The Sasquatch and the Great Apes
Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by William Jevning (@bukwas01), 38 year veteran sasquatch investigator, and author of "Notes From the Field, Tracking North America's Sasquatch". Read more about Jevning at his Bigfoot blog, Bigfoot Researcher.There exists today two groups of people who believe that the Sasquatch is human, while the other believes it is an ape. No one will know for sure until one can be observed and thoroughly studied in the physical context. Here are some interesting feet and hand comparisons I wanted to show, it is apparent in these comparisons that the characteristics of hands and feet that the Sasquatch would be closer in relation to humans than the apes. The images of ape hands and feet are castings of hands and feet, and are not from deceased animals but molded from living apes.
The photographs above show the hand and foot of an adult Chimpanzee.
The photograph above here show a hand and foot of an adult Gorilla.
The above photograph here shows the hand and foot of an adult Orangutan.
The photograph above shows two different adult Sasquatch footprint casts, the top is one of the footprints cast by Roger Patterson and the bottom one was a 17 inch track cast in 1963 on Liard Mountain road above Bluff Creek, CA.
The photograph above shows from left to right an adult black bear hind foot, an adult human foot, an adult Sasquatch foot cast in 1963 by Al Hodgson at Bluff Creek, and the left and right Patterson Sasquatch feet cast at Bluff Creek in 1967.
The photograph above shows on the left an adult human hand, and on the right an adult Sasquatch hand print cast in 1972.
The morphological similarities between the Sasquatch and human is apparent, and quite different from the Great apes. I would not say that the Sasquatch is human, but likely much closer to humans than apes.
There exist large gaps in the hominid fossil record, perhaps the Sasquatch is one species that fills one of those gaps? Creatures like the Gigantopithecus certainly make the existence of the Sasquatch likely since they were similar, and prove that giant hominid creatures did actually exist. The Gigantopithecus was larger than the Sasquatch, so why couldn't the Sasquatch exist as well?
The photograph above is Bill Munns with his reconstruction of a Gigantopithecus.
I laughed when I scrolled down after seeing the legit factual documented chimpanzee and gorilla hands and then the sasquatch prints being passed off like its in the same category.
ReplyDeleteNot proven I am afraid.
Good grief, did you read the article, I quote
Delete" I wanted to show, it is apparent in these comparisons that the characteristics of hands and feet that the Sasquatch would be closer in relation to humans than the apes. "
again
" I wanted to show, it is apparent in
these comparisons that the characteristics
of hands and feet that the SASQUATCH WOULD
BE CLOSER IN RELATION TO HUMANS THAN APES."
No offense intended but the author did NOT do what you stated above.
I had an experience so I know Bigfoot is real. The strange thing is, it was only about as tall as an average sized man: 5'7" or so, and not hulking at all. Ape-like, with close set eyes, and a flat face and covered in a ginger-colored hair in all the areas you would expect. Yes, Bigfoot is real but it's short in stature and light in frame. I think all the reports of Bigfoot being enormous is fear-based exaggeration.
DeleteMaybe you saw a young one? You think they're all that size?
DeleteBlondie, you are actually the one who didn't read the commenters comment. The person is saying that the author should have used the term "alleged" Bigfoot print. You can't present something as fact until it is proven so. Why are you such a bratty individual Blondie? Your comments are always so far off from any semblence of understanding. My head hurts when I read them. Shut up already.
DeleteLOL No.
DeleteI'm 6'2" but I wasn't born that height - I grew into it. When I was young I was lean, but as I became an adult, I packed on muscle as well. Most animals grow into their adult size and shape. Given that most sightings don't describe a slight animal of average height, isn't it more likely you saw a juvenile?
DeleteLike most animals and humans, it is more likely that this species come in variable sizes, has variable features, and displays variable dispositions.
GbyP
Good post GbyP, Thanks.
DeleteDear GbyP,
DeleteJust because Bigfoot is short and scrawny doesn't make it less interesting.
