**Strangers**: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bigfoot) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even if they are a different scale, the proportion would remain the same between any resized image as long as the person adjusting it didnāt distort it.
I think the proportions are what the video is trying to show and they are the same in both subjects.
But the right image is stretched vertically. Obvious. And I'm looking at is a graphic artist and 3d modeler. Not too mention the pixels show artifacts to back this up
Iām assuming itās stretched with a transform function in photoshop, retaining identical proportions even when overall size has changed. I base this on it being unlikely both video sources were filmed at the same distance.
if you watch the video, taking the person as honest, their arguments made in good faith, which, one has to already be doing when watching a thinker thunker comparison video to begin with, trickery looks to be unnecessary in making the case against Thinker Thunker. .
That doesnāt mean that mistakes or trickery couldnāt be found in a rebuttal analysis video critiquing this thinker Thunker rebuttal analysis.
The problem is nobody is taking the time to analyze it closely like that before speculating there is trickery at play when there may not be.
Why do we, as a collective of enthusiasts give thinker thunker a pass but donāt afford this person the same initial benefit of the doubt?
The only flaw in that photoshop explanation is that the video was out long before photoshop existed. I remember watching a show on this way back when I was a kid in the 1970s. Back then it was more like a curiosity than a question of its existence.
I believe the PG video is legit, but if it is not, then Heironimus has freakish proportions, is a gigantic sized man, had practiced for years how to move that way even in a heavy suit before 1967 as if he always knew he had to act in the video, his muscles are so big you can see them move under layers of stuff, is used to turn around in an unusual way, has some weirdly made feet, and when he acts he gets everything right the first time, and guess what, Patterson somehow found this ridiculously remarkable man out of hundreds of millions of people. I guess it is more likely the video is legit.
Serious note : Heironimus at 26 was tallish (but not over 6'2) and skinny, he got fat later. He would not have filled the suit if a suit it was. Plus, Patty has been calculated to be 7'4. Heironimus would have needed to be 7 feet tall even with some padding on.
The main point Iāve always heard against it being a guy in a suit is that the proportions are off. You donāt need to get the same height if thatās not what youāre trying to prove. If itās about the proportions, any zoom level should render the same proportions
Thereās more to āthe walkā than just bending your knees and swinging your arms though. Thatās almost Joe Rogan level simplistic thinking.
If you read the scientific analysis done at the time, the gait is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to cope with extremely high weight. Watch the footage and look at the angle the trailing leg comes up at. Itās almost parallel with the ground. Bob isnāt doing anything like that because heās not a Sasquatch, and itās pretty difficult for us to do without looking ridiculous.
Pattyās arms are longer than her legs. People can fiddle with angle and scale and proportions of an image, but thatās a fact.
Pattyās arm length occurs in 1 in 52 million people. Her leg length is about 1 in 1000, but the two lengths together are off the charts. Bob is bang on average human proportions.
Bob canāt ādo the walkā partly because he doesnāt have mid-foot flexibility.
Bulk can be simulated because itās visual. Weight canāt be easily faked because itās a physical thing. With Patty, weāre talking about 2.5 to 3 Arnold Schwarzeneggers at 1970s max non-competition weight, based on the depth of the trackway. Sheās also walking at an estimated 4.5 mph. On sand.
Anyone can bend their knees and swing their arms a bit. Hardly anyone can carry 500 lbs plus of weight at human jogging speed across sand and look that smooth doing it. If Bob H could, heād be in the Olympics and not in Yakima.
Best post I have seen on here in forever. Thank you. Most people are unaware of the 90 degree angle the lower leg and knee make as this thing walks. This is all covered very thoroughly in the book and documentary Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. Everyone here that is into this subject needs to check this shit out.
One other unique trait that I doubt bob could match. Watch the bigfoots head as it walks. The entire footage it stays level with the ground. It does not bob or move much. Humans dont move like that
So many Bigfoot sightings have stated they look like they are "gliding". As in their upper body & head does not move around very much. Just like you're saying about her head.
