Oh, I get Sanderson’s reasoning. That’s my problem with it: he automatically thinks something is human because it looks human-like, or witnesses with no other existing mental box to put it in put it in a “human” box.

I can only say again what I said above: Bipedal locomotion and a human-like gait and foot shape are not enough to mark one as human. And as has been shown, both of those things differ significantly from human norms in Patty.

We have an almost-innate tendency to look at all of our traits as peculiar to us, as having been granted by nature and God to us alone as hallmarks of our superiority to other beings. I don’t think so; I think even our vaunted intelligence might turn out, in the cosmic scheme of things, to make no more lasting impact on this orb than the antlers of the Irish elk or Smilodon fatalis’s teeth. (So far: 200 or so million years for the dinosaurs; about half a million, give or take, for us. Any given dinosaur species was probably around longer than we’ve been, by a lot.)

But we are smart enough, at least, that bastion after bastion has fallen to our knowledge of the world. Tools? Shoot, tool-users and makers are all over the place. Laughter, sadness, slavery, war? Not unique to us at all. Language? Not so fast. And on and on.

So: an ape with “human” feet? That walks upright? Sure. Why not? Why would we pick feet and an upright posture as our ultimate trademarks? There sure seem to have been enough species that came up with it; seems to work pretty well. There’s always room for one more!

I agree with you concerning Patterson’s film as “stand alone” evidence: we cannot deduce with any degree of certainty whether the film subject is “primitive” human, ape, or a guy made to look like a sasquatch. Yet, I don’t think Sanderson made the kind of error you attribute to him.

Sanderson’s reasoning, I think, runs as follows:
He interviewed eyewitnesses who claimed they saw what appeared to them to be hair covered HUMANS (primitives?). Sanderson believed Patterson had filmed one of these creatures. Thus, Patterson had filmed one of these primitive HUMANS.

I’m not sure I follow you as you suggest “human-like” foot shape does not imply human tracks. Even when I was most ardent concerning PNM bigfoot, something always bothered me about the tracks. It is true they aren’t merely blown up human tracks (although they do have a distinct resemblance to infant human prints, made giant), but they looked almost nothing like ape tracks, for sure. So you have apes with human feet?

Anyway, I’ll turn the discussion over to Sanderson. He wrote this in the same article I quoted from above, as he distinguishes yeti (”giant, rock-climbing ape”) from bigfoot (”primitive…human”), based on their prints:
“The Yeti footprints found have an opposed big toe, almost like a hand. The Bigfoot has an unopposed toe, such as is seen only on human-type creatures.”)

Whatever Sanderson’s credentials, he made a completely unsupportable assumption. There is no way to tell from P/G what that critter is. Or, for that matter, from any film, by itself, what anything is, as witness the discussions of every film that comes up on this site. Although there is plenty of evidence, right there in the film, that asserts she’s not human as most of us would recognize one, there is no way to CONCLUDE that from the film. P/G was never anything more than evidence; it could never, by itself, however compelling, be proof.

In the case of the kipunji, one of the rare cases (maybe the only one?) where scientists accepted a photo-holotype, they had much other evidence to draw from in doing so.

Bipedal locomotion and a human-like gait and foot shape are not enough to mark one as human. And as has been shown, both of those things differ significantly from human norms in Patty.

Everything else notwithstanding, though, she ain’t NOTHIN’ until we have a specimen. Although many of us believe there’s more than enough evidence to go after that specimen posthaste.

It lies beyond the charlatans, the media whores, the all that other stuff hudge talks about, and gets straight to the point: people are seeing, and continue to see, an animal largely answering to the description of the one in the P/G film. The variations correspond to exactly what one would expect of individuals within a species, if not a related species.

You can’t do to the anecdotal evidence what’s been done to Patty. To see why you can’t, all you have to do is try.

It raises a clear-cut zoological question, and puts this topic where it should be: with science, and not with hip-shooting theorymongers with both feet firmly planted in the woo-woo.

The first thing I accomplished was that members here, saw for themselves firsthand, without my posting another sentence, your childish and immature antics of attacking me personally. You went after a couple of members but you seemed to favor going after me personally. I would have been alright if you went after my data or facts, but you went after me personally. I never did that to you Mr. Johnsen. And that spoke volumes about you.

When I clearly stated the facts and others agreed and backed up my statements, your question and attack on me became irrelevant. You stated, PhotoExpert (or not?) That showed your maturity level and I did not want to lower myself to your level and engage in such folly. But the replies also answered your own question, PhotoExpert! And you were not! LOL

The second thing it accomplished remaining silent in that thread was that since others could not read a reply post from me, it gave them time to think for themselves. It gave them time to mull over the facts and they probably wondered why I did not respond. I did not respond and did that with purpose and intent. Nothing you said could have upset me, because I have to consider the source of a comment. Johnsen saying something about me, really? No big deal! I could care less. But if I responded to your childish baits, then I would not be an adult. That would be juvenile behavior. I although you cared to resort to that kind of behavior, my ethics won’t allow it. So your ranting proved my original allegations. You proposed a theory. When confronted with the facts from an expert in the field, you did what I said you would do. You ranted, you diverted attention elsewhere, you diffused the situation with personal attacks on members who disagreed with your ludicrous theory, and never answered even one of my original questions when you first proposed this theory. So you proved me right twice! And I did not even have to post or stoop to your level.
Mission Accomplished!

Now with that being said, you should have just come out and stated your theory. You could have said, that although you do not have any concrete evidence and there were some enhancements done to the PG Footage that were open to interpretation and debate, here is my theory. People would have embraced it. People would have probably helped you. But to say you had facts would be incorrect. You had some supportive information that was open to interpretation for your theory. Then I might not have called it a ludicrous theory. I would not have brought in the humorous UFO theory and BF. I would have said, that is pretty interesting, what do you have in the way of evidence? Tell me more. Tell us more. It is the way you approached the subject Mr. Johnsen. That was the problem!

In this thread, you stated: “Frankly I would like to see Marlowe taken seriously to task for making official accusations of this kind without substantial evidence of the facts. But, the damage is done.”

Sound familiar? That is exactly what I did to you. In fact, they were my exact words in your first or original post. I told you I was going to take you to task and I did. Here, you want to do to Marlowe exactly what I did to you. However, when I did it to you, you wanted to change the rules and complained. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And the theory you proposed had little to no substantial evidence of facts. Yet, you did the same thing that you are complaining about with Marlowe. A bit hypocritical, wouldn’t you say? And you are right, just as with Marlowe, the damage is done.

Unfortunately, you can not take back that damage. You can not delete it. You can not erase it. But what you can do is learn from it and not make the same mistake next time. We are a forgiving bunch here at Cryptomundo. As long as you come openly and post with good intentions, no one will hold a grudge. Hey, you attacked me personally, but I will not hold that against you. If you wanted to attack my facts, I would have been alright with it. But since you could not, I found it a juvenile attempt at diversion to attack me personally. No biggie! Just make sure you do not make the same mistake again. I will not hold it against you. And I believe in my heart, no one else here at Cryptomundo will hold it against you. Just make sure you truly learned from this scenario and come to the table clean next time since this is your last post on the matter.

Thank you for your time and your promise!