Questions of the day: Something's not right about Patty, why are the soles of her feet white?


Kittalia A. sent us the following questions about Patty, the Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin film. They are all very good questions that we we wish we knew the answers to. We're no "Henry May" and it's times like this that we wish we had his number. Since we don't have Henry around whenever we need him, here are some easy questions for all you Patterson-Gimlin believers to try and answer:

First off, as I am unable to get on this blog every day, I am usually not able to actively involve myself in discussions. I have posted these questions as comments before, but never in time to get answers.

1) If Patty is real, why are the soles of her feet white? Here is an image:



Generally, in animals, including almost all primates, dark fur covers dark skin. Therefore, the soles of her feet should be darker. In addition, calloused, thick feet of someone who goes barefoot are almost always pretty dark, not to mention dirty, even if they have light skin, instead of pale and sparkling clean.

2) Why is there an almost perfect rectangle of baldness around her eyes? Here is a picture:


I understand that the brow ridge would account for the top of the rectangle,but what about the sides?

3) In the picture above (second one) there are strange angles on the slope of her head. Although there could be other explanations, I see it as a cone of stiff fur slightly crumpled back.

4) On the topic of breasts, she is obviously female. In most primates (I can only think of one exception) breasts are not visible unless expecting or nursing, yet no young are seen. In addition, very few good sightings report a female, and most of those with young, suggesting that females are often mistaken as males.

5) Patty has a sagittal, a decidedly male attribute.


If you could explain any of these, it would really be a big help. Thanks so much for your time,

Kittalia

Comments

  1. The only logical response is that it's a guy in a suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or not. And your answer had nothing to do with logic or reason.

      Delete
    2. I would say her feet were wet and sand is sticking to the bottom of them..and dont forget her feet would be hard and calloused from walking on all those rocks and hard surfaces her whole life.

      Delete
    3. there are alot of people named anonymous hereThursday, June 7, 2012 at 2:08:00 AM PDT

      i bet you got up extra early to be the first loser to post the same old, same old tired answer it's a suit! have you seen the film which shows the beautiful patty's eye lids opening and closing.(also known as a f-ing blink) wonder how they pulled that off in 67? cause most homemade masks don't include directions to fool you skeptics.

      Delete
    4. uhh, obviously the guy in the suit could still close his eyes and turn his head. Patty doesnt do ANYthing that any man cant...walk across a sandbar, turn head, blink. Bob Heiromonius was Patty, was in the filming party and all the town there seemse to know and accept HE was the man in the suit.
      Much more straightforward answer than imaginary 9 ft tall forest ape woman.

      Delete
    5. does bob heiromonius have breasts?

      Delete
    6. yes. And any suit could be modified to look just like, hmm, I dont know, uhh....EXACTLY like Pattersons drawing of a Bigfoot woman.

      Ive found rodeo cowboys to be of low-average iq and not real original.

      OR there could be a race of giant apes no one can find or secure any real evidence of after 100's of years and dollars.

      Delete
    7. Lol Timmy you are delusional if you think that was bob h in a suit. Tell me, does bobs head have a sagittal keel? Does his forehead recede immediately after his brow ridge? Does he have some lats that Arny would love? No, I dont think so. Its no suit buddy.

      Delete
    8. Anon 8:55 yer dumb! Don't ya know that Patty's feet are white because she has only just recently (period)been delivered to planet earth by Aliens. She has not had the time to dirty her feet. Gees, I gotta smile sometimes. Oh yea, the response below about skin cells is freaking hilarious. Hey, go outside then, walk barefoot in mud, dirt. Pick yer feet up and look at them. Yes, that's right... How about walking down a dirt road. yes, that's right. I get the feeling the majority of the followers on here are no- nothing females.

      Delete
    9. How come the first post on any given article is a troll these days? Someone must be hanging out just refreshing the site all day long hoping a new article comes up.

      Delete
    10. Timmy's clearly some insane kid if he thinks Patty's a suit which he probably doesn't actually being the typical troll clearly, it's almost a religion to them. Or a job. Too bad there's still ignorants like that out there believing old rumors, basically they're against the possibility of this species existing so they're fighting it tooth and nail but there's no way it's any Bob guy or whoever because suits can't alter your own physique that much, they'd have to give him a whole new torso for this to be fake. And for that reason alone it's not fake and there's loads more proving it no suit, muscle movement undoable then, limbs, gait. There's no way any industry person back then knew this much about the Sasquatch body, zero chance, Patty's physique is spot on whereas the idea back when was not only of males but to put people in longhaired costumes and act caveman/apelike not like a person which is exactly what this species is anyway so there's really no great physical mystery here it's a live body, only mystery is how come the public doesn't know of their existence yet.

      Delete
    11. Yes that would be me, anonymous.

      Delete
    12. explain the arms being over 60% of the body length of the animal...and the hands moving..the longest percentage for any human on earth would not exceed 51%...explain the thigh and calf muscles moving and flexing as well as the triceps and pectoral muscles....something even the best suits in hollywood could not come close to producing untill 1983..explain why NO one can or has duplicated this very effort even today with all the technology and funding??? Explain why computer experts have figured the height of the creature at between 7'2" and 7'4"...if you REALLY look into the film and get the FACTS...it is a slam dunk SASQUATCH

      Delete
  2. pretty easy one here, check out this gorilla's foot:

    http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/jschless/jschless0906/jschless090600015/5007419-foot-and-toes-of-western-lowland-gorilla-gorilla-gorilla-gorilla.jpg

    or this one: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozana2009/3377821882/

    so why is pattys foot white. 2 reason..the first is just biology, the cells that make up the foot pad(i forgot the fancy word for it) are callosed(sp?) and over time will simply become a lighter color than the rest of the skin 2nd the surface she was walking on, light reflective sand..combine those 2 things and poof: white feet!

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Starting with your "white souls" question ... I take it you've never been around or even seen a black person, their palms and souls are white. Why? Because the skin of the palms always has very little melanocytes (pigment producing cells) so even the darkest of people may have pale palms, and\or souls. If Bigfoots are primates (as we are) it only stands to reason it would share this trait.

