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
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

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


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.

William Mayes

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

I Don't Just Believe Any Old Thing








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


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