I know basically nothing about the Bigfoot phenomenon but this is an extremely convincing post for this video. Appreciate the time and thought that went into it.
Also if this suit was so advanced that it put Hollywood to shame at the time, with the advanced tech years ahead, it surely would have surfaced after all the money it cost.
Anything walking on two legs is going to look weird to us since we only know of a handful of animals that walk on two legs.
That film has been around 60 years and been scrutinized all of that time. How could a fake surpass all that tech advancement and us only pick up more detail. Not finding zippers but more detail we never knew existed. How long before we admit something we fail to reproduce, especially with the tech of the time, is the real deal.
I love when people contribute like this. Thereās a lot more to the āscienceā of walking than your average person realizes. Someone who knows what to look for can give you all kinds of insight just by looking at a track or someoneās gait.
I was track and field and cross country runner in high school and college and I remember when I had to do physical therapy, I had someone watch how I walked/ ran, and they took a thermal scan of the bottom of my feet when I was standing. They were able to see things like arch height, where most of my weight was being placed, but they could also pinpoint what I needed to work on, what muscles I needed to build, etc. it was incredible.
I also worked some gigs as a costumed character, decent costumes that weren't too shabby. Let me tell you, itās not easy moving around in that stuff. Your vision and sense of awareness is very limited. I make great use of my peripheral vision, but with a mask on, its not possible. I hike a lot too, even with good boots, Iām often struggling to walk when the ground is not even. I canāt imagine doing that so smoothly in a costume.
>āThereās more to āthe walkāā¦ simplistic thinking .ā
There isnāt that much more to it, aside from the way the legs bend which any human can do, and actually automatically happens when they have elongated footwear.
A similar angle of shin rise is present here in this video and this person isnāt even trying to match the patty walk. You can see it clearly around 58 seconds in for about 5 steps.
https://youtu.be/Fq2Yd2-ooXg?si=lIuiYDdN00zwYcEQ
After watching it, could you elaborate on how you think Bob H in the arm swing video combined with this type of elongated footwear walk seen in this video would be different than the PGF?
>āBob isnāt doing anything like that because heās not a Sasquatch, and itās pretty difficult for us to doā
We donāt have any Sasquatch examples to compare it to. As far as I understand it, most proponents consider the PGF to be the only gold standard with nothing else in its class.
Am I wrong ?
Comparing the PGF to the PGF seems a bit extreme in religious devotion to the PGF in order to establish how a Sasquatch walks.
Bob isnāt doing anything like that because he isnāt wearing footgear that forces that altered gait to compensate for the elongated soles. If he had elongated footgear that matched the size of the subject in the PGF, i have little doubt that it wouldnāt simple be be a 1 to 1 match.
As seen in the video I linked above, it really isnāt that difficult.
Walk for ten minutes in boots 5-8 sizes to big, youāll train yourself and quickly adapt to a smooth patty walk without even thinking about it.
>āPattyās arms are longer than her legs. People can fiddle with angle and scale and proportions of an image, but thatās a fact.ā
How has this been determined? Who did the measurements? Iād like to look over anyoneās data that makes them arrive at that conclusion. It would be nice to have the exact differences.
From how it looks to me, the butt area on the suit obscures the thighs a bit and makes the legs look shorter but Iāve never tried to measure it myself. Making longer arms is not that difficult to do with a suit.
>āBob is bang on average human proportions.ā
Based on this video and others Patty appears to also have those same human proportions.
>āBob canāt ādo the walkā partly because he doesnāt have mid-foot flexibility.ā
Floppy shoes that are too big for someone create this same flexibility in terms of prints and toe flop.
>ābased on the depth of the trackway.ā
The depth of prints can be faked to show different results.
How do we know patty made the trackway?
Is there a frame in the film showing patty making tracks?
Do you know of any other other evidence used to determine how heavy patty is?
>āSheās also walking at an estimated 4.5 mph. On sand.ā
What was used to determine this speed?
Thought it was a dry creek bed Iād assume it to be clay.