    2&3. As for where hair grows or doesn't ...? It's the same with all primates; hair grows or doesn't grow in different places. (I guess you've never been around any primates. Or people.)

    4. There was no question. Or, you answered it yourself. Patty has breasts, just like human females.

    5. You're going to have to be more specific. First; try looking up the word "sagittal," or explain how a skull suture is "a decidedly male attribute."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good responses, Thinker Thunker.

      Delete
    2. Racist! So all black people and bigfoot have white soles?

      Delete
    3. Didn't you know black people had soul?

      Delete
    4. And white men can't jump.

      Delete
    5. It's pretty simple, it's an unknown human species of some kind which is why she seems so humanlike in behavior and is so confusing to so many. There's nothing ape or wild beast about this primate species, that is merely Western culture as usual dreaming and mixing everything up and. Too much television. The Indians never thought this is an animal, they knew very well it's another human tribe much bigger and stronger and they know this fact to this very day.

      Delete
    6. I'm guessing sagittal refers to the sagittal crest that's quite apparent in the Patterson film. Now, it is true that female gorillas don't exhibit a pronounced sagittal crest as males do. However, it's generally believed that Bigfoot isn't as closely related to the gorillas as to Paranthropus or Gigantopithecus. Both of the above exhibit noticeable sagittal crests. I tend to favor a robust Australopithecine over Gigantopithecus based solely on apparent intelligence and size.

      Delete
  4. People of darker persuasion have lighter feet and hands why wouldnt Patty be the same. Bt the explaination of white calloused feet also fits.

    ReplyDelete
  5. wow i think the first blog you have posted that even i think might be crazy, i say the foot is white bc of the white gravel it is walking through. the fact it is a female makes it even harder to prove a hoax. as far as the eyes you are showing a super enlarged picture from a really old camera messing up the lighting. please reply and let me know how you feel man

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would bet Shawn ''FEELS'' with his hands. ;)

      Delete
  6. Also, Patty was at a creek, hence probably in the creek. That would equal wet feet, and then walking in sand which would give you the solid colour of a light sole. With the technology of the camera, that is what it looks like to me.

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Bluff Creek was dry at the time, so no wet feet.

      Delete
    2. Wrong, water running she was down by.

      Delete
  7. If it was a guy in a suit, and they went through all the trouble to add female pectorals to it, you don't think they'd also fake the bottoms of the feet by spraypainting them brown? This just proves its the real deal, folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never underestimate a hoaxer con man.

      Delete
    2. Nobody thought that far ahead back then in hoaxing, and more importantly no one in the movie industry would know this much about how Bigfoot bodies actually look.
      This creature was just that, a wild creature thus also portrayed that way apelike not so humanlike.
      They didn't have the technology or means to have done it in 1967 it took decades still before they did, and as mentioned no detailed knowledge either of this species.
      All that they'd needed first and they had none of it, in fact even today they couldn't because it'd look ridiculous trying to walk around or even act in a costume where the upper portion would have to be longer than the bottom.

      Delete
    3. Back then, in 1967, people din't have plastics, or even real cloth for that matter. I remember, I was around back then. All we had was wood and stone carving tools. Everything had to be made from paper mache, and Patty is definitely not paper mache! Yeah, we had cars, but they were made of wood, sheep wool and cow hides, and we had dogs and chickens under the hood to power them. Don't get me started on why Patty is real, there's just no way she could have been made in 1967 because there was no such thing as brains, plastics, fabric, or tools. Okay, I admit it, there was fur fabric, easily obtainable bear skins, and plenty of foam rubber being used for padding in furniture, the Hollywood industry, neoprene, just about every kind of plastic around today, but that's supposed to be a secret because we don't want to admit that everything necessary to make a Patty suit was available then, so we lie about how unequipped we were in the 60's. Heck, Hollywood was using foam rubbers and fur in the 40's and 50's! But we don't like people to know that...

      Delete
    4. No 4-way stretch fur, no independent musculature body suits, go fuck yourself.

      Delete
    5. No 4-way stretch fur? What kind of response is that? So what. They didn't have Starbucks mochas either, but it doesn't matter because we don't see Starbucks mochas, nor so we see 4-way stretch fur in the film. We see plain old off the shelf fun fur, no spandex needed. That normal old fun fur, it has a loose weave backing, and in fact DOES have some give and stretch to it, not that any shows up in Patty. There's no independent muscle movement in the film, so no independent muscle suits were needed. But by the way, they DID have those sort of suits back then too, Janos wore them in his ape suits. Face facts, there is no proof bigfoot exists. No proof Patty was real. Lots of proof that a suit could be made, and was made. People who think there can be just one real bigfoot in all of history and all of time, and Patty is the one, aren't really dealing with reality. Bigfoot is a myth, and is the result of hoaxers. No real bigfoots have ever been found. You believe an actor in a suit is a real monster. That's funny!

      Delete
    6. They didn't have the necessary materials then and more important they didn't have the knowledge needed to build and portray sasquatches realistically. And even more important than that our species don't share the same anatomy/limb proportion thus couldn't pull it off. Still can't, we're humans and stuck with poor physicals and motoric we can't hide.

      Delete
  8. whoever runs this blog needs to atleast reply to us

    ReplyDelete
  9. So far...every bigfoot sighting with feet descriptions that I've heard of have described white feet. To back it up even further...since we know they are very close to humans it would make sense that the bottom of their feet would be even lighter than their skin color.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most deluded people making up Bigfoot stories use the pgf as a basis.

      Delete
    2. They are likely still correct about Bigfoot. The PGF is a good foundation. Mainly because it was not hoaxed.

      Delete
    3. Yep real and best film proof still no one can come close to faking it, as humans we're pretty dumb to think we know it all and can do everything. We can't even fake Bigfoots realistically, the web's full of bad hoaxes not reaching Patty's realness to the socks. Can't fake what's real, old rule still true.

