Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 November 12

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 12

Volcanic eruption

Is it possible to create a volcanic eruption artificially by making an opening from the magma reservoir to the surface? If so, is it feasible to prevent a destructive volcanic eruption by artificially creating several smaller eruptions in safe areas (analogously to how they prevent a big avalanche by deliberately triggering smaller ones)? (Question inspired by the volcano scene in In Search of the Castaways, and also by the Emergency 2013 RTS computer game.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:4157:9A2D:3A20:F1CC (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

1) It should be possible, yes, but only if the magma pocket is near the surface, probably meaning it was about to erupt anyway. A deep magma pocket would just cool as it rose and solidify, plugging the hole.

2) It might be possible, but a small hole could also cause an explosion. In some cases, like Mount Saint Helens, there are lots of dissolved gases in the magma, and as soon as you relieve the pressure by making a hole, you would find all the gases would come out of solution, greatly expanding the volume and causing the same explosion you would eventually get naturally. It might be useful to evacuate everyone, then cause it to explode, then everyone can move back in after it cools, as opposed to evacuating and then waiting months or years for it to explode on it's own. In volcanoes without much dissolved gas, like those in Hawaii, there isn't much risk of explosion anyway, so while blowing a hole to the magma could redirect the lava flow, there's no explosion to prevent. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

See also here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! So, theoretically possible but not really practical, right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the idea of making a volcano hurry up and explode might save lives, since people unwilling to evacuate for a volcano that might not explode for years would be more willing to do so if you can schedule the time. You'd need to have remote control or autonomous equipment to drill the hole(s) and set off the charges, of course. StuRat (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it shorter going around Cape Horn or using Northwest Passage?

For ships above Panamax size going from LA to New York, is it shorter going around Cape Horn or using the Northwest Passage? Pizza Margherita (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Northwest passage is much shorter, but only usable when ice free, of course. To put some numbers on it:

Cape Horn route (according to Google)
===============
LA to Cape Horn              11104 km
Cape Horn to Seixas, Brazil   6127 km
Seixas, Brazil to NYC         6657 km
                             ---------
                             23888 km

Panama Canal route [1]
====================
LA to Panama Canal            5443 km
Panama Canal Length             85 km
Panama Canal to NYC           3737 km
                            ----------
                              9265 km 

StuRat (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. How long is the ice free Northwest passage from LA to NY? Pizza Margherita (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

From our article: "The Northwest Passage shortened the distance by 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km; 1,200 mi) compared to traditional route via the Panama Canal." That would put it at 9265 - 1900 or 7365 km. (That's from Port Metro Vancouver, Canada, to the Finnish Port of Pori, but hopefully it's somewhat similar in the LA to NYC distance differential, but this is a very rough estimate.) StuRat (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Vancouver and Pori are so much farther north than LA and NY (49.3°N & 61.5°N vs. 34.1°N & 40.7°) that taking the 1,900 km Panama Canal vs. Northwest Passage difference between routes from one pair of endpoints and applying it to the other is a gross miscalculation. According to IP:76.71.5.45's measurements described below, the LA to NY Northwest Passage isn't just not 1,900 km shorter than the Panama Canal route, it is actually more than 5,000 km longer (though still considerably shorter than the Cape Horn route). -- ToE 14:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, my other two calcs were good, but this assumption doesn't seem to have worked out. StuRat (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This article puts the length of the NW passage itself at 900 miles (1448 km), but it's not clear what the endpoints are: [2]. StuRat (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that the time savings may not be as great as the distance differential, as the NW passage may require slowing down to navigate potentially dangerous areas with narrow sea-lanes, especially once it becomes crowded with ships. StuRat (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I used the "Measure Distance" function in Google Maps to produce a reasonable estimate for this. This computes the total length of a sequence of great-circle routes between points you click on the map. For the sake of definiteness I chose to use cruise terminals at both ends of the route, and used a series of angles to approximate a practical curved course at each end. Specifically, I did this route:

• Brooklyn Cruise Terminal
• just off the terminal
• off Bay Ridge
• off Seagate
• off Rockaway Point
• off Jones Beach
• off Fire Island

Now clear of New York, I continued with long segments, angling at:

• off Martha's Vineyard
• off the southeasternmost point of Newfoundland
• off St. John's

For the Northwest Passage, I approximated the route taken by the Manhattan, here trying to stay in the middle of the straits. My next angles were:

