The id of Paranthropus is certainly not new, I think it’s in ‘Raincoast Sasquatch’ for example.

Perhaps the greatest fear was what would be said about all this in the media and what conclusions would be made. It all seems a bit overblown to me, though.

But this mode of thinking has been replaced with more modern concepts of fitness and adaptation. What is higher: a bird or a frog? They are just different creatures adapted for different ecological niches. If BF exists it is a separate species with no gene flow between humans. This is a species that makes its living by avoiding man.

M.K. has done a lot of detailed analysis of this footage and has shown some astounding results.

I’ve also had the pleasure of talking with Bob Gimlin at length about the circumstances of the encounter that was caught on film. As a result of my interactions with both of these fine men, there is no doubt as to the film being genuine in my mind.

Now, is ‘Patty’ human? Here is where I have to wait and see what M.K. puts forth as evidence. I’ll admit to a great deal of skepticism at the moment, but I’ll wait and see what he shows us.

As far as the horses on the riverbed, there is a theory that the horse often masks the presence of man. The horse is a familiar sound, being hooved and what not. From what I have read, horseback sightings are not that uncommon.

What if in fact it is an offshoot of what we are. Big deal. I find this just as acceptable as if it were a NAGA. We all share a common ancestry.

This is probably all stuff you know. We should keep dance card open though, this guy could be onto something.

1. Early Spanish explorers reported seeing large Native Americans digging roots with sticks.

2. Patty is large.

3. Patty was allegedly carrying a stick.

Conclusion: Patty’s stick “must have” been used for digging roots, therefor Patty “must have” been one of those large natives that the Spaniards mentioned.

I don’t buy it. First, there’s no evidence that Patty used her stick for digging roots. Second, “large” to those early Spaniards would have been 5′ 10″ to 6′ tall, not 9′ and 500 pounds: someone like that would have been termed “giant”, not just “large” Third, there’s no evidence that the Spaniards were referring to beings covered with long body hair.

The fact that Mr. Davis is releasing this information in conjunction with a new sasquatch movie sounds like a publicity stunt to me and raises some red flags. Being true to my inner skeptic, though, I’ll wait until someone has seen and reviewed this movie before I make my final conclusion.