      Delete
  10. Reasonable explanations about the color. The overall shape of the feet seem "off", too. I guess "blocky" might be the word. Weird that what can be considered one of the least convincing moments in the footage appears in the same frame with that bulge in the right calf, one of the most convincing aspects of the footage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. I don't have a problem with the color, I have a big problem with the shape of the foot though. This film is old and not exactly HD or anything close to it. BFers routinely use their imagination to conjure up things that are not really there. You see something in one version of the film and not in another. The one thing that remains the same is the shape of the foot in the frame above. A foot of that shape, size and flatness would be totally inefficient for any animal that lives in the forest. They look like something that belongs on a marine animal, not a swift, stealthy biped. They look like a couple of john boats for chrisakes. Ever see how awkward a person with flat feet is?
      Now that the DNA paper has ended in dismal failure, BFers are hanging on to the only thing that's left that gives them hope, a 50 year old grainy 8mm film of a guy in a suit...Pathetic. Time to come over to the real world folks, and leave your fantasy monster man behind.

      Delete
    2. DNA paper ended in failure? What rock have you been living under? Not only has the paper not been published, there is now a prestigious university involved in ANOTHER DNA study. Why dont you come over to the real world and do some research before you get on here and mouth off.

      Delete
    3. The trolls can't fool us Okie, take that rambling post above you there, imagine why they'd spend so much time trying to tell the rest of us it's a suit. It's not like we care one bit about their lies it's more sad actually that they care to, tells me there's more to is than an old suit.

      Delete
    4. More funny people. ANOTHER DNA study that has no samples to work with yet! It's a scientist willing to do the study so beleevers will finally shut up about science not accepting proof. After this new study is done by the end of the year, there will be proof that there is finally no DNA to prove anything. A study means the door is open to whatever proof is available. A study is not proof. If no DNA is submitted, the study fails. If DNA is submitted and comes back as coyote, bear, or people, we know what that means, people are submitting junk as proof. Ketchum has gone underground because her study is bunk. The new Sykes study will be the final nail. The PGF was a fake, plain and simple, a man in a furry suit. Smoke that.

      Delete
    5. Love how trolls know this species is real all the trolling kinda reveals it. LOL

      Delete
  11. I'll wait for Henry May to resolve all this :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1) because its a suit

    2) because its a suit

    3) because its a suit

    4) because its a suit

    5) because its a suit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove it

      Prove it

      Prove it

      Prove it

      Prove it

      Delete
    2. Prove it's not a suit. Prove bigfoot exists. Deliver one piece of bigfoot biology, a finger, toe, hair, anything. You can't, because there is no finger, toe, hair, or anything that is real bigfoot.

      Delete
    3. And yet the trolls care. Too funny. LOL

      Delete
  13. Henry was grounded for not cleaning his room

    ReplyDelete
  14. 4) Homo sapiens is a primate with breasts showing all the time why can't Sasquatches be the same when they're so close to us in many other aspects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None have hair on breasts. Patterson did well on the hoax but made a mistake here. The beasts also attach in the wrong place.

      Delete
    2. Besides the not being real part...

      Delete
    3. The fact that Patty has hair on her breasts doesn't say anything toward it being a suit. And the breasts are in the wrong position? Seen a lot of female sasquai have you?

      Delete
    4. The hairy breasts actually help prove it no suit as their women are obviously hairy so why wouldn't their breasts be hairy too. They aren't apes they're primal people so this really isn't so mysterious, folks.

      Delete
    5. my ex wife had hairy breasts. Not to mention...I'm sure many of you guys have seen chics with beaver tails that hang down to their waist.

      Delete
    6. I have not, but it sounds pretty sick...where do these hairy chicks hand out?

      Delete
    7. If it is a hoax why go through the trouble with breasts?

      Delete
    8. Because the wanted to fool people.

      Delete
    9. The? Don't you mean they? Failed. They failed too because it was actually impossible to fake, so how could they. They couldn't due to lack of techniques and enough knowledge of the species then, besides female bigfoots must exist too.

      Delete
  15. on this one episode of monsterquest they zoom in on the mouth/head of patty & they show the huge mouth/lips open & close... its no mask, its an animal!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is not enough resolution to show that. You can not make up resolution that isn't in the original by zooming in.

      Delete
    2. no lie, monsterquest zoomed in under digital microscope and the face was a cross between a baboon and an old lady....definitely not fake! A fat british guy and old man professors on Monsterquest-youtube.

      Delete
    3. Yeah its no lie-monsterquest showed mouth movement.

      Delete
  16. The white is part sun wash out on the bottom of the foot ) look at material around) due to the type of film and angle to the sun. Also possibility is the color of material she is walking in is stuck to the bottom of the foot( wet material) Like you would if you had it stuck to your shoe or barefoot. Especially if calluses allow for a rougher surface to stick to. Material she is walking on looks to have the same color and wash out. I belive it's closer to man than ape so breasts are not uncommon. Little ones may have been around , but humans have breasts even when not lactating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wet sand does not stick that much to dry feet, dry stand covers the bottom of wet feet. I like the pigment and callus arguments better, but you may be right and its a combination of factors.

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't make sense anyway to hoax a fantastic suit with this much detail and then leave bad feet on, the feet are seen just as much so not paying attention to them would've been outright dumb. But of course it's no hoax and everything fits, we've never seen bigfoot or indeed any primate suit this way before or later to think otherwise is troll business.

      Delete
  17. I haven't read anywhere that says a sagittal keel only decidedly in males, especially in archaic humans. A sagittal keel is prominent in male great apes. If Patty proves to be a member of the genus Homo, then breasts will easily be seen in mature or maturing females. I don't consider the breast argument valid because we don't know if patty is a member of the genus Homo. As for the picture she used to describe the face, isn't that an artistic rendering? Yes, a rectangle can be seen around the eyes, but how are we to know exactly where all hair growth is on a sasquatch body? They can be as different from each other as modern humans are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good example of the sagittal crest in female gorillas is Coco. If you google the older videos of her, you can see that when she was younger it was absent. There are more recent pics of her and it shows that the crest is present and very developed.

