Pages

Thursday, January 10, 2013

The Bipedal Primate


I have been spending too much time on facebook. This article is in response to comments I have read.

Man, apes, and monkeys are all primates. All primates can stand erect and walk, and small primates can even run bipedally. Gorillas can stand and walk clumsily on their back legs but they can't run  very well, if at all. In order for a large primate to run and jump as bigfoot is reported to do, he must have a rigid foot with a strong arch. Bigfoot has a thick pad on the sole of his foot which masks the arch in his tracks giving the appearance of a flat foot . What is purported to be evidence of a mid-tarsal break in bigfoot tracks can also be seen in human tracks under similar conditions.

In the Patterson film, the subject is walking on terrain littered with sticks and stones, her feet are sinking into the muddy soil. Under such conditions a compliant gait is called for even for humans. Due to the unevenness of the terrain, during most of the film,  her lower legs are obscured except in a few images where she raises her foot off the ground. In these images there is foreshortening due to the angle to the camera. One should look at these images with fresh eyes and not be biased by suggestions from people trying to influence your perceptions. I see no indication that the ratio of upper leg to lower leg is any different than human.

 In walking on such terrain one will naturally raise his foot  higher due to the obstacles and miry ground whether one is human or otherwise. Don't be misled by comparisons to people walking on a sidewalk with shoes on. People raise their foot only enough to clear the ground. To do otherwise is energetically inefficient. Put people in the same terrain as Patty before you make comparisons. I'm sure you will see that they raise their feet higher in such terrain.

When someone hears the word primate they assume that it means ape or monkey. Some people seem to think that when Melba Ketchum used the word primate to describe the creature that allegedly mated with a human female, she meant the human female mated with an ape. That is not true.
If you are unfamiliar with Melba Ketchum see http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/ABCtelevision.htm
The use of the term "primate" by Melba Ketchum is misleading because the "primate" was the aboriginal bigfoot who had to be  human enough to mate with a human female (assuming that Melba's conclusions are true). The addition of a small amount of human DNA to bigfoot DNA probably didn't make much difference in the appearance and behavior of the creature and some bigfeet may not even have this DNA. The "primate" was bigfoot who was already human

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/IM.htm

William Mayes

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Background distortions in the Patterson-Gimlin film

I recently posted a drawing on facebook depicting a frontal facial view of the Patterson figure. Whether it has any merit as a representation of this creature or not is a matter of opinion. It looks too human for some people's taste.  Nevertheless, I would like to give a brief explanation why I did it.




As Patty moves across the scene she she passes in front of background clutter that affects the shape of her outline. A dark area moving in front of a shaded patch in the background will seem to stretch out into the shaded area, The gets worse as more copies are made. Also in some still frames, the dark background shadows seem to be part of the image, but are not. This is more pronounced in darker images. The only way to ascertain this fact is to examine the background on another frame. I have done this , I have concluded that Patty's head is not pointed. Even though the cranium seems small with a high crown, there is no evidence that there is a  bony crest on her skull. It should be noted that the skull does not grow in proportion to body growth. Artists depict a person's head smaller if they intend to give an impression of height. According to Bill Munns, Patty is 7' 6,5 " tall.
 The ears as seen in other frames are closer to the human position, further indicating that she does not have the type of jaw that requires a sagittal crest. What appears to be ears in the frontal facing frame is background shading.There is no way this creature fits Krantz's model of Gigantopithecus.
William Mayes

Monday, November 14, 2011

Possible Bigfoot Sign Language

In my last post I discussed the possibility of bigfoot using tools. Here is an example from bfro of bigfoot using simple tools.
  I also believe that bigfoot has a sign language. It is a language that uses the whole body and not just the hands. By using the body, it can be seen at a distance, allowing bigfoots to communicate silently without being close up. Here is an example of a bigfoot trying to communicate to a human. I think what bf was trying to say was "Do not come any closer, I could easily put you down.  I am going to turn around and walk away, but not out of fear."
   Bigfoot are often reported as swaying back and forth. Could it be possible that this has meaning? Maybe it is a greeting or  a friendly response to a greeting or an indication of a willingness to communicate.
William Mayes


Foreheads and Bangs

The new header image is one that I found on one of my cds that contained some images that I had saved and forgot about. I had a problem with my computer and had lost a bunch of images. I thought this was one of them. Luckily I had saved it. It is a version of one I called "Drink This".  In fact this is the original version. The version I have on my facebook page and picasa are modifications. After I found this image, I liked it so much that I decided to use it for my header.