• about 50 miles off Cape Dyer, Baffin Island
• about 30 miles off Bylot Island, northeast of Baffin Island
• in the middle of Hudson Strait, southwest of Dundas Harbour
• southeast of Cornwallis Island
• about 10 miles north of Prince of Wales Island
• about 5 miles north of Victoria Island at the north end of Prince of Wales Strait
• at the first, gentle curve in Prince of Wales Strait
• at the sharper curve in the same strait
• southeast of Banks Island near the south end of the strait
• off the south end of Banks Island

I took the water to be ice-free from there. My next angles were:

• about 10 miles north of Barrow
• about 10 miles off Weevok and Point Hope
• about 5 miles east of Little Diomede Island
• about 10 miles west of Nunivak Island
• just southwest of Unimak Island (I assumed the passage east of the island wasn't usable for big ships)
• off Concepcion, California

And finally in greater Los Angeles:

• off Point Fermin
• south of the eastern gap in the Long Beach Breakwater
• just off the terminal
• Long Beach Cruise Terminal

All of these points could be tweaked, but I think it's a reasonable approximation to a practical route if the Northwest Passage is passable. Google Maps gave the route length as just under 14,400 km. (Specifically, it said 14,394.68, but obviously any slight move of the points will change the result at that level of precision.)

I then compared the Cape Horn route. This time after Seagate the next angles required were off Brazil:

• about 20 miles northeast of Natal
• about 20 miles northeast of Recife

And then in the south:

• about 10 miles southeast of Stanley, Falkland Islands
• about 10 miles east of Isla Hormos
• about 10 miles southwest of the west end of Isla Hermite
• about 10 miles west of Noir Island

One more angle was needed off Mexico:

• just west of Isla Cedros

And then it was straight to the gap in the breakwester as above. This route came out at about 24,030 km. I also compared the Panama Canal route. I won't give the details for this one but the length I got was about 9,270 km. Both numbers agree reasonably well with those reported by StuRat above. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This does show absolute distances well. I don't think it is based real-world shipping. I work closely with a shipping company, maintaining software for route tracking. They don't talk about absolute distance across the ocean. They talk about fuel distance (a literal translation of what they say in Mandarin). Going a short way against current can use more fuel than going a longer way with current. They have maps that show the currents and plot their route using the best currents available. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point. It's just like the way airliners may deviate far from a great circle to follow or avoid the jet stream, depending on which way they're going. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there any progress toward a "brain alarm" to prevent stroke?

Stroke involves, of course, a region where blood flow is suspended. Has anyone made progress toward making a device that can warn the prospective stroke patient or others when this happens? It seems like there ought to be fuckteen different ways this could have been done already, like

• something that could listen at multiple points on the skull and hear where the pulse is going and not going
• something that takes ultrasound or terahertz measurements at regular intervals
• something implanted with access to the bloodstream that measures levels of substances emitted by brain cells during hypoxia
• something that listens for the subsonic vibrations of muscle tone and notes if it changes
• something that measures overall blood flow in major arteries or veins to see if it changes unexpectedly

It seems like if users are willing to put up with occasional false alarms, it wouldn't take that high a level of technology to do this - it doesn't need to do a literal brain scan, just notice if the pattern changes so that the user wakes up and does self-diagnostic tests before it is too late.

Is there anything in the works like this? Wnt (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the current technology just is not advanced enough. It seems that even if some device in the blood stream becomes able to predict the impending bloodflow disruption, you would have only several seconds at best to do something. But since there are non-invasive intracranial pressure measurement methods, maybe there's a hope. Brandmeister^talk 19:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You can measure the INR regularly, and adapt the anticoagulant accordingly.

You can perform an electrocardiogram to discover if a person is in a risk group due to atrial fibrillation.

As said above, discovering that a stroke could happen in the next 10 seconds. Measures should be as a general preventive treatment.