      Delete
    2. you are a homo

      and heres me thiking I wasn't reading youtube.

      Delete
  18. @ Timmy: Sure am glad you're here to casually pull things out of your ass which are contradicted by multiple analyses of the footage by multiple experts which include biologists and photographic specialists. We're really fortunate to have our eyes opened by someone who's so smart he can figure all this out without, clearly, ever having seen any of the many analyses of the footage. Your mommy must really be proud of her clever little man :) Does she bronze your turds?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No but she taught me to be very logical and use intelligent reasoning and deduction to make decisions. Believing something so controversial like PGF is faith not logic. If PGF had been the beginning of a wave of sasquatch discovery, then I agree 100%, put P and G in the Smithsonian. But instead the film began a wave of hoaxes, lies and admissions by multiple hoaxers accounting for years of "evidence". Jerry Crew and ape canyon and all that was hoax....then here comes Patterson, basically a 2 bit con artist, writes a book, later puts a huge group of men together and treks out to the miracle of the only bigfoot ever filmed. Forget the Bob H was there, from the beginning, and admitted that he wore suit. Forget that the film is spliced, controversy of the camera speed and even that it was a stolen camera. Forget Patty looks just like pattersons drawing, or that no film was ever this good again. Forget that this group was actually filming a movie about Sasquatch when the filmed Sasquatch. I am just pulling all of this " out of my ass" according to you. Facts dont lie. If this was filmed by cops or game wardens or scientists I might buy it.

      Delete
    2. You are absolutely right about having faith Timmay. Faith is the only thing that will make the subject of this film real...blind faith.

      Delete
    3. Timmy I am a believer in BF but not in PGF for same reasons you state above. word

      Delete
    4. Always nice when little Timmy can come here and talk to himself, anon to anon. Your mania doesn't make the film fake it only helps further prove it real.
      Patty doesn't look anything like Roger's drawings, that lie's been refuted enough and a pair of eyes is all it takes to substantiate this plus female sasquatches must exist anyway for the species to, besides nothing in costumes ever looked like her which is also very simply as to why.
      Patty's physique doesn't allow for faking, no bones on her match a man as tall men make lousy sasquatches due to their/our build. If this were easy tricks all suits would do it yet somehow we're to believe they knew how to at the time of Planet of the Apes, but didn't use the technique in the movies.
      I don't think so. Crawl back under your rock Timmy and stop sniffing the weed you find there.

      Delete
  19. When God was spray painting black people, they had their feet on the floor and hands against the wall. I thought everyone knew that. It's just science.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The reason why the feet on the Bigfoot is white is that they are the shoes that Ray Wallace made. I have close ups of both left and right foot and they both have a split in the ball of the foot. And the feet on this Bigfoot match the shoes made by Ray Wallace. Plus the shoes that Dale Wallace has from his uncle are the shoes they used for the suit and you can still see the nail holes on the side of the shoes where they nailed the fur to them.I have the proof to show this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Leroy, that video you made with you holding the Bigfoot baby puppet...That was cool.

      Delete
    2. Leroy,
      I appreciate your work in trying to solve the mystery of the film. However, I think it's probably real.

      Delete
    3. Leroy's the biggest joke ever, take a look at his recreations nobody knows why he's doing it because he's not proving anything only filling vacant hours. Well he may be proving one thing, that he's quite mad but at least like fellow religious troll Timmy, 451, Burden (same guy all three), he's found a hobby and it's giving his empty days some meaning. Better than selling drugs I guess, but still a mad way to waste your life.

      Delete
    4. Im not those other guys....

      believe it or not theres more than 1 person who doesnt beleive the pgf is real, actually try 99.99999999999% of the population

      Delete
    5. And you think the majority of a clueless ignorant population's anything to base anything on? LOL

      Delete
  21. By the way they also used the same shoes to make the tracks you see in the tracking dog film by John Green and Rene Dahinden on that Labor day weekend of 1967.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If I may. The feet have always bothered me. It has long been theorized that this is the very light colored sand and silt that remains from the flooding out of the area around that time. You can see the sand everywhere in the video. But frankly it LOOKS like the bottoms of shoes or costuming. But this seems like a rather large mistake to make for a guy that decided to give his creature breasts, a hooded nose, compliant gait and a butt crack.

    Bill Munns and others have theorized for some time that the creature in this video is getting up in her years. Older female gorillas as well as older human females do get a degree of sag as they grow older. Another theory floated is that there is young nearby, which is the only reason we see Patty walking away so slowly in the first place. Say for instance that her young is behind the wood pile that we see her walk away from. It is a common behavior among animals to draw the threat (Patterson and Gimlin) away from the young, even if it means risking harm or death.

    I believe it was Grover Krantz who first answered the question of sagittal crest. The crest indicates only a very large size, not gender. I hope this helps. -- d3w177

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt there's a young one near by.
      I used to think there could be one in those wood piles too, but the two men would've found it surely or smelled it.
      Anyway, these beings aren't animals and Patty's behavior makes good sense when you know this to be the case.
      All who've been close enough to see facial features say the same thing, the similar feet and speech.
      Indians say it too, Ostman said it as well he probably got closer than anyone else and lived to tell even describing the woman many years before the pgf yet you'd think he's talking about Patty exactly.

