J Michaels said:
"IF the PG film depicts a 'human' Sasquatch then visually there is no problem with that. It walks upright, turns and moves like a human, has a very human looking foot and hands. MK once said the only thing that makes it look 'animal' is it's covered with hair. Everything else looks human. Which is true. This is why there has been a debate for years over whether it is a costume or not, because it is so human looking..
Possible? Plausible? Could this explain "Sasquatch?"
If Sasquatch in the Pacific Northwest was a feral indian, that would explain what they see in the PNW. But, it won't explain what we see around here and in other parts of the country. What we see doesn't look like Patty. It's a stretch to say that it even looks human.
Posted on Jul 1, 2009, 7:33 AM from IP address 98.134.226.98