I assume that you can also measure blood pressure 24hx7days and report it through a smarphone, to some assistant. Hofhof (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• There are a variety of problems that can cause a stroke, but the most common is when a piece of the wall of a sclerotic artery breaks loose and is carried into the brain, where it lodges in a spot that blocks blood flow. When that happens it is a sudden catastrophe, with no obvious immediate precursor. To the extent that there are warning signs, they occur in the arteries that feed the brain (the carotid for example), not inside the brain. The most useful warning sign of an impending stroke is serious atherosclerosis. Looie496 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(Regarding the "citation needed" tag, PMC 3250269 states "Approximately 800,000 primary (first-time) or secondary (recurrent) strokes occur each year in the U.S., with the majority being primary strokes (roughly 600,000) [1]. Of these strokes, approximately 87% are ischemic infarctions, 10% are primary hemorrhages, and 3% are subarachnoid hemorrhage.") Looie496 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The intended objective of a "brain alarm" would be to warn the victim when the stroke happens, so that immediate treatment is obtained. Wnt (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Mysterious beach blobs (San Diego)

Thanks for free-licensing these images! I've put one at Caudinidae so far.

Can anyone identify these things I found washed up on the beach in San Diego? There were hundreds of them. 2602:306:321B:5970:9DB4:737E:9DA6:8421 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

They remind me of shark egg cases like [3] but I'm still very uncertain at the moment. By the way-- would you consider changing your "some rights reserved" CC-by-NC to a freer license (CC-by-SA or public domain), so we could use your work on Wikipedia to illustrate our article, if and when we figure out what it is? Would be much appreciated! Wnt (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I considered shark eggs but these things seemed to be a lot softer than shark egg cases, more gelatinous. Also, I neglected to mention the size, but the biggest were about the size of a large grape, two inches on the long axis at most. I'll see about changing the image license too! 2602:306:321B:5970:9DB4:737E:9DA6:8421 (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's some kind of cephalopod egg case. For example, see here. --Jayron32 17:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I should follow up that looked around a bit more - a few of catsharks like the one I mentioned have unusual looking egg cases, but looking through a few keys [4] I'm not finding any sign that they can look and feel like what you have. (our article on the topic is egg case (Chondrichthyes)). I also am very doubtful that it could be a seaweed air bladder, though sometimes these are confused with egg cases. I think we should run with Jayron's idea a while. Wnt (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't really offer any direct advice here, but we do have an article Pregnancy in fish which could be a start for research (not trying to pour cold water on the cephalopod theory - I have no idea what they are). DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You've never heard of squid or octopus before? --Jayron32 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being rather vague. I meant I have no idea what the objects in the image are. I actually created the article Pain in cephalopods. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This just a wide guess based on the morphology shown of a very dead animal on a beach. The image [5] shows lateral lines. Looks like there could be five in total to me. The body is transparent and it has a 'rat tail'. Therefore, they could belong to a sea cucumber of the Holothuroidea molpedia family. Most live in deep water (if my calcifying brain serves me right ) but some live in shallower habitats and so could be washed up. Next time you see any, pop a few into some vodka and then -when you have nothing better to do one evening- take up a surgeon's scalpel to examine their interior structure to find out for sure. If you cat takes an interest during dissection– resist! They not only do not taste good but contain toxins. --Aspro (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently some do not share your distaste for our squidgy friends - see Sea cucumber as food. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The point I was making is: In this scenario it is a bit like an amateur mycologist attempting to identify a mushroom with the possibility that s/he gets it wrong, oh so very wrong. Toxins from sea cucumbers (holothuroids): chemical structures, properties, taxonomic distribution, biosynthesis and evolution.. Red kidney beans are edible too but only after cooking. I like cassava but some tubers are toxic if not properly prepared. There are many examples, that just because people eat something with a 'name' that one can safely eat anything that shares that generic name without caution nor care. Curiosity killed the cat i.e., a proverb used to warn of the dangers of unnecessary investigation or experimentation. Meow, the OP may not have another 8 lives in reserve.--Aspro (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, I do have an image which shows a better hint of the things' internal structure-- gulls were eating them, and I got a photo of one with a burst-open blob in its beak. You can see the red globule inside, which I think is an embryo, hanging out on a string. I think all of these blobs were the same sort of thing, just in different sizes and probably different states of desiccation (some looked very full of liquid, others a bit shriveled). Octopus eggs seem like the most plausible option to me. 2602:306:321B:5970:58DE:B04A:1226:DC8D (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The usefulness of dissection (and these appear transparent enough that this may not even be necessary) is that octopus, squid, cuttlefish and other molluscs show eye-buds early on in development. Just as the interior of a camera is black to stop light bouncing around so these buds will appear as black dots. Also the images show a tail (maybe the anus which is also used for breathing). It does not appear to be morphologic like that which would anchor an egg. So don't think that these are octopus eggs. Try emailing them to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. They might be interested in a report of a modern-day death assemblages or mass die-off. Let us know what their answer is.--Aspro (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(OP here, on a different computer.) Who exactly should I contact at the museum? Their contact page doesn't seem to have an option for asking about mystery specimens. 17:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.78.221 (talk)