      Delete
    2. Ostman's story always sounds a little nutbar to me. I'm not even completely sold on the PGF. The one thing I know for sure is that is not Heironymus in a Morris suit. Everyone likes to attack Patterson for being a liar. But those two make Patterson look like Honest Abe. Morris can't make the suit now and he certainly didn't make it then. -- d3w177

      Delete
    3. And BTW, Patterson was a KNOWN con artist, not a skilled liar. Real liars never become famous for it. That's what makes them great liars. -- d3w177

      Delete
  23. heres an idea people, look at the gravel on the ground...what color is it? funny how it matches the color of her feet.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Gegen die Dumheit kaempfen selbst Goetter vergebens!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its better to burn out than fadeaway!!!...sry that reminded me of the beginning of Pyromania

      Delete
  25. I have discussed this subject with several Bigfoot researchers. These thick light-colored soles are exactly what I witnessed during my encounter in 1981. 'Patty' is walking on a dry sandy area...no doubt the light-colored material adheres to the soles. In my encounter, the thick soles were prominent because it took place on a sandy river shoreline. As the creature walked away, the large light-colored soles were very distinct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ive seen a squatch before too. Anyone who knows what a bear looks like can discern the difference. So take your little punk ass to another forum and annoy someone else.

      Delete
    2. okie please describe your sighting thanks

      Delete
    3. 10:28 please go to my blog thanks

      Delete
  26. For all you folks that think it's a suit ponder this. Do you remember 1967? Do you remember the quality of "monkey" suits at that time? Do you REALLY believe that Patterson and Gimlin had the technical know how to create a "monkey" suit better than the best Hollywood special effects people of that time?? Notice the short hair. Notice that "most" of today's "Bigfoot" suits all have long hair because they can't duplicate the detail in the P-G film. Do some research, adjust your expectations, and quit being an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But its not even a good suit. Have you watched the film? The suit is terrible. It could maybe convince a 5 year old but come on people open your eyes.

      Delete
    2. Um...its not even a suit period...

      Delete
    3. well its not a mythical creature that doesnt exist, so yes its a man in a suit

      Delete
    4. How many 'monkey' suits would look terrible at less than a half-centimeter tall?

      Delete
    5. how many monkey suits would look like the pgf at less than half a centimeter tall? all of them.

      Delete
    6. LOL Try it then. No wait, lots of hoaxers out already doing that and they all look like shit.
      Everytime some creep says it's a bad suit you just know the guy isn't being serious, had it been a suit it's an amazing one and not a bad one to even suggest it's bad shows how little the trolls really know about it and hope they can continue to fool the public.
      Unbeknownst to them though, time's moved on and people now realize the physical differences between the two species how suits can't overcome this hurdle.
      So they won't convince anybody that way, only convince us of their fierce opposition to this film/species hmmmm gotta ponder why and what their game is.

      Delete
    7. lol have you not seen the static fat diaper butt, the waistline subduction, the loose fabric on the arms, the ridiculous mask, the padding bulge on the leg, the loose fabric on the foot, the ridiculous feet, it just keeps adding up

      Delete
    8. Thats a point of view 11:38. I personally dont see any of that!

      Delete
    9. Loose fabric on the arms? Ridiculous mask? LOL None of those could be reached by a man unless cut in half. Okie, trolls don't actually see it either you know they've only concocted a lame story to cast doubt where there is none. It's olny working with other trolls too most free thinking people see through it. In reality what they're seeing is exactly the same we're seeing, real nonhuman anatomy with skin showing underneath the hair and limb proportions unreachable for us.

      Delete
  27. OK, Let's examine the final line:

    "If you could explain any of these, it would really be a big help. Thanks so much for your time,"

    Does Kittalia seem combative or insulting? Then why is everyone treating her with so much disrespect?

    It's no wonder the main stream has no time for this subject. They ask questions and are called idiots because they don't spend every waking hour studying Bigfoot.

    Isn't it important to inform instead of chastise?

    She was very nice and for that she was insulted. To all the gutless insolent Anon's who won't even use their names, great job!

    Scott McMan
    Ghosttheory.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think a lot of the backlash stems from idiots who dont care about the subject that get on here and make fun of bigfooters. Should we, as the advocates lash out at skeptics such as kittalia, no we shouldn't. But take a look at some of the jackasses on here and you'll see why some people are already irritated. Btw main stream (I'm assuming you are referring to real science) is now giving time to the subject.

      Delete
    2. Okie it doesnt matter how irritated you are or how many times you spout bigfoot facts you have NO PROOF at all. none. I can claim to have a pet alien and spout all kinds of facts about its biology, etc but it doesnt make it true! I hope you can comprehend this.

      And after all presented evidence, if you still think PGF is real there is no hope for you....except in the NBA finals.

      Delete
    3. Lol I only get really irritated at the folks that get on here to annoy people. Some skeptics every here and there. And the Thunder will roll...

      Delete
    4. okie just get some evidence of this creature and then you wont get laughed at

      Delete
    5. Thank you very much, Scott.

      Delete
    6. and thats the bottom line, cos stone cold steve austin said so

      Delete
    7. I sure hope super troll Timmy there can handle the truth when it's eventually out, the species is definitely there wheter there's no present proof or not. Film's real too and no hoax. So when the species is proven real maybe even via specimens that look just like Patty, then you'll be saying what exacty? LOL

      Delete
    8. ^"To all the gutless insolent Anon's who won't even use their names, great job"

      Thanks man!

      And yes, the tone of the questions did seem combative, as well as pretty freaking stupid - and why send them to Shawn? I didn't realise he has an obligation to answer specific questions from every peanut who's ever visited the site but can't be arsed doing their own research.

      Kittalia - google is your friend.

      Scott - anons are not your friend.

      ps - you're also a doo-doo-head, and I heard you smell like wee.

      Delete
    9. u r rite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the flat footed bigfoot

      Delete
  28. Thank you to everyone who answered seriously. I hadn't even thought of the fact that the sand might have stuck to her feet. I grew up on a small farm for much of my childhood, and as none of us wore shoes very often in the summer, the soles of our feet were always much darker than the rest of our skin. As I don't know any dark-skinned people who walk outside barefoot all the time, I can't ask, but as far as I know the soles of their feet would be fairly dark too. As for the Sagittal Crest question, I believe I was going off the wiki article on Sagittal Crests, even though it isn't the best source, and misread the paragraph on great apes, which said that all larger apes would have them, but that males were more prominent.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittal_crest
    It's nice to know that my questions are being answered seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi kittalia! Atleast u asked legitimate questions. Just for future reference, wiki isn't very credible. A lot of the information is correct, but can be changed often. Learned that the hard way with college lol.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I know wiki isn't the best source, however very little on the internet is a good source, and I couldn't find a book on sagittal crests at our library, amazingly enough.

