams the "Bondo Mystery Ape" was considered a mythical creature. Until 2003, there were no bodies; no fossils; no pictures; no video; no hair... only rumours, rumours dismissed by close-minded people like you.
I am a Bigfoot acceptor more so than a Bigfoot believer... I have studied the evidence in detail and without any other prejudice than an analytical eye.
The Luke