The sea cucumber idea looks better than I'd thought - see Pelagothuriidae. There are many species and quite a range of morphology to choose from. I am also intrigued that the last photo in your series suggested a five-fold symmetry (though with one sector red) - that is a hallmark of echinoderms. Finding images of the full range of sea cucumbers doesn't seem easy though. Wnt (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Wnt and Aspro, this is either a larval or neotenic seacucumber. The pentaradial symmetry about a long axis and the lack of normal mature characteristics of any other form makes it quite likely. μηδείς (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

(OP here) Update: I sent my photos to researchers at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and they identified them as young individuals of a species called Caudina arenicola, the "sweet potato sea cucumber. While most images online show older individuals which are more opaque and brownish in color, the overall morphology is right-- and I'm inclined to trust these experts. 128.54.78.203 (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

We don't have an article on Caudina arenicola or even Caudina yet, but we have one for Caudinidae, which presently has no illustrations. It would still be really appreciated if you could license the photos for any use (both commercial and noncommercial) because that is what Wikipedia requires so its articles are freely reusable by all. Or you could start an account and upload them - it would be great for you to stick around! Wnt (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure! What should I change the image license on iNaturalist to? 2602:306:321B:5970:A931:1DCD:6F5E:9B0A (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution (BY) or Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA) are good choices ([6]). Wikimedia Commons also has a list of compatible licenses: Commons:Licensing. clpo13_(talk) 01:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed the license to (BY-SA). Feel free to use my photos on the wiki! 2602:306:321B:5970:ED87:FFC2:EB96:6EC5 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I've gone ahead and copied them to Commons, and put one at Caudinidae. There was nothing like this on the web before that I could find; even the adult photos you mentioned are in a fully copyrighted Flickr stream we can't use in the article. Someone who can find wonderful oddities like this, can take good photos of them, and is willing to free-license them too ... should you choose to set up an account and start editing you might become quite popular around here. :) Wnt (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Having wildly guessed the Phylum, Class and Order right for these creatures out of thousands of possible others, Am not opposed to anyone offering to fly me to San Diego, to find and photograph some 'mature' specimens for which to place on Wikipedia. An odious task it may be but someone needs to do it and so I volunteer. Will of course require a donation of, a plentiful supply of fluid preserve for such specimens recovered. Can supply a list (to such a sponsor, should he or she come forward), of good German schnapps and Polish vodkas which I find most suitable for these purpose. They needn't supply any fixative such as formaldehyde, as I might get the bottles mixed up; such a mistake would ruin my whole day. --Aspro (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Patterson–Gimlin film

Is it just me or Patterson–Gimlin film indeed suggests that none of the mentioned specialists was able to conclusively identify the species (presumably some species of gorilla)? If so, why? Specifically, I'm interested whether the method of exclusion could be definitely applied here to rule out any known ape species. As a side note, since presumably no known ape walks upright in the wild, does it suggest something? Thanx. 93.174.25.12 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No-one has conclusively identified the species, and as far as I know, no-one has suggested that it is "some species of gorilla". The only two possibilities on the table are

(a) a large man (or a very large woman) in a suit, or

(b) an unknown extant species of Hominoidea.

If the latter, it must be unknown as no known extant hominoidea (and certainly no known (sub-)species of gorilla) other than (female) humans have such large breasts, and various other anatomical and dimensional considerations (not least the accomplished bipediality) also rule out any known, non-human, extant Hominoidea.

This however does not rule out all other Hominoidea: in other words either known species (such as a Gigantopithecus or descendant) thought to be extinct (i.e. not extant), or species not yet known at all, even from the fossil record.

