Comments on: New Evidence in Patterson-Gimlin Footage: Pro and Con Arguments

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:06:25 +0000

cryptokellie: Thanks. I know, but which is more likely: that this is a male Bigsquatch with breasts, or that it’s a female Sasfoot of child-bearing age. I know which side I come down on, and I think we’re on the same page here.

WAIT. WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE! LITERALLY!!!

By: cryptokellie

cryptokellie — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:28:30 +0000

Goodfoot;
Loved it actually…
Good-natured humor is always needed these days and in reading some of the posts that I see, we need some here and I welcome it. As to hips thighs and such; yeah, that would be my first take as well but very Human (Homo sapiens) secondary sexual traits may not necessarily apply to a creature like a Bigfoot – if it exists. In fact, as a species, Humans display some the most striking sexual dimorphics of any animal group.
In most normal cases, you would be hard pressed (no pun intended) to mistake a naked human female from a naked human male. In many animal species, other than size, the sexes are not as easily discerned from one another unless you look closer than you might actually want to. As far as the figure in the Patterson film is concerned, the indisputable identifier as to gender is not seen on the film. Then again, no mention of any genitalia is mentioned by Patterson or Gimlin that I have ever read except for the breasts….they assumed the figure was female by that rather logical assumption alone. Personally, with no real difinitive evidence to prove otherwise, I think the figure in the film shows a female of whatever species that is or may be. But it could be a male.

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:07:28 +0000

cryptokellie: it was, of course, a rather feeble attempt at humor, but you bring up an excellent point about the breasts. But if I look beyond those, at those thighs and pelvis, hey – there’s no doubt that’s a female, to me.

By: DWA

DWA — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:46:18 +0000

Alamo:

“The fact is, walking the way he is doing is the easiest way to do a face plant and the only reason he doesn’t in the video is that his back yard is smooth, even and free of obstructions. Even tall grass would have made a difference, this is because if the front foot bobbles or slips in the slightest and your back foot has the toe pointed down, the toe will drag and you’ll be eating a dirt sandwich.”

No kidding. Anyone who has tried to walk in anything like swim fins knows you aren’t doing it on a wild river bar, one take.

(Yes it had to be one take. You think a fall would have brought out the crew yelling, CUT?!?!?! We know the circumstances of the film shoot. If P & G were hoaxed – a totally unreasonable presumption, but we know they couldn’t do it themselves – it had to be one take.)

I was just on crutches, sprained knee. You know something it is hard to do in the fall? Walk on crutches! Those damn leaves try to trip you up every step! Don’t notice that in normal walking. But when you introduce a variable, you do.

What was on that river bar, count on it, was walking the way it had, in the country in which it had, its entire life.

By: cryptokellie

cryptokellie — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 04:10:08 +0000

Goodfoot;

My wife of almost 40 years would most definitely frown upon that but, if you will Google “hirsute woman”- click images, you will find some examples…the first image that my search engine lists is actually a very hairy yet very attractive example. She is in a bikini, carrying her small child. This is an actual image on a hair removal site which offers some information on excessive body hair. Also, Jesus Aceves and other “Wolf” people come to mind. Of course they suffered from Hypertrichosis and to think that a race of beings presenting the same condition is a stretch, but it’s not impossible. My point was to demonstrate that female primates can exhibit such hair growth and to say that hairy breasts disqualifies the Patterson film figure from being an actual cryptid is premature.

Perhaps the figure in the Patterson film is in reality, a male with what are called “Hairy Man Boobs” Don’t believe me?…Google “Marvelous Man Boobs”. I will say no more, lest I become a…Sasoon.

BTW…”Kellie” was my beloved Golden Retriever’s name.

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:15:15 +0000

cryptokellie: Do you have the phone numbers of any hirsute women?

By: Alamo

Alamo — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 03:42:58 +0000

Mcw:

Yep, still the strongest indicator of the veracity of the PG film… 45 years later and we still cannot recreate the “suit” today.

Good:

We’ll put out an ABB (All Bigfoot Bulletin)… yeah, I totally agree with you regarding Joshua’s assertion, I don’t know what’s so incredible about hair covered breasts, the DNA is Eastern European after all.

By: Alamo

Alamo — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 02:17:09 +0000

Seems to be characteristic of “debunkers”: cherry pick 2 seconds of uncharacteristic footage to “prove” their point, when the totality of the evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise… oddly enough, they accuse proponents of the very same thing.

There are at least a dozen videos on YouTube of people walking in fins/ flippers… yet he cut out a 2 second portion of one called, “How Not to Walk in Fins” and then creates his own video (rather than using the many already available) which, oddly enough, supports his argument, but is the exact opposite of all the other examples out there… curiouser and curiouser…

By: cryptokellie

cryptokellie — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 01:42:27 +0000

To Mr. Joshua;
Your examples as to why the figure in the Patterson film is not a real animal are shakey at best.
Female gorillas have quite uniform body hair length as they lack the longer forearm and leg hair of adult males. Also, mammals living in temperate climates can grow or lose hair/fur as needed…do you own a dog or a horse…
Some examples of Chimpanzee and Gorillas do have hair on their chests and remember that some Humans, including women, can be extremely hairy.
Also some female primates show a sagittal crest, although rare. There are fossil hominids determined to be female that did have a sagittal crest.
The cone shaped head of the figure in the Patterson film resembles the profile of Koko the famous female gorilla who I think lacks a pronounced sagittal crest.
Female gorillas have cone shaped heads to one degree or another so I think the assumption of a sagittal crest in the Patterson film is unproven.
This is not to say that Bigfoot actually exist or that the Patterson film truly shows an example of one. I’m simply pointing out that variable features such as hair length and head shape are not very good reasons for disclusion.

By: Goodfoot

Goodfoot — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 00:20:14 +0000

squatchman: In all sincerity, I’m genuinely curious: what did you see that turned your head around? I ALWAYS like hearing stuff like that. I’m accepting that people can think it a fake. I just wonder what thing(s) changed their minds… it could be important.