  The last post I did, Comparing Bigfoot and Neanderthal, I said that homo ergaster was in my opinion, the closest fossil man to bigfoot.
The more I look at Patty and other images of bigfoot that I believe are real, the more I am beginning to think that there is one even more closer to bigfoot. That is homo sapiens. Looking at Patty from the side it does not appear that she has a brow ridge like erectus and his forebears. In fact some reports have mentioned the fact that the subject (I don't like to use the word "creature" or "animal") has a forehead just like ours. One report is Tim Peelers experience. I have read the same thing in other reports. The problem is that bigfoot's forehead is usually covered with hair, often described as "bangs". These bangs sometimes look like they had been trimmed. If bigfoot trims his hair then he must be a tool user. In fact it has been pointed out that many shaped stone objects that have been found and attributed to Indians may have belonged to bigfoot. The author of this blog has some interesting material along these lines.
Just because Bigfoot is primitive does not mean that he is an animal. Due to his appearance, he is pretty much isolated from human contact. This prevents him from learning new technology from humans. Consider the case of the Tasmanians.
William Mayes


Sunday, November 6, 2011

Neanderthal and Bigfoot

There was a recent report on bfro's site about an observation of a bigfoot through binoculars. One of the details of the description of the creature I found very interesting because I had been reading about the anatomical features of Neanderthals. The shape of the elbow as described by the observer is a feature of Neanderthal anatomy. This was surprising to me because I consider Neanderthals to be one of the least likely candidates for bigfoot. Neanderthals tended to be short with big noses and big long heads.They were also barrel chested and thick bodied much as has been decribed for bigfoot.In order for bigfoot to evolve from neanderthals, he would have to grow in height, his head would have to shrink and change shape. This is possible. Or he could have mixed with other types like Heidelbergensis or Cro Magnons.He might have simply evolved from the same roots that neanderthal evolved from. I think the last is most probable.

If we consider bigfoot to be a descendent of Neanderthals or even of Homo erectus, then we have a problem. These ancient men used fire and made stone tools. Bigfoot has never been seen with either fire or any kind of tool, other than a stick.

 Forty thousand years ago, or thereabouts, Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals discovered each other. We know from DNA research that they interbred. One thing that new people bring with them is their diseases. The Neanderthals got sick from a disease that Cro=Magnon had resistence to, and it wiped them out, except for a few old women and a few children. These were the Cro-Magnon women that had become the mates of the neaderthals and their half-breed children. These individuals survived because they had resistence to the disease because of their Cro-Magon genes. Knowing that the disease was acquired from the Cro-Magnons, they retreated to the mountains and wild places to avoid them. They had no tools or other technology and no knowledge of how to make them. But they managed to survive and adapted to the wilderness. They essentially went wild.The result is the creature we call "Bigfoot".

This is just a supposition but I think something like this may have happenened.

By the way, Neanderthals had huge noses and big heads. There are mythological creatures that also have huge noses and big heads. They were called "trolls".

Are trolls really a myth? I wonder if trolls were Neanderthals? Except trolls were giants. Maybe trolls were giant Neanderthals. Maybe bigfoot is a troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-neanderthalensis

http://www.donsmaps.com/cromagnon.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.jpg

http://www.becominghuman.org/node/homo-heidelbergensis-essay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ergaster

William Mayes

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

I Don't Just Believe Any Old Thing

Obviously I believe in Bigfoot. In my opinion there is too much evidence for any informed and reasonable person to deny this creature's existence. There are films such as Roger Patterson's, and videos, such as Paul Freeman's, thousands of tracks, thousands of reported Bigfoot sightings, many by well known and professional people such as psychologists, nurses, forest rangers and experienced hunters. I also have the testimony of people I know personally who have had experiences with these creatures. I am by nature a very skeptical person, but I am also a reasonable person. If all this information could be proven false then I would no longer be a believer in Bigfoot. I don't believe in just any old crap. It's got to make sense.

