Comments by "Robert Coggeshall" (@robertcoggeshall3071) on "Nature on PBS" channel.

  1. Still not proven either way.
    28
  2.  @ice-coldspear9193  that's why it's called the Long Walk.
    12
  3. You saw a guy walking 2 dogs.
    7
  4. I'd say a few, not most. And usually easy to tell.
    7
  5. Giganto would have to be ground dwelling at that weight. The idea of a giant orang that can't climb seems suspect.
    5
  6. They claimed to see 2 large yeti, dark, not white.
    3
  7. Giganto isn't proven to be the inspiration for bigfoot or yeti. No idea if it was bipedal.
    3
  8. Santa doesn't leave 18 inch boot tracks.
    2
  9. Grover Krantz thought a bipedal body made more sense due to the spread of the lower jaw. Much wider than a gorilla. That means the neck was below the skull, not hung forward.
    2
  10.  @PaulBowman-y1r  idk, traveling with 2 coyotes? There was a report in Ohio of one traveling with 2 pumas.
    2
  11. Not proven.
    2
  12. Not proven that at all.
    2
  13. If it was bipedal.
    2
  14.  @TylerRakstis  most look humanlike.
    2
  15. I doubt many drunks are thinking about bigfoot.
    2
  16. I'd say bigfoot and other apemen might be evolved australos or paranthropus.
    2
  17. Pg film proves they exist. All over the world.
    2
  18. Giganto is possible, but I doubt it had humanlike feet. Only the human lineage had it. Bigfoot more likely would be a large evolved australo or paranthropus.
    1
  19. Maybe, maybe not.
    1
  20. Those are bare feet, not snow shoes.
    1
  21.  @Ose-here  not really.
    1
  22. The Shipton print is not from a sherpa barefoot, lol 😆.
    1
  23. Lol, no.
    1
  24. They're theorizing it didn't die out.
    1
  25.  @sarbo2335  a lot of reports of really huge apemen, so it's possible.
    1
  26. It went extinct fairly recently. Could be the source of some really large apemen sightings.
    1
  27. One species lived in the Himalayan foothills. No idea if it was red.
    1
  28. I think that's a fallacy.
    1
  29. Several lower jaws and a thousand teeth were found by accident.
    1
  30. Doubtful. Doesn't have similar teeth.
    1
  31. It doesn't mean bear.
    1
  32. The photo is a left foot.
    1
  33.  @frankrizzo5958  the big toe is on the right side. That's a left, lol. Loved the Jerky boys, btw.
    1
  34. Lol, that's a left foot. The big toe is on the right side.
    1
  35. There's no arch. Look at your own feet.
    1
  36.  @frankrizzo5958  arches were only a recent evolved trait. They aren't evident in old fossil footprints. I meant for you to look at the toes of your feet, clueless, to see that yeti track is a left foot. Loved your jerky boys albums, btw.
    1
  37.  @frankrizzo5958  I have the most common sense. Arches were a homo sapiens development. Other species needed larger flat feet to handle their weight. Early australos didn't have arches. Arches evolved much later.
    1
  38. It's too old. We've been able to get dna from more modern human relatives.
    1
  39. It's teeth aren't a modern human.
    1
  40. No, there are several lower jaws and over 1000 teeth found, and spread out over southeast Asia. There were large and smaller specimens, same genus.
    1
  41. The Shipton tracks were of a biped, not a bear. They actually jumped across to another spot. Bears can't jump.
    1
  42. Yeah, but jumping would require them to be on all fours and leave quadrupedal prints. So you're wrong. I've never seen a bear jump, lol.
    1
  43.  @blobrana8515  I know what bear tracks look like. The back paw looks the most humanlike, but a bear would have to jump quadrupedally. I've never seen a nature documentary with them jumping. The Yeti tracks were a biped.
    1
  44. Lots of large bones and skulls of giant people in America. Could be bigfoot, but the museums can't seem to locate them.
    1
  45. Had to live on the ground, so it's possible.
    1
  46. In snow, it's a lot harder to tell bear from yeti. The Shipton print could be an overstepped bear track. No claws though..
    1
  47. That was the best print. Yes there was a trail, and supposedly his guides were impressed how the creature navigated the terrain.
    1
  48. Man-bear probably means manlike creature bear size.
    1
  49. Doubt trail cameras cover much of North America.
    1
  50. Pg film proves they exist. Several other films show creatures 8 ft.
    1
  51.  @frankmacleod2565  the famous bigfoot film. The female caught on film. About trail cameras- it's impossible they're covering much of the forests.
    1
  52. The film is real. Nobody would make a female suit for a guy, and the clown that said it was him was obviously lying. I was born in the 60s, and suits from that era are utter garbage 🗑. They need to be kept in shadows in period movies because they're so bad.
    1
  53. ​​ @frankmacleod2565 I said earlier that there are other films. 2 were thermals, measured at 8 ft, and another was the marble mountain video. Also 8 ft. Pg film female is around 7 ft. No suit is showing so much muscle definition.