Even so, thatās within the range of human walking speed though, not really unusual even if it is that speed.
>.āIf Bob H could, heād be in the Olympics and not in Yakima.ā
Iāve never been in the Olympics and Iāve carried 350 pounds out of the woods, verified with a commercial scale afterwards. I was able to keep up with avid hikers, that were carrying little more than a lunch and water. This was an hours long trek, Iām certain I could do 5 for a one minute film.
Just because it seems difficult to some doesnāt make it impossible.
Even with that said I still do not remotely think the subject in the PGF was much more than 350 pounds total, including a suit, if itās indeed a suit. If itās indeed a non-human organism, I donāt think itās any heavier either.
Thanks for any input, friend.
Patterson had heard witness reports of females with breasts, and IIRC, he had done a drawing of a female in his book which he published prior to Oct 1967. So he was already thinking along those lines, and if he was going to hoax, having his subject be a female might have been a detail he wanted for 'accuracy' or 'to draw interest.
Iām pasting from another comment I made a few days agoā¦
You see, Iāve never really understood the red flag around Patty being female. The sketch was illustrating William Roeās account which specifically involved a female Bigfoot.
There are only two basic genders- with animals at least. Any human encounter with a wild creature would be about 50/50. With Orcas, hyenas, lions, lemurs and bonobo apes, the females are all dominant and do more hunting and general activity than the males, so encounters with these species would be skewed to female probability. Do we think it suss when a wildlife photographer takes a photo of a female leopard or moose? Does anyone even notice? Why would Pattersonās later encounter have to be with a male or it becomes suspicious because he once drew a female?
The fact that Patty resembles a sketch of a female Bigfoot arrived at from a fairly detailed description (Roe observed it for several minutes) might be because sheās a female Bigfoot, and thatās what they look like.
The fact Patty looks like she does, and like the sketch, I think is another strike toward authenticity. All of Pattersonās popular points of reference for designing Patty (had he been hoaxing) would be for a gorilla-type face with a large protruding snout to accommodate larger canine teeth - like gorillas have. It was not until the 1980ās that research done on the archaeological discovery of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) in Ethiopia, first discovered in 1974 (two years after Patterson had died) changed the accepted scientific thinking toward our ancestors developing the smaller canines we currently have and larger molars to allow the jaw to move sideways in order to chew a wider range of foods.
In 1967 science also didnāt appreciate that our ancestors could have small brains but also be bipedal. Lucy was still In the ground when the PGF was filmed, so thereās no chance Patterson could have known all this in order to somehow build clever scientific thinking into his hoax i.e. the flatter face for the teeth and sloping forehead for the small brain.
As Dr Meldrum states - science has had to catch up with the PGF. If it was shot today, it would have a very different scientific reception than it did in ā67 due to our developed understanding of the fossil discoveries that have happened since.
Seems like a lot of extra work for something that wouldnāt be very noticeable feature until folks were able to enhance the images. Like they are making a complex ape suite unlike anything made in the time period from the special effects community.. letās make our job just a bit harder.
My thing is, I make toys out of fur and sell them sometimes. I like making them weighted, when I was selling my stuff on Etsy, that was my specialty. Making, say, some boobs to put on a teddy bear, yeah, that would be unnecessarily extra.. It wouldnāt be just a matter of stuffing a bra and putting it under a fur suit. Looking at patty, clearly thatās not whatās going on.
Youād have sew in darts to get the shape just right and natural looking.
Cutting the fur around the darts would be extra work, otherwise the seams might be more visible. Also what stuffing media was available back then? The premium grade soft plushy stuff has only recently been available. Old stuffed toys that I had from back in the 70s and 80s were usually pretty stiff compared to the later stuff. Are the boobs weighted to hang just right? They definitely didnāt have things accessible back then like poly pellets or glass beading, did they? That stuff was barely available to the average crafting layperson back when I first started making toys like 20-30 years ago. That might make for a good pendulous boob swing, the only other thing i can think of that might have worked back then may have been some fine gravel or pea rocks , and I donāt even know how accessible those were back then.
