Thanks Lyndon for posting the link to the gorilla photo. It is much appreciated. However, what one sees in the gorilla photo is not what one sees in the P-G stills. It is a bit different.

There is a dark line running down the centre of the back in the gorilla photo. There is a dark line running down the back of the subject in the P/G footage. That’s all we can see and they look pretty similar to me. We can’t see any seam or stitching in the P/G footage. It looks almost exactly like what we see in the gorilla photo.

I’m sorry but any differences you ‘think’ you can see are just wishful thinking. The footage just isn’t pin sharp enough to espouse the subtle differences between the lines in the two subjects.

Thanks Lyndon for posting the link to the gorilla photo. It is much appreciated. However, what one sees in the gorilla photo is not what one sees in the P-G stills. It is a bit different. And when there are dis-similarities, I usually attempt to bring them up to scrutiny (even in my own fields of research and study–completely far away from cryptozoological things).

Mystery man, you’re correct that there is a wide variation on human buttocks…but when you see them, you know what you are seeing is real, even if varied. If you have a copy of Chris Murphy’s book, I encourage you to look at the stills I mention…there is something definitely “wrong”….about the buttocks area.

Loren, this comment addressed to you….

Is it possible to post the three film-still photos from Chris Murphy’s book that I mention? Frames 307, 323 and 339? If that can be done, that would allow perhaps a resolution to these questions in a (hoped for) definitive manner, and much more quickly than otherwise. That would let everyone view the stills in question, and then, everyone could comment on the images and what I am noticing.

If, after that, we can arrive at reasonable explanations for the phenomena that I noticed, then fine.

But those two characteristics I have noted do bother me.

If this is do-able, Loren, thanks in advance.

http://www.lizit.com/germany/images/gorilla_1.jpg

We do have an inkling about Sasquatch “butts”…it’s in Meldrum’s book..female, page 112. The “buttocks imprint” is right there. The buttocks there do not indicate or appear to show the type of characteristics seen in the P-G film.

We also have eye-witness drawn illustations–albeit crudely, as one can see one in J. Robert Alley’s “Raincoast Sasquatch” volume on page 74–not at all like what frame 339 shows. The female Sasquatch has a high posterior that sticks out, and yet it doesn’t sag. (I have seen this on human females.) And there is the additional drawing of the William Roe incident drawn by his daughter under his direction (on page 36 of the Chris Murphy book “Meet the Sasquatch”) and that doesn’t show a sagging set of buttocks either.

Of course, this is an exceptionally small sampling. But I am just pointing out that, to me, the trends are not agreeing. Again, what is bothering me is that it’s not that there’s “junk in the trunk” , it’s how it sets there….or sags there…

That’s what I was reaching for in description–a sagging set of buttocks. Looks wrong.

As for hair growth “stitching” down the backs of primates…please post some pictures illustrating this, if at all possible. I don’t recall seeing such hair growth characteristics even in humans…. and I don’t recall seeing back photos of chimps or gorillas demonstrating this.

I am keeping an open mind, but that buttocks section looks wrong in the P-G film. It’s not as noticeable when the film is running, but the stills bring these things out.

Also we, do have the Paul Freeman video footage, as can be seen in its entirety (with sound) on the DVD “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”…that is the best footage outside of the P-G film. I think that is very good, yet not quite the rez required, for a Sasquatch film. That was taken in the early 1990s.

Further commentaries welcomed. The more light that is shed, the better everything is.

Even if they do like cinnamon flavored crackers or whatever. LOL

As to buttocks on Bigfoot not looking “normal,” I find that a remarkable statement as we don’t know what a normal Bigfoot looks up close, except via the Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Why should we use the yardstick of human female buttocks as normal? Also, seriously comparing the female buttocks of the Hottentot and Bushman does show some structural similarities, with reference to how an upright primate carries excess fat in the buttocks.

The P-G film does bother me. I had bought roughly two months ago (direct from Hancock House publishers) the volume “Meet the Sasquatch” by Chris Murphy. Excellent book, excellent introduction to the whole subject. And nearly all in color. It held my attention.

On page 52/53 (it actually continues onto page 54, but the stills I wish to highlight are on these two pages) he has enlargements of the P-G film in there. And I took a very good look at these stills.

And I find troubling problems. For instance, frame 307, one can see a “line” running down the back of the creature; in frame 323 this “line” shows also. I have only seen one creature with this apparent “stitched” look–some pointer dogs. I grew up with Hungarian Viszlas, and they had this “stitching”…but this is not a dog we are observing here. Loren, or anyone else, can you come up with photos or other evidence that other primates have this “stitched” hair growth pattern being exhibited? It runs right down the back, along the spine.

Also…

The “buttocks” on this creature does indeed bother me–not for having “junk in the trunk” (to use hip-hop slanguage here) but because it doesn’t appear to be shaped like real buttocks…

Let me explain. Frame 323 shows this part of the anatomy from a a “behind view, and it appears (perhaps an artifact of the film, but I don’t hink so) that it “bunches up”…like cloth would do on a suit…but this is made more manifest in frames 339 (quite clearly) and frame 343 also…

Now I realize we are pushing the 16mm film’s resolution here, but 339 begs the question–that buttocks representation looks “wrong” to me. It is like there is a “back fanny pack” or a stuffed padding-shaped pillow like affair right there (and it isn’t doing what it’s supposed to) , and it looks “wrong” (at least to me)

Now there could be alternative explanations. Certainly I am not a morphology expert.

But if I see something, I will point it out. And I have.

Any comments by anyone else appreciated.

Please post them here.

Not worried about saggital crests, none of that.