Reddit reviews The Year of the Gorilla

>so you would have liked for that woman to die? Because it could easily have killed he , had her friend not called 911 and got her to the hospital

If it had killed the woman, then you'd have a case. As it is, it shows the chimp to be monstrously inept at killing things. The wounds it left were painful and serious, but hardly immediately fatal. It didn't aim for any vital organs at all.

>and you have nothing to back this up , have you ever even heard of a human ripping another person's hands off? i didn't think so

Humans don't have sharp teeth like chimps do in order to rip hands off with.

>and no , a chart in and of itself is not a study

http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/224

Here's the study that got the results from that chart. You can't read it unless you have an account, but if you can find it on another source, go ahead

>none of what you had had any citations , so please

I have studies from Yale, you have pseudo-science being touted around by pop culture

>according to whom?

Square cube law, larger animals tend to be proportionately less powerful. If the gorilla was scaled down, it's no more powerful than the chimp.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/06/14/rspb.2010.0509

See the chart here. I was wrong about the gorilla being weaker, but it's not any stronger than the chimp either

>it is in the links of the previous post

Scientific sources, I meant, not stuff that's so obviously just pop culture, that it's not even funny.

>again , would you have liked for the woman to die? It could have easily killed her.

That's the point, on a weak old lady who could hardly fight back, the chimp was too dumb to kill her. They've got no killing knowledge, they just attack the extremities and genitals and then hope for the best beyond that

>and so is a leopard , that is my point

That has nothing to do with my argument

>ok then , give a link to the book

http://www.amazon.com/Year-Gorilla-George-B-Schaller/dp/0226736474

I have not found a free version of that one yet, but here's another example of that same incident being recounted in a book called "Man the Hunted" by Hart and Sussman(two other primatologists)

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a276/GGordo/gorillas/page35.jpg

>its body stopped the bullet , did it not? it survived , did it not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmaLsmUmx9s

Men are bullet resistant according to you. The gorilla's arm was broken by the bullet and its arm disabled, this would have happened to a human hit by the bullet too(if it hit the right place at the right angle, of course). Blind luck means jack and you clearly didn't even read the article if you think that makes it bullet resistant.

>what makes your word more credible than theirs?

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the bite of a hippopotamus is weaker than that of a jaguar? Even disregarding that, the science here is atrocious. We aren't told what sample size they're using, how they tested the bite force of these animals, which tooth they measured from, or the size of the animals they measured. Plus, they used PSI, no one uses that in actual science, they use newtons(as demonstrated in my study of a gorilla's bite force)

>if it is well placed , like the jugular , it would be enough to kill a human

Good thing apes are too dumb to aim for the throat and just go for non-vitals instead.