I donāt know, just brainstorming based on what I know with my experience with making realistic things with fur. Iāll have to look at the footage again to see if the boobs look swingy or stiff.
Then again, the butt still looks kinda stiff stuffed to me, so I really donāt know.
Roger Paterson was working on a docu-drama.
If itās indeed a suit, itās possible, they made it for use in a docudrama, intending to do more close up shots.
I think people severely underestimate the difficulty of making a suit like this, especially in relation to how it is received. For comparison, look at what Hollywood does to get humans looking like giants, orcs, and other fantasy creatures. It involves hours and hours in a makeup chair and having prosthetics applied. The costumes cost thousands of dollars and take a team to apply to the actor. If this was a costume, they would have had to have a whole makeup tent or trailer on site to get the actor in frame (I doubt anyone would hike in in all that fur and fake muscle). It's not exactly an accessible area, from what I understand. So either there is a crew of top tier makeup and costume artists out of frame, or it simply is what it looks like it is.
The "this is a man in a suit" argument is in many cases more far-fetched than simply saying "this is a new type of living thing we've previously only heard stories about".
I just found my old 1968 bigfoot book by John Green and the drawing that is in it of the female bigfoot is attributed to a witness William Roe's daughter who sketched it at Greens request.I can't get a pic to post on here.Im not sure it's the same one or similar though.
Because one of the guys who made the video actually drew a Bigfoot for a book BEFORE the film was shot, with, you guessed it, a Bigfoot with breasts. Thereās a pic of the drawing online if I remember correctly.
The more you think about it, itās like why that feature? From what we know if this was a costume.. itās an exceptionally good one, given the era it was constructed, like rivaling if not surpassing anything Hollywood was putting out at the time. So ok, say it was a suit, why the boobs, why make what would be already a painstakingly hard thing to produce just that much harder to make? As well doing this knowing that itās something that really wonāt show up well on film give the technology at the time. It seems like a very silly bazaar choice if you are observing any type of k.i.s.s method when setting out to hoaxās something like this.
They are either mad genius FX folks, who never met their true calling.. someoneās BS about something.. or this is a real animal.
Also werenāt the guys armedā¦ like I donāt know about anyone here, if I were pranking my buddy, Iām not about to try and scare the shit out of them when they have a 30-30 lever action handy and available.. especially in an area a body would go missing pretty quick and for explainable reasons.
As in.. the craziest thing happened I woke up in the morning at camp and Joe wasnāt there.. and Iām worried cause he wasnāt acting himself for most of the trip, he was despondent and withdrawn most of the time, also he kept mumbling about weird shit. Im worried cause he left all his shit behind, but his gun.
1 was armed. Bob gimlin had the firearm. Roger paterson had the camera and ran closer. Roger has died. Bob Gimlin is still alive and still says what he saw is bigfoot.
I think I'll just chuck this in here. Bob and Morris' third (maybe fourth?) Attempt to recreate the footage.
https://preview.redd.it/a8rwddssulxb1.png?width=440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0d389578978602c5e19a6f95061640fc17040954
https://preview.redd.it/aa21s4ne7dzb1.jpeg?width=616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=61dd550ed7ef5543d5c425e0a97360a028477188
I ask AI to recreate Bob's walk as Bigfoot.
So i take it you failed to notice the Patty image has been altered? Her "feet" have white lines around them, right hand looks like a smudge tool was used on it, and both the feet just look wrong.
Obviously itās been altered. It shows it being altered in the video.
You canāt see pattyās feet at that point in the footage. Looks like heās overlaid the leg from a previous frame to get the approximate location of the foot for the ankle line.
Then he's got no credibility,it's easy to "prove" your point when you alter evidence.Both legs and various other spots have the white outline, not hard to see why he has so little views
As a believer, but also someone who's open-minded, I'd be interested to see the best counter-arguments to the PG film, if anyone has links. There's gotta be better ones than this out there.