(FWIW, I myself am undecided. If (a) then the suit is much better than anything previously made by professionals for films at that time, and seemingly well beyond the likely resources of Patterson and Gimlin: if (b) then it's difficult to understand why no further evidence of the same quality has been found since.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If (a), then isn't it quite possible that Patterson and Gimlin stumbled upon someone else in a gorilla suit? Just because they saw someone in a gorilla suit doesn't mean that it was one of them. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 23:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a logical possibility, but it seems to me very, very unlikely. The location was at the time quite remote, so it's beyond belief that someone would have been running around there in a gorilla suit entirely by chance – the hoaxer would have had to have known P & G's plans and anticipated their arrival. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Remote doesn't seem that relevant to me considering the point you yourself made below which either any new hoaxer could also uncover or existing hoaxer would already know. I assume there were multiple possible locations (and they were fairly large) so there's still high degree of "luck" here even in terms of location. Also considering an existing hoaxer, is an interesting point. You're right timing seems a little suspect. But if someone was regularly hoaxing for whatever reason, and this was the area they were hoaxing, then timing isn't quite so suspicious. Again this is similar to the point you made below.

In fact, when combining the two factors, presuming their reseach uncovered where the largest number of recent sightings were and they went there, we can see the very unlikely possibility they happened to stumble upon a hoaxer becomes minorly more likely (but still extremely more likely). Technically this isn't entirely by chance, but then again no one seemed to say it was. I don't know and don't really care to know the details, but probably it's still significantly more likely someone did uncover what the 2 were up to an intentionally hoaxed them. Of course, far, far more likely they were the ones hoaxing as you agree.

However I wouldn't say this is completely irrelevant. IMO at least, the chance of a chance encounter with a regular hoaxer is still far, far more likely then it being some sort of unknown primate or hominid. What this ultimately means is even if we are for some reason convinced the 2 were telling the truth when they said they weren't involved in perpetrating a hoax, we still should assume the most likely possibility by far is it was a hoax, just they weren't involved.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it suggests that it's a person in a suit. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that a gorilla-suited hoaxer (almost certainly in league with Patterson and/or Gimlin) is the most likely explanation. However, some people think that the slim chance of it not being a hoax makes further investigation worth while, because of the tremendous implications if it were true. If there were obvious evidence in the footage itself of hoaxing (such as complete consistency with human proportions and gait, or a visible zipper), or clear circumstancial evidence (such as store records of hiring a suit to Patterson) – as opposed to a priori assumptions about the likelihood of an unknown North American hominin – then the many analyses and investigations ought to have revealed them by now. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

An argument has been made that it's not consistent with human gait, lifting the feet too high; though I don't know how much difference rough unfamiliar ground makes. —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "Analysis" section of the Article goes into this: the observations of Grover Kranz are particularly pertinent to the gait question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@ 90.211.130.104. “don't think anyone disagrees that a gorilla-suited hoaxer (almost certainly in league with Patterson and/or Gimlin) is the most likely explanation.” ? Comment smacks of trolling.--Aspro (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how, Aspro? In agreeing with 47.138.163.230 that a hoax is the most likely explanation, I certainly didn't intend anything more than a statement of the current situation as I understand it, and I'm a member of a cryptozoological organisation, who would certainly like the film to be genuine. This is the first accusation of trolling I recall receiving, in more than 10 years' of regular activity on Wikipedia. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I read most of the wiki article, for grins. If anybody thinks that a bloke who has already published on the subject should just happen across Bigfoot, well, aww that's cute. In the real world, yes, they pulled off a great stunt. Greglocock (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Most likely they did: but not definitely and not (yet) proveably. However – assuming for the moment their honesty – they didn't "just happen across" it, they were actively searching for it in an area already associated with reported sightings and signs. If something is suspected to exist, it's most likely to be found by someone already interested in that possibility looking where previous evidence and general conditions suggest it might be, surely? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Well the previous sightings and signs would have been hoaxed too and the ape's heavily padded posterior and the King Kong guerilla head would also meet with the audience's expectations that are consistent with an aspiring Hollywood producer and writer. Even analysis on the Fox owned National Geographic (I didn't watch much of it) of this lumbering distorted hairy suit compared with the human frame perhaps enhanced its production value. Interesting enough, some of the snow (it's covering the logs) is compacted on this guy's soles, thus hiding their apish feet. But then there is no covering up the distinct outline of the inevitable and dynamic lateral creases and creasing of the suit's fabric as it rides up and down along the rear length of their legs as they walk, thus I'm not surprised to having spotted this sign of them actually wearing a cheap suit. -Modocc (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• The most cogent objection I have heard of that a layman unfamiliar with physiognomy should understand is the "money shot" represented in our article of the sasquatch looking the photographers in the face. It does not pause or change pace, become aggressive or fearful. It simply holds for its cameo. Probably Bette Davis in that frock. μηδείς (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)