I don't believe bigfoot is a spirit nor do I believe that he can disappear in midair.

If Bigfoot is real then he is a flesh and blood creature. One thing I dislike is for Bigfoot to be called a 'paranormal'subject. 'Paranormal' is fantasy science based on science-fiction gimmicks. Science-fiction gimmicks are devices used to make an impossible situation appear possible. Time travel, interdimensional travel, hyperspace, warp drives, and telepathy are all standardized science-fiction gimmicks. All these things are impossible, they only exist in the imagination. These gimmicks have been around so long that there are people that will argue that they are real, but they are wrong.

Another science-fiction concept is 'Alien Lifeforms'. So far no one has been able to prove that such a thing exists. It is completely possible that life on earth is the only life that exists. If we never find any examples We may never be sure. I would expect if extraterrestrial life exists then it is very rare and extraterrestrial intelligence even rarer.

Life began on this planet one time. All life is descended from that first life form. You did not come into existence when you were conceived, the living substance in your body has been alive for about four billion years. All life on earth is descended from other life and each lifeform holds the traces of its predecessors in its DNA. The pattern of evolutionary development is reflected in the development of a fetus.

Due to the arbitrary nature of evolution, this pattern is unique. If there is life on another planet then its pattern of evolutionary development would also be unique. There would be no vertebrates or humanoids on an alien planet. These are arbitrary and unique earthly developments. A creature from another world would be stranger than we can imagine. A spider or an octopus is our brother, not so an alien lifeform.

It's even worse than that. There is absolutely no reason to believe an alien lifeform would be based on DNA. DNA is an earth solution to the problem of life. There may be many more ways of going about it. An alien life form would not likely be based on DNA and the method of genetic expression of physical traits would be based on a different mechanism.

This is what I believe and it seems reasonable to me.

 When somebody tries to imagine what an alien intelligence looks like, they start with the human form and modify it to make look'weird' usually starting with the eyes. So you can understand my frustration when someone tells tales about alien "Grays"(humanoid vertebrates) or "Reptoids"(humanoid reptiles) experimenting with human DNA or creating human clones.A real alien would look nothing like any thing you've ever seen before and would probably die if exposed to earth's environment.

William Walter Mayes


Sunday, July 17, 2011

Is Bigfoot animal or human?

A possible answer is that he is both.
Bigfoot seems to be basicly a small brained, simple-minded race of people. They seem to lack the intelligence to form any civilized society so they live as wild creatures, but are generically human. In other words they are what used to be called yahoos.This presents a problem to certain people who deny that there is any possibility that all humans are not equal.
This is a political or philosophical point of view, not a scientific one. It is one that says that Bigfoot does not exist if Bigfoot is a human animal because humanity and animalness are incompatible or if Bigfoot does exist then it must be an animal and not human. Science might be able to decide if Bigfoot exists if it were allowed to, but it is not allowed to. It might come up with a politically incorrect answer.
Am I underestimating Bigfoot? just because they are primitive doesn't necessarily mean a lack of intelligence, does it? After all, Bigfoot appears to have language if we believe the sierra sounds evidence.
I don't know, but it is an indication, since they lack even the rudiments that other primitives have.
I certainly hope that I am wrong about Bigfoot.
William Mayes

About Me

My Photo
I've lived in the woods and came to know and understand the creatures that inhabit it. I have compassion for all God's creatures, most especially the creature known whimsically as "bigfoot", since he is more like us than any other. I am now an old man and unable to run around in the woods. If I were able I would be out there right now trying to prove his existence. I started this blog to try to express some of the ideas and speculations I have had on bigfoot. I am not into bigfoot social events. I don't gossip about other bloggers. I try to keep myself informed of events. My ideas and opinions are my own and I make no apology for them. They are not written in stone and I welcome any and all civil comments. I am looking for the truth, not fame.

Followers