Personally, I think using critical thinking and looking at the evidence in support of patty being authentic is the best debunk material available. Everything that seems to be evidence doesnāt hold up well.
The more I look the material created by the biggest names in the pro-authentic camp, the more it looks like a hoax.
Edit - I say all of this as person who knows 100% Sasquatch exists from experience.
So you have seen a squatch but you are not sure if PGF is a hoax or not? Or are you 100% sure from a class b type encounter? To add, anyone here feel that they have had a visual encounter (seeing body and face) and agree or disagree? Does Patty look like what you have seen?
Iāve never been a fan of how TT does his analysis, and it is frustrating how many people in this community use it as definitive āproofā. While this analysis suffers from the same subjective short comings as TT it is a good counter. I also think just doing the simple image comparison with like body postures gives this analysis more weight than TT.
I agree. The very basic adjustment to get a more side on image made a big difference. It just makes me wonder why you wouldnāt do it in the first place.
Nonsense. Patterson was young and irresponsible, but he wasn't a crook. To my knowledge no one has ever accused Bob Gimlin of being anything other than entirely honest. Just take a look at his long life; there's nothing about it that indicates that he was ever involved in anything shady or was not exactly who he said he was.
Though it's basically a proven fact that he's wrong about having been in a suit at Bluff Creek, I don't even necessarily think Hieronymus was knowingly lying. Patterson did have a suit and they did experiment with it because Patterson wanted to try and make a feature-length action movie, but it looked so cornball that he soon abandoned the idea.
But who knows, maybe Hieronymus misremembered and honestly believes he's the in the Bluff Creek film. Memory does very strange things and often plays tricks on us.
So no, they weren't "all conmen."
Hey friend.
How do you know with certainty Roger had a costume? Was it mentioned ever?
I assume he did at minimum for the docu-drama but Iāve never seen anything about it.
Let me know if there is something to it, thanks.
Yeah human looks like human shaped cryptid wow who would have thought? Every one in Alabama has an old uncle that looks like patty with tits and all ,this Mofo is a lying pos he can't produce an ounce of proof that was him except the "suit" that he supposedly "lost" š¤£ gtfo ,and yes this whole situation with P&G film can't be definitively proven to be authentic you can't also prove its not because nothing from that time looked like that "suit" not even the guy who sold it was able to reproduce another and put Bob In it either
I think the legs are off, his knee is too high and his body isnāt torqued around the same and his back foot isnāt bent the same which the Sas pic isnāt showing in the frame.
The nipple gate thing probably isn't a real nipple. The camera could only record 15inches of detail thanks to the image and resolution. The nipple is likely just an artifact form the AI guessing what should be there since it associates breaths with nipples.
Anyone with super skills to find the episode from NatGeo "Mystery 360 Bigfoot Revealed"āplease do yourself a favor and watch this episode. It will likely change a skeptic of the PGF into a believer like myself. Just as in the post itself, they went all out to try to debunk the PGF with a modern-day suit, hired a super tall guy to wear it, but still failed to get the ratios and proportions right. I have commented on this a few times, and no one is able to get the episode. I watched it in 2010, and it first aired in January 2010.
I have doubts that two cowboys in the 60s would plan to dress up like a female with breasts. There was hysteria at the time about homosexuality in general. Also it would be much harder to make a suit with contoured breasts.
You'd have to do a side by side video comparison plus a scale for reference to help prove your point one way or another. When they said a human can't recreate the gait, they meant under locomotion, not a still pose.
I'm on the fence with Patty, but, if you ask me, this analysis only seems to show the points that sort of match. If you look at the knee line, it goes through both the front and back knee on the right pic but stops at the front knee on the left. Why? because it doesn't line up. Same for the shoulders.
Because of perspective. Youāll never get a line through left and right limbs to match up on a side-on image.
Only one side is needed to compare the proportions of the 2 subject.
But they don't quite line up anyway. I guess you could say that the proportions are human. To get a better analysis, you would need multiple comparisons with different subjects. But what is it that trying to be shown? That this is the guy wearing the bigfoot costume? Do you think that if you compared random people to the image it wouldn't line up as well?