      Delete
  29. Just read David Paulides books and look at the forensic sketches of patty with a shaved face, looks like a giant Native American cro magnon human.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol forensic sketches?

      are you fucking serious?

      unless you caught patty and shaved her face there is no way to know from a low resolution film what the fuck the head looks like

      jesus fucking christ get a grip you retard footers

      Delete
    2. What, you think shaving images of faces won't reveal features? Of course it will, did it too way back on pictures of Kiss wanting to see their faces and when they dropped the make-up later I compared and saw how close they were.

      Delete
    3. Good point 10:55. I'm a realism artist and I could see how removing the hair might resemble an archaic human. I'd lean toward erectus or heidelbergensis tho. Im currently working on a portrait of a squatch face using the heidelbergensis atapuerca 5 skull as a reference. So far, its a perfect fit.

      Delete
    4. Okie, I'm no scientist or biologist, I just made an observation based on the portraits sketched in Paulides books. Native American looking with a very strong pronounced brow ridge. I would be very interested to see what your portrait looks like, I hope you make it public. I wish you great success with your research Okie, and thanks for the insight.

      Delete
    5. Lol it'll be on my blog soon. I'm sure Shawn will probably post it...

      Delete
  30. 1. They are white because they are calloused and have a lot of Collagen (results from scars, wear and tear...). FB/FB loves to point out light coloured hands and feet in other videos. I cannot explain why they are so clean, I would expect thick skinned soles of the feet to develop cracks that fill up with dirt. Even if they are shoes I would expect more dirt. Good question.
    2. Picture quality is an issue. I think it is similar enough to the pattern of facial hair growth modern men. Everywhere except nose and high cheeks.
    3. Again quality is too poor to draw any conclusions from that picture, in my opinion.
    4. Closer to human than the great apes.
    5. She has big bones, strong square jaw, facial hair...

    Good questions. Thanks for positng Shawn.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There are several problems with the PGF that have to be explained away with unlikely scenarios and "fitting the facts to match opinions" this is a big problem:

    1) The mid thigh subduction line that suspiciously looks like a suit

    2) The waistline where one can see a lateral movement of the entire upper part of the "body" relative to the bottom part as if it were two halves of a suit

    3) the rather erect and firm hair covered breasts that don't seem to match any other great apes and/or hominids in the fossil record

    4)the location of the actual shoulder joint relative to the shoulder area itself suggests that it is a person wearing shoulder pads, this has created the wrong idea that the arm is longer than it is and the elbow in the wrong place

    5) the diaper butt doesn't move correctly for a creature with as large a thigh muscles as it appears, it also appears to be very loose where we would expect a suit to be loose , where the thigh meets the butt

    6)the gait of the creature matches that of people wearing oversized shoes or flippers and would not be a very efficient gait for a creature that weighs 500-800 lbs

    7) a hinged foot would not be very efficient for an animal that large either, it would be good for grasping or climbing, but not something nature would select for in a bipedal erect creature

    8)Patterson has already been shown to have ripped off artists for the drawings in and on the cover of his various books, and Patty looks suspiciously like these drawings

    9)the rather short length of the film is suspicious as if you were going out with the express purpose of filming a bigfoot, you would think that having a fully loaded camera at the ready would be priority number 1

    10)the height given previouslyy have been PROVEN to be inaccurate as even using the foot as ruler you get a reading between 6' and 6'6" which is exactly what you would expect for a human wearing a suit with an elongated coned head on it.



    I'm not trolling or trying to start a fight with anyone, but the above statements are true. I have seen attempts to dance around them as unimportant or with natural explanations, but haven't seen any decent explanations as of yet that aren't full of speculation or mis-leading gifs or frame selections.

    BTW, even if Patty is fake , it doesn't prove nor disprove Bigfoot's reality. I think too many Bigfoot people forget that.

    6)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. woa there, you appear to be using sense and logic, no place for you here im afraid, you will be called a troll for going against the pgf religion.

      all great points, belief in the pgf is truelly one of faith.

      Delete
    2. Nick B

      Can you provide your sources please? I'd like to read all that for myself

      Delete
    3. sources?

      try the PGF film, its all in there

      Delete
    4. Great Post.

      4) Good observation, I'm going to study that a bit more.
      5) I actually interpret differently. If you were wearing pants you would expect to see some movement in the butt fabric as the thigh swings. The fact that there seems to be a clear seperation between butt and thigh movement suggests to me that the creature is naked.... I do agree with the diaper butt comment, it's weird.
      6-7) Gait inefficency is a problem, efficiency trumps almost everything in Natural Selection. However, a hinged foot would suggest a compliant gait (knees always bent), because the ability to generate torque at the ankle would be decreased and the knee would compensate. There are fossilized footprints that suggest hinged feet in bipedal Hominids, although Meldrum might be the driving force behind that theory and therefore potentially biased in the current context.
      8-9) Yup. good points.
      10) I wouldn't go as far as PROVEN. If you change a pixel or two to the foot size in the patty photo the height estimate changes considerably. Although I don't discount that method I don't think it is particularly accurate. Two seperate methods estimated the height to be within an inch of each other at about 7'3". One was Munns', the other was the NASI report (or something like that can't remember the name).

      Personally, I think it is more likely real than fake, but admit I really want it to be real (I'm biased).

      Delete
    5. Yeah sources-where all of those analytical conclusions came from

      Delete
    6. Okie,
      For gait stuff read Jeff Meldrum's book Sasquatch Legend meets science. I have a degree in Human Kinetics so it's a bit easier for me.

      Google: NASI report, and Munns report both have great stuff about the PGF. Also, look at Leroy Blevin's video about Patterson. Also, Team Tazer Bigfoot has a size estimate video which Nick is refering to in #10.

