Sasquatch Cranial Size

The take home here is that the cranial capacity can be effectively measured from the Patterson film and shown to be no more than that of Homo Erectus. That alone excludes the possibility of a hoax. As well the skull architecture conforms to gigantopithecus.

So we pretty clearly know just what we have here. It is not a neanderthal and has separated from the human lineage a long time ago. It may well have separated around the same time as Homo Erectus or sooner. It did adapt to the forest niche in particular.

As an aside, I have assembled a lot of details on the Sasquatch life way throughout this blog in particular and initially in a manuscript I prepared seven years ago. A lot is now known and I am now merely pushing out the edges and trying to confirm details. I would love to actually track the creatures diet over a full year. Right now, I know that they do eat deer and likely any other minor game that comes along. I know that they hunt using throwing cobbles. They have been seen eating berries and rose hips.

I suspect that they are able to consume young pine needles but lack confirmation. That is a big one because it provides a moderate energy supply between successful hunts in the offseasons. We need to analysis scat as often as we can, however the creature is quite able to hide its scat and this has been observed. It is going to dump in the woods but not on our pathways.

Igor Burtsev and The Patterson Film on its Anniversary

THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 201210:30PM

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.ca/2012/10/igor-burtsev-and-patterson-film-on-its.html

Igor Burtsev recently posted a new album on his Facebook wall:

Patterson-Gimlin Film Studied in Russia in 1970s till now

Updated on Sunday [September 30]

This album dedicated to 45th Anniversary of Patterson-Gimlin film of October 20, 1967
[Reprinted with Permission]

Rene Dahinden while in Moscow on Dec 1971/ Me [Igor] sitting. Bayanov, Koffman, Rene standing

To the frame at the top, Igor added the note "This frame first had attracted our attention, nobody in America noticed it that time" and I then said "Well *I* for one noticed it" and I went on to explain:

 "What I always refer to in this frame is the fact that the cranium is far too small to fit a normal human head into, which would have been the case of a man wearing a suit. A man in a suit cannot have a smaller head inside the suit than when he has it off (Be careful of the green/brown color break on the back profile, too: the size of the head is even less than it seems at first)"

And then this one: "This is real frame from the film, not photoshopped (there was not at that time), just made with more light in photo-enlarger. You can see here the face features"

[Part of the darkened area behind the neck and shoulders is due to the shadow of a log in the background and this is clearly discerned in the coloured original frame-DD]

"First sculpture created by me" [Not all sculptures shown from this series]

"Back view of my statue"[All the statues ARE very good even if I did not include them all] 

"For positions in consecutive order on the single background"

"Comparing Patty with an actor in suit (left) and S. Williams"

[Patty's proportions are NOTHING like the actor in a suit]

Now please allow me to present some of my own extractions on the matter:

Here is the direct comparison. The fancier version invents a whole range of features which simply are not indicated in the original. The crown of the head is especially larger and fuller, these two versions are matched to the same size and position of the face. And there is no reason to assume a projecting nose or well-formed lips in the original. 

When Patty turns her head her head is also very short back-to-front. The cranium is VERY small compared to the face, well below the norm for humans. Which is actually a point in the film's favour, since an ordinary human skull will not fit into the space allotted

Cross section of the "Bleached" still, skull in sagittal section is indicated:

The peak of the head is directly above the rear corrner of the mandible or jaw bone, and the jaw as indicated is a fair match for Gigantopithecus. The zygomatic arch (Cheekbone) is HUGE and the jaws proportionately much larger than in the human norm. Correspondingly also the cranial capacity is very low and I would estimate it as being in the vicinity of the Homo erectus cranial capacity at most. It is an exceedingly small cranium (The size and shape are clearly indicated) and much flatter than any human skull should be above the eyes. The horizontal bar at right angles to the vertical bar indicates the normal back-to-front axis of the skull. the top sides of the skull are also indicated as steeply sloped apart near the peak.