I think people -- particularly men -- who argue that Bigfoot is enormous are likely to have fantasies about being manhandled by an enormous man.
It's okay, being gay is fine. maybe these ideas of yours are the product of sexual frustration - that won't always be the case: celebrities on TV ads say that it gets better. and who knows more than celebrities? Probably no one, that's who.
Once you have an enormous male partner you'll stop imagining that Bigfoot is enormous. Just for varieties sake you'll probably imagine Bigfoot with blonde hair and a surfer's body, or maybe you'll be keen on Bigfoot having a French accent or something.
It's so hot that you're 6'2". I'm not gay but when I fantasize about men I like to think of them as being tall like you. Mmmm...
Sounds like you got all worked up there... sounds like you had to cut your post short - did something come up??? Don't be a tease, give me your name and location, I'm sure I can turn ya. Besides, I'd be doing the human race a favor removing one more mouth-breather from the breeding population.
DeleteIf you read down a little further on the page you would learn that I'm terminally ill. Do you honestly think that your 3rd grade taunt is going to hurt me? It's nothing compared to what I face every day. You trolled a dying guy - your mom must be so proud!! And once again, rather than argue a point with an adult response, a troll resorts to personal attack. And a not very original one at that!
Let me repeat what I said earlier - mouth the words out slowly so that maybe you can understand:
Like most animals and humans, it is more likely that this species come in variable sizes, has variable features, and displays variable dispositions.
Sorry there are some big words there - I'm used to talking to adults. Basically this just means that Bigfoot can be short or tall, lean or built, and some may even have rolly-polly bellies! I didn't discount the poster for seeing a 5'7" Bigfoot, but I discount him for saying that his sighting was the rule and that all Bigfoot are that size when the majority of reports suggest otherwise.
Peace,
GbyP
We didn't read the same article - he clearly states that Sas are likely more closely related to human.
ReplyDeleteBe category I meant in the real animal category. Not proven to exist.
DeleteI hate politics so I avoid political websites like the plague. I don't care for baseball so I don't check out stats or watch the trades. So if you are not willing to keep an open mind and entertain that our forests may harbor a small population of unknown primate - I mean the continents attached (Central & South Americas) have primates as does the continent once attached (Asia) - then why post here? I really don't care what you believe - tell me why and support you arguments.
DeleteNo one poster is so important that we are all going to change our minds 'just because you say so'. Besides, we can't even subscribe to your newsletter because you leave no name or address. I think being the 1st to post and respond were more important to you than actually contributing to the debate. Life is short, go outside and play now. And question everything - your life will depend on it some day.
Meanwhile, back on topic... I am one that placed them in the ape category mostly because of one factor missing in sightings: fire. Even the most primitive tribes (by our questionable advanced standard) create and manage fire. There is no report (to my knowledge) where Sasquatch creates or uses fire. But more and more sightings I read seem to suggest human, in appearance and behavior. So I'm not too sure. Back in the 70s I remember Bigfoot as being touted as "the missing link" and it seems to be the species to bridge that gap or followed a similar evolutionary path but from a different primate source.
Most folk outside of this community know me as GuidedByPandas, GbyP for short. I've also been introduced here by an older handle: i-dig. And yes, I'm "Dave from WA", that dying guy. I don't aim to confuse, I was very sick when I 1st posted here and didn't think it mattered what name I used. I am willing to keep an open mind because I had an encounter that, while I can't say with certainty was Bigfoot, it can't be ascribed to any known animal. I've been an outdoor enthusiast my whole life and know what bear and deer can/can't do. So I have a personal reason to learn. Plus I'm hoping I live long enough to see history change.
Peace,
GbyP
Sorry, but the burden of proof lies with those who make the claims to the contrary of the norm. You claim that an 8 foot tall ape man lives in the forest of North America. I say there is no evidence to backup such a statement. The burden of proof lies with you, not I. To expect one to prove a negative is logical fallacy.