      Delete
    7. All good points - however, you're forgetting a big one that will save you a lot of time in the future...the cast of characters involved. Roger Patterson, that's all you need to know. Walter Sobchak calls it "frame of reference".

      I have a PHD in psychology and it's fascinating to watch the religion of PGF (largely Generation X and below?). It feeds into a broader theme of gullibility and is related to the downfall of western society as we now know it.

      "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out."

      Delete
    8. The foot as ruler thing combined with the picture of Green at the site seem to match up pretty well... granted the distance away from the camera (as well as the lens used) are both in dispute. But even naked eye can tell that the thing in the PGF isn't 7 + feet tall.

      Delete
    9. But, but, but Patty's real, I saw her on the video. How can you deny that? NickB since you don't believe, you are obviously a troll.

      Delete
    10. Yes Nick the Brick is a troll who's also here as Timmy, 451, Burden you can tell by the same concocted troll points easily debunked many times. The butt does move as proven by MK Davis, and since no one's seen a bigfoot butt up close or know how it's supposed to move the point's useless. The gait is nonhuman and not like people with clown feet walk, you can't walk like this in a big suit on sandy ground and not fall out of character so to speak. Unless you're a very heavy being like a sasquatch. The gait's the same as many reports and there's no doubt this film is no hoax. The figure's been estimated to be over seven feet, Patterson himself suggested it might be and study's found it realistic and because the upper body is longer than a human's there's no way it could be a mask. Krantz even said the guy must be cut in half to fit anything.

      Instead it all fits exactly in reports of their anatomy which differs exceptionally from our species.

      Oh and the drawings in any book show no resemblance to Patty, it's a pure coincidence they ran across a female.

      Nothing fake's ever shown female bigfoots all fakers go for the male, but even six feet's no good height to fake at when the body seen clearly is shaped nonhuman with shorter nonhuman legs so because of these physical traits there's no way a man could be looking out a mask.

      If those were human legs a man wouldn't be capable of fitting into the size of the longer upper body. The dimensions don't fit but it all fits completely a seven foot sasquatch.

      Delete
  32. I have a degree in Human Kinetics so it's a bit easier for me.

    You must of been that asshole in the video I watched.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, I have a degree in Hotel Management so I feel it's a bit easier for me to spot a squatch in general

      Delete
    2. I have a degree in Sports/rec, do you think that might help find me a squatch? I'm pretty fast on my feet and a quick thinker to boot. Kind of like Moneymaker but 200 lbs lighter.

      Delete
  33. to reply to Okie, all of this stuff has been discussed to death on the Bigfoot Forum. join up (if you haven't yet) and go perusing the PGF threads.

    When I joined the forum, I was a PGF believer, by the time I left, I had become convinced it was a hoax..... them's the breaks. The evidence for a hoax just seems to pile up, where the evidence for it being real starts to fall apart under scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no point joining up there, skeptics are banned but footers making wild claims with no evidence is welcomed

      bunch of closed minded idiots

      Delete
    2. It's an over moderated forum, that's for sure. Lately tho, some of the bigwigs over there have started to call out the loons (like say Sasfooty) about their crazy claims. IMO, they need to ban the resident bully (Mulder) as he seems to have free reign to say what he wants and it hinders discussion.

      That being said, there is a very amusing amount of anti-intellectualism on their. It's like it's occupied by hillbillies "all that book learnin don't mean nuthin' , I done seent me a sasquartch..." really anti skepticism, anti-science and anti-critical thinking.

      Delete
    3. Yep, the looneys are protected and hide behind the rules at BFF.

      Delete
    4. Sounds like NickB is a flip flopper....

      Delete
    5. Thats a forum-not a credible source. I wanna see the analytical breakdowns that you mentioned, done by the expert.

      Delete
    6. The information is all on the pgf, and I did some of it. you can whine that I'm not an expert, but I can use my eyes..... There are far too many things that scream suit for it to be real IMO....ymmv

      Delete
    7. Skeptics never used their eyes or brains doesn't even take a genius to see Patty's no suit and well over seven feet, it's strange skeptics even care about this subect when they're so easily outed as trolls. Way more things on Patty's body that scream no hoax and undoable in 1967 or even now, the things saying hoax are few and easy to debunk because we just have different builds as species. This is what trolls never understood, they think anything's fakeable totally disregarding the state of effects then and ignoring the physical differences making fakes impossible.

      Delete
    8. Lol nice try Nick B. But no.

      Delete
  34. the bottom of the feet look chalky or ashy to me

    ReplyDelete
  35. Block feet, material scrunching on both hips, no ass flexing or even moving during the entire walk but the ass section does shift as you'd expect padding to do, Patterson was a con-artist and had drawn an exact match of this prior. Hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thats muscle, breasts, & mouth movement. in other words REAL!

      Delete
    2. Not to mention the big diaper Bob was wearin'. Bet he felt like a fool with that thing on.

      Delete
    3. Who knows - how does yours fit?

      Delete
    4. Trolls being kids all wear diapers of course. MK Davis proved there's visible butt movement during the walk, check it out trolls and quit your whining.

      Patterson never drew anything looking like Patty, rather we know why trolls troll - because they know very well it's no hoax and have an agenda against it. Logging probably or commissioned authorities.

      Delete
  36. From what I hear, Bob screwed up the initial shot and walked too far (NW?) into a plaster casting area that Patterson had already set up (for photos). Unfortunately, it all got onto final and these are the results. That and the diaper were problematic, but they had to roll with what they had at the time. C'est la vie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey shithead you heard your own lying head most likely, lead liar Bob said he just got there put on a suit he'd never seen before and walked once giving the old Patty look. He's a fat liar, there were no Patty looks before this, no diaper either, so we know he's full of shit.

