This is one thing that makes me think reports may be authentic. We all know that the ape stereotype is Very Large Junk – which as noted above is not borne out, with any known ape much less a speculated one. We all also know that one almost never sees the genitalia of known North American species at any distance (because they’re all quadrupeds and that tends to cover one’s junk). Genitalia in sasquatch are rarely mentioned. When they are the animal is always a male (not at all surprising for obvious – literally – reasons). And they’re always small.

So, if one goes along with the skeptics on their insistence that folklore is sometimes being reported as reality, one would also have to go along with things that are reported that are contrary to folklore possibiy representing reality. particularly when the reports square with the known reality of the non-human apes. (Which is known to almost no one who doesn’t study them – or see them.) It’s only logical.

And folks reporting big junk in sasquatch may just be reports we can discount. Because they are just going along with the erroneous yet almost pervasive folklore that “hung like a gorilla” is a compliment.

I didn’t notice much else of the things anatomy, sorry.

“At the age of 21 I met an native NW American Indian girl whom was I was highly endearted to who one day told me in what was almost a frightened whisper about some legend named “Big foot”.In NYC where I grew up I had never heard about “Big Foot”so I figured she was talking about some native folkloric being like JC so the whole subject just blew by me without a second thought.To make a long story short,about a year after her BF revelation to me,I came in direct contact with bigfoot and all I can say is that I was frozen with awe,daring not to even breath it seemed,but in this frozen moment there was a deep eye to eye comunication;in his eyes there was a look of supreme intelligence but most impressive was the look of scorn combined with a look of power I have never witnessed in any being.I’m 67 now and inretrospect I can realize why my young native friend seemed frighten.Some of these paleo renderings remind me of “BF” except for the eyes which are not nearly enough primitive,and threatening.Three things the eyes should be,primal,threatening,and perhaps intelligent depending on time of evolution.”

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/A-Closer-Look-at-Evolutionary-Faces.html?c=y&page=6#ixzz0hPEyEJR1

I have seen several sightings reports that have mentioned Sasquatch having huge junk, and whether or not this is an embellishment or not, there are some things worth considering on this point.

The thing is, great apes actually have relatively small penises compared to humans. In fact, humans have proportionately the largest penises among all primates. Great apes are not very well endowed at all, comparitively speaking. No, “Hung like a gorilla,” is not a compliment.

I’m not going to get into any discussions about why this is, as it doesn’t seem to be really fully understood to begin with, but it does seem to be relevant to the details of reports of large penises in Sasquatch. If they are reported with such outsized members, then that suggests to me that Sasquatch may possibly be closer to humans than to the less well endowed great apes. In this case, perhaps penis size is a clue as to the potential taxonomy of the Sasquatch. This is something I find interesting to consider here.

Just an observation.

Who’s gonna hold him down?

Who’s gonna check?

And, lastly, who’s gonna take the pictures?

I will be waiting bemusedly for your report!

There is a consensus–based on genetic as well as anatomical evidence–that the “apes” (i.e. gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and chimps) are not evolutionarily closer to each other than humans (forming a legitimate clade). In fact, chimps are more related to humans than they are to gorillas, which are in turn more related to humans than they are to orangutans. I doubt these taxonomic relationships will change anytime soon.

As such, a bone in the penis cannot not be, by definition, a trait that seperates man from ape, since man is himself an “ape”. This also makes the “near-human v. near-ape” debate silly. Either way you look at it, if sasquatch is real, it’s an ape.

Red_Pill_Junkie:
You made my day, man. You really did. You rock.

DWA: Also agree. First get a body. THEN we’ll talk.

I think the “debate” is interesting because it relates to the larger issue: are sasquatch human or ape? Dr. Meldrum seems to defuse Ms. Short’s assumption that if sasquatch did not possess such an intimate structure, it would necessarily be human.