    1
  54.  @frankmacleod2565  it stands next to an 8 ft branch. Measured, with nothing to stand on. Got to analyze the evidence, buddy.
    1
  55.  @frankmacleod2565  others have, and just recently on a documentary. In that area. Or fairly close. There's probably not many. Anyway, getting back to marble mountain, there's no illusion- it stands right next to the 8 ft branch, same height. Same with a yowie thermal from Australia. At least 1, possibly 2 right behind an 8ft shrub. In Florida, a thermal with one that had double the stride of a 6'5 man! It reached the next tree in one step, while the man needed 2 very long stretched out steps to get there.
    1
  56.  @frankmacleod2565  these weren't blurry. Again several were measured at the site. You want to be in denial, that's fine.
    1
  57.  @frankmacleod2565  the 2 thermals show the outline pretty clear. Pg film isn't that blurry. Again, all measured taller than normal humans.
    1
  58. ​ @frankmacleod2565 the turn around looking back sequence is pretty clear. There's no way thats a suit.
    1
  59.  @frankmacleod2565  see some enhanced versions.
    1
  60. All suits are on sets, not on location in the backwoods of California.
    1
  61.  @frankmacleod2565  lol, I doubt cameras are covering 1% of the woods. Makes me doubt you work there. Several photos and films exist that may be legit. No way to fake height in thermals.
    1
  62. Not in Australia.
    1
  63. Possibly, but more likely a human relative.
    1
  64. YouTube keeps kicking me off for hours, grrr.
    1
  65. ​ @prismod8509 it was the teeth that made the discoverer think it was hominid.
    1
  66. ​ @JosephCymrank agreed.
    1
  67. Bs. Not at 20,000 feet up.
    1
  68. There have been several jaws and a thousand teeth found.
    1
  69. They took a photo of the best track. Some goat tracks got mixed up with the yeti one for decades.
    1
  70. What myth?
    1
  71. Not that long. The last fossil was the last giganto? Doubtful.
    1
  72. Krantz theory was the jaw would have been positioned under the neck, indicating upright posture. Much wider than a gorilla lower jaws.
    1
  73.  @TheSpillZine  they have the lower jaws, and they spread much wider than a gorillas. No evidence of quadrupedal or bipedal locomotion, so it's a draw.
    1
  74. The famous bigfoot film of a female from northern California.
    1
  75.  @frankmacleod2565  good. Don't need to hear" oh, he altered a gorilla suit and made it a female bigfoot".
    1
  76.  @frankmacleod2565  no, even skeptics acknowledge it has breasts, but erroneously believe Patterson used a female suit. As you point out, though, it's not apparent, so it's nonsensical that Patterson would add breasts you can't notice.
    1
  77. Even skeptics acknowledge the figure has breasts.
    1
  78.  @frankmacleod2565  every analysis ive ever heard, positive or negative.
    1
  79.  @frankmacleod2565  no, they don't leave 18 inch tracks behind.
    1
  80.  @frankmacleod2565  many have been cast. You're just not lucky enough I guess.
    1
  81. I've seen a lot of bf casts, some more than 18 inches.
    1
  82.  @frankmacleod2565  those tracks have never been proved fake, or even a way to imprint them. There was a reward for exactly that for 40 years, and went unclaimed by thousands of hoaxers. Your Easter bunny tracks would be easily exposed.
    1
  83.  @frankmacleod2565  In the US. You're wrong. Your Easter bunny tracks wouldn't fool anyone, and neither would a 60s suit for Patty. She's the real deal.
    1
  84.  @frankmacleod2565  I've never seen bigfoot, but just look at the evidence unbiased. Never seen 1 decent skeptical explanation to either the many tracks or the pg film.
    1
  85.  @frankmacleod2565  so? Guess you're just unlucky.
    1
  86. @frankmacleod2565  several are clear enough. And measured.
    1
  87.  @frankmacleod2565  ok. Clear enough for me to know it's not been faked.
    1
  88.  @frankmacleod2565  it should be clear enough, but a body is needed. I don't live in a bf sighting area, but I admire the people who are out there trying to prove it. Patterson searched for years before getting Patty on film. Your not finding footprints definitely makes me think they may be extinct before they're proven.
    1
  89. It lived for about 6 million years.
    1
  90. Too old.
    1
  91. An e-dna result in Washington came up orang. Could that mean bigfoot is giganto, and the Kentucky one is different?
    1
  92. E-dna from Washington came back as partial orang. And an everest e-dna came back 99% human. That would be what I would expect.
    1
  93. Way too big, and different teeth.
    1
  94. They have no basis for it. It's teeth aren't like Orang teeth.
    1
  95. Been suggested since it was discovered. Thought to be more hominid initially.
    1
  96. Not proven either way, so it's viable. It's got the size down.
    1