DeleteYou make it a habit of being an idiot, Nick? Like someone said above, if not into sports why bother commenting on that. You guys pretending to be skeptics always crak us up, the way you contradict and out yourselves by bothering with something you think doesn't exist but still draws you. You need to make up your minds or buzz off, why hang around a subject you basically think is ridiculous.
DeleteWe have been down this road quite a few times in the last year. Clearly the hands and feet have been seen thousands of times and casted many many times especially the feet and point towards human like. Even the ape camps are starting to hedge their bets. Someday hopefully soon we will know for sure. The truth is out there.
ReplyDeleteChuck
Chuck
To GbyP above,
ReplyDeleteI sincerely hope you live longer than that.
Thanks for your input.
The side-by-side evidence makes this an open and shut case: Bigfoot is bogus.
ReplyDeleteWow your command of the scientific process is breathtaking. Clearly you own the threshold for what is considered proof so now that you have said that it doesn't exist, guess you won't be posting here anymore. I has sad.
DeleteI think we shoud wait until an expert like "bag of dog shit" Fasano chimes in
ReplyDeleteHa, the "bigfoot casts" all look like someone poorly drew an oversized human print, carved it in a block of wood, and went stamping through the forest. Oh wait, that's exactly what it is.
ReplyDeleteBeat it, nutface.
DeleteWhen you saw one set of footprints in the sand Bigfoot had left Jesus in the dust about a mile back.
ReplyDeleteLolol
DeleteIf the Gigantopithecus even walked on two legs we don't know this, just know that the species existed.
ReplyDeleteThe case is very clear that Sasquatch is in all probability human, many in the field though ignore signs and evidence most logical to pursue an improbable ape.
We have a bright primate that walks upright whose faces and feet and hands are all humanlike, if on the primitive prehistoric side, it's unlikely this species is ape given limited intelligence undoubtedly resulting in past captures.
There's language proving humanlike intelligence and ability though enormously different still, it shouldn't take a genius to tell which category this is. Those who've seen their behavior up close usually state human.
why do you guys feed the trolls?
ReplyDeleteGo out and witness it for yourself...
ReplyDelete:)
~JP
The photograph of Bill Munns with his rendition of a Gigantopithecus is striking and, since Gigans existed in previous dispensations, it is neat to at least consider the possibility that some of the eyewitness encounters of very large unidentified creatures (even in North America) may deserve some credibility. The Patterson-Gimlin film of October 1967 is alarming - and still draws confusion from Anthropologists and other professionals who analyze it to this day. One study shows that surveying science at the scene placed the figure in the film at 8 feet high. The arm length, shoulder span, visible muscular features, tandem pivot and the flat footed bi-lateral gait indicates a near impossible "man in a costume" scenario. Although there is no conclusive, undeniable proof YET about 'Bigfoot' - it is simply ignorant to assume all reports are hoaxes. Just as the 45 year old film has been scrutinized thoroughly - It may be that the scrutiny of skeptics works in the researchers' favor by fueling an even stronger resolve for solving one of today's greatest mysteries. We may never know,.. but that film may likely be real and the world is still filled with surprises!
ReplyDeleteI saw one March 7, 2013 and heard it,s sounds the year before and again just ten days before I saw it. It was in plain sight in the sunshine and it was very tall, very lean with perfect posture, helmet shaped crown, high forehead, long black shaggy hair , beard that was straight and it's head had long straight hair past it's sloped neck, face was a dull greenish-yellow (maybe sunshine caused that). Did not see eyeballs but it had wide eyes with heavy lashes and seemed to be squinting. It was unperturbed at seeing us but disappeared as soon as we turned into our driveway. I live in Western NC hilly, wooded, private area with lots of game. Had not expected to see such a tall, lanky, thin un-gorilla like bigfoot as is often photographed and shown on internet. But, just as people come in all shapes and sizes and types, Bigfoot can too. Very excited to have seen it but so close to home, now I worry as we are only home on the street and have a full porch on front of house!!
ReplyDelete