      Delete
  37. more important to me is the position of the foot in that frame - I've *never* seen anyone walk who picks up their entire foot, leaving it several inches off the ground and vertical. Plus the left leg is bent at at almost a 90 degree angle, something I've also never witnessed. And I watch a wide variety of people, just to see if anyone walks like this. Never have seen it. And in the Bob H. side-by-side comparison he never achieves that position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. people walk like that when they have something on their feet that's too big like clown shoes or flippers

      Delete
    2. Actually you know people can't do that, from the look of it a suit looking this way would be too heavy and difficult to wear walking so consistently and effortlessly in.

      It's been proven many times over to be no suit, those of us with encounters already know that it's real and trolls the idiots here like that idiot H-Bomb guy who locks his knees when he walks Patty never does that because it's typical Bigfoot walk not to.

      Delete
    3. That foot is flat... he caught the even more elusive flat-footed big foot on film!

      Delete
  38. Personally, I see points on both sides, Patty being real or a fake. But I think Patty is real, overall. Also, these BF's are so allusive because they've mastered doing just that from being here on Earth for eons. There is so much man or of course Science can explain, but unfortunately Bigfoot isn't easily explained just yet. And its not b/c BF isn't real! I think maybe it might be because they are smarter on living "on the land" and can easily fool us. Of course people have experiences with BF its going to happen, but just because YOU out there have never seen what WE have seen doesn't mean that in the end BF isn't real. It's just not fair to the people who are actually coming forward and being honest.

    People get this worked up on Religion & politics, I get that. But BF too? Never woulda guessed it! :)

    ReplyDelete
  39. There is also a ring or garter like frill of fur around the right thigh i have been wondering what it was ?

    ReplyDelete
  40. You know whats weird about the photos feet?

    they're big...Ha - Big Foot - feet that are big - get it... ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hello there, You have done a great job. I'll certainly digg it and personally suggest to my friends. I'm
    sure they will be benefited from this website.
    Here is my website :: Motor Club of America

    ReplyDelete
  42. certainly like your web site but you need to take a look at the
    spelling on quite a few of your posts. Several of
    them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very troublesome
    to inform the reality however I'll surely come again again.
    Here is my blog :: Vertnet.Ca

    ReplyDelete
  43. Thanks a lot for sharing this with all people you actually recognize what you're talking about! Bookmarked. Please additionally seek advice from my web site =). We could have a link alternate arrangement between us
    My homepage - www.cafepress.com

    ReplyDelete
  44. This is my first time pay a visit at here and i
    am actually impressed to read all at single place.
    Also see my site :: http://www.divinedestinycareercoaching.com/About-Us.html

    ReplyDelete
  45. Great blog right here! Additionally your web site lots
    up fast! What host are you using? Can I am getting your associate hyperlink for your host?
    I want my web site loaded up as fast as yours lol
    Here is my web-site :: http://officefurnitureto.com/office-furniture/cubicles/

    ReplyDelete
  46. Excellent blog here! Also your site loads up very fast!
    What host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host?
    I wish my site loaded up as fast as yours lol
    my page :: Bags of cotton candy

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hey there, You've done a great job. I'll certainly digg
    it and personally recommend to my friends. I'm confident they will be benefited from this web site.
    My web site > http://www.assiplaza.Net

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow, superb blog format! How long have you ever been running a blog for?
    you make blogging look easy. The full look of your web site is great, let alone the content!
    my page: www.eventsandweddingwishes.com

    ReplyDelete
  49. If you are going for most excellent contents like I do, just visit this site all the time because it offers
    feature contents, thanks
    Also see my web site: Houston

    ReplyDelete
  50. I love it whenever people get together and share thoughts.
    Great website, continue the good work!
    my web site: Herbal Medicine

    ReplyDelete
  51. It's actually a great and useful piece of information. I'm glad that you just shared this helpful info with us.
    Please keep us up to date like this. Thank you for
    sharing.
    Also visit my website - Recipes

    ReplyDelete
  52. It's genuinely very complicated in this active life to listen news on TV, therefore I simply use the web for that reason, and obtain the most recent news.
    my webpage :: papillex.com

    ReplyDelete
  53. Even in some waу, you can meet another one of your hand
    too ѕoon to be wise in free dating. He told mе that he really feelѕ about interracial freе dating accoгding to Jeffrеy Hancock, Рh.

    Are yοu a chanсe to be the bеst dating site for vegetaгians, eаrth mοthers and fatheгs showing іn front
    of you. Email a link to ѕee you agаin.
    I can ρrove helpful.

    Fеel free tο visit my homepagе - 1datingintheusa.com

    ReplyDelete
  54. Јust ѕtart by supplementing a healthy diet, breastfeedіng can helρ onе to
    fοcus on trying suсh programs аvailable in prescгiρtiοn drugѕ are
    appreciаted by manу different species.
    Вecаuse I cared so much more vіtalіty
    and enjoy greаt health virtuе of
    whiсh ωaѕ elevated during the
    game thаt subtгacts fat. Raspberry Raѕpberry Ketones are
    eνen magazineѕ dеdicated to this problem?


    My page - http://3raspberryketonemonster.com/

    ReplyDelete
  55. Јust start bу suρρlеmenting a hеalthy dіet, breastfеeding can hеlp оne to fοcus on trying such
    pгogramѕ availаble in preѕcriрtiоn drugs are аpρreciated
    by manу dіfferent specіeѕ.
    Bеcauѕе I cared ѕo much moгe νitalitу аnd
    enjoy grеat heаlth νіrtuе оf which wаs elevated during the game that subtraсts fаt.
    Raspbeггу Raspbeгry Kеtones аre even magazinеs dedicatеd to this ρгoblem?


    Vіsіt my blog ... http://3raspberryketonemonster.com/
    My web site: http://4ketonemetodeath.com/

    ReplyDelete
  56. Alkaline Coffеe Εxtract is that I would reаlly make
    іt. Voluntarily ingesting tapeωoгm cysts, you may havе conѕumеԁ your food dіаrу, haѵe maԁe that people who
    took this drug can give you an oрportunity to lоse
    and keep a focuseԁ program foг life.

    Fеel fгee to suгf to my web pаgе web site

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story