Comments on: Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot = A Hairy Human?

by: worlok

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:09:36 +0000

It’s a guy in a suit. Didn’t you guys see the NG channel “Is it Real?” episode when they tracked down the guy who claims it was him in the suit? He is big enough and has the exact same walk as that so called Bigfoot. He was hired by Patterson to wear the suit but they never paid him. When you see this guy walk you just know it’s him and this was the best hoax ever.

It’s a big ol’ cowboy in a bigfoot suit.

by: Loren Coleman

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:45:01 +0000

Here’s a quick review of M. K. Davis’ remarks to try to understand the essence of what he’s saying (click on link below):

What’s Being Said?

by: BendyWVa

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:14:43 +0000

I am very interested in the notion that Big Foot is human. I think it is very possible. I mean why not? We come in all colors, shapes, and sizes anyway, some of us are rather hairy. Why couldn’t there be a hairy race of humans ?

by: sausage1

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:52:24 +0000

This is a tease a la Johor. That doesn’t mean it is not an interesting and possibly true notion, but why all the flimflammery?

by: shumway10973

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:11:23 +0000

human? Where do we draw the line? What are the standards anymore for seperating humans from the animals? Its head doesn’t look human, its arms are a little hairy (not to mention the rest of the body)… If human, then I would say something more towards Neanderthal.

by: Loren Coleman

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:49:27 +0000

Please keep comments on topic about MK Davis’ past work and his current “press release,” the proposed Holdbrook motion picture, the human versus non-human notion, and this posting specifically. Avoid getting off-track into a discussion about the Patterson-Gimlin footage in general or about the search for Sasquatch in general. Those comments will be deleted.

by: sadisticgreen

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:42:43 +0000

Does M.K.Davis mean Human as in Homo-sapiens? Surely that can’t be right. I’ve, occasionally, pondered over whether or not B/F could be a later evolutionary stage of Neanderthal but to suggest that the creature in the P/G footage is “completely human” seem a little unlikely. It looks nothing like a human!

by: MattBille

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:07:30 +0000

It’s tempting to think of the critter in the film, or sasquatch in general, as some kind of human simply because of its success in eluding both searches and the incidental threats of human presence (elk hunters, logging trucks, etc.) This seems impossible for a non-human ape (gorillas and chimps haven’t succeeded in so totally eluding human searchers and hunters in areas where humans have penetrated) but not quite impossible for a creature with a human brain.

That said, the P-G film creature doesn’t look like a human being to me, or to any of the more qualified people who have viewed the film and written about it. I still go back to Napier on this. He wrote of the film: “either it is America’s abominable snowman, or a man in a monkey suit.” Either an unknown primate, or a fake.

by: fuzzy

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:00:59 +0000

After my #2 comment, “Human, schmuman…doesn’t change a thing for the searchers”…

#51 alanborky asked: …what’s the big deal about ‘proving’ it’s ‘human’?

and #42 WVBIG_2006 observed: If M.K. is correct, the new goal for Bigfoot researchers should be to locate groups of these so-called “hairy humans” so anthropologists, biologists, & geneticists can study them.

and many others suggested possible scientific and governmental ramifications, I must iterate that the REAL work would still be done by the independent searchers, lugging tons of gear around ruggedly remote areas, trudging resolutely through wildlands with equipment at the ready, freezing their body parts as they squat in some dark forest, trying to sleep with rain crashing onto their tiny tent, or sitting around campfires, clutching coffee cups and exchanging trench-tales with others of their kind.

Until there’s clear, scientifically -supported evidence and appropriate financial backing, those “anthropologists, biologists, & geneticists” will continue to ignore all the reports and rumors and radical rumblings, so MKD’s movie had better have the goods, or…

It won’t change a thing for the searchers.

by: mystery_man

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:06:16 +0000

It might be some sort of subspecies of human or an evolutionary offshoot, but I think classifying it as “human” is a pretty broad statement. Like a lot of posters here have been saying, I find myself wondering how he is defining the word. If he means a Homo Sapiens, just like us, then I would think that this would be a rather unique, freakish specimen of one and certainly would not explain all of the sightings all over the world. There are a lot of “out of contact” humans living in remote places that are not hairy giants, so why would these Bigfoot appear like that? I really would like to see the evidence to back this guy’s claims. So far it is no more evidence than any other theory floating around out there.