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.

I for one agree that this entire thing has gotten ridiculous and I will be glad when it’s over. All this speculation, outlandish theory making and bickering is all just a bunch of childish BS. Dust yourself off Mr Johnson we all make mistakes but don’t blame Cryptomundo or anyone else for your unfortunate situation.