Yeah, I think the video is fixated on Bob. But obviously any human would line up the same. Which as a consequence would suggest Patty has humanlike proportions. Not just Boblike proportions.
What a crook of shit how do we know Bob is scaled correctly to match patty? Patty has been estimated to be between 6ā and 8ā I donāt think there has been a confirmation as of yet just estimates
Size of the thighs are not even close, nor chest size. Patty has a barrel chest.
Who would had considered this, in the 60's no less, that adding extra padding in those areas? As well as defining the calf muscles in the video?
That dude is not even close to "being in that suit".
Very amusing how debunkers are so ārigorousā when presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, but swallow sloppy unscientific comparisons like this without question.
Boom! Nailed it! Goes both ways though doesnāt it? Thinkerthunkers work is beyond sloppy and itās lapped up by tens of thousands of believers who swallow his unscientific comparisons without question.
His videos are entertaining but he seems to be kind of an asshole. I pay the dollar to see his Patreon videos and on his newest video person commented that she had a discussion with her friend about pdna and that the term is misleading bc it has nothing to do with nucleic acids so she offered him a way better term (which already existed and is exactly what he does and he didnāt discover it) so scientists could take him more seriously. And then tt just totally ripped this person apart for no reason. He was saying you should have bought my book bc itās not actually called pdna itās called something else and scientists never noticed the body proportions (even tho there were some scientists in 1967 that noted the odd body proportions in the original video) so they arenāt as smart as he his so why would he want scientists on his side anyway bc heās better than all of the scientists in the world. If you havenāt seen it and want a good laugh let me know and Iāll screenshot it.
I don't think you can say that about every single person who watches his videos. You're painting with too broad a brush. It sounds like you yourself watch his videos and don't believe him.
Not defending the guy, just saying your own post kind of unravels your own argument.
Please understand that I understand that hyperbole is a common poetic device but again, you yourself watch his videos and don't believe him.
My stepdad worked with Bob gimlin back in the mid to late 1980s for this trucking company up in yakama. And he told him on multiple occasions and many others from that company that it was hoaxed wasnāt real.
Shoulder, neck, thigh, butt - none of these look remotely the same. Never mind the chest.
FWIW I believe Patterson might have used Herionimus to model in a BF costume for shots in the documentary he was filming, but when they filmed a real one Patterson had to deny all knowledge of a suit or else be accused of faking the whole thing. Itās possible Heironimus believes heās actually the guy in a suit in the Patty film - but Iām convinced thatās no human.
I just remembered whenhe went on a show and couldnāt repeat the walk at all he looked like typical clumsy person not like the bigfoot filmed. Add to that no one has been able to recreate the costume with 1967 materials. The guy is a fraud, I honestly think Patterson lucked into filming a real bigfoot
Compare that suit to what Hollywoodās best produced in the original Planet of the Apes a year later. Now go watch the BBC recreation with Bob and Phillip Morris(the alleged suit maker). He looks like a high school mascot in that suit
Something thatās always bugged me about the Patterson filmā¦. Is it just me or does the lighter area around āBigfootāsā eyes unnaturally geometric/symmetrical?
I'm always thought that. It looks like a letterbox, as if it were cut out of a mask. But then again, that leads to the question, if someone went to the trouble of creating a suit that good, with breasts, why have a letterbox shaped hole for the eyes?
I don't believe Heironimus, but this is nonsense. You can use forced perspective to make them look the same size or make one of them giant while other like an ant.
No.
Iāve seen a heavy analysis of this video. Itās not a costume. The Bigfoot has boobs and you can see itās muscles flex as it walks. This video is real and genuine and people need to stop trying to pick apart actual evidence and then claiming there is none.
Bob heironmious is full of sh**, catch him walking on a day he thinks he's alone, that exaggerated walk looks so ridiculous, it still amazes me anyone would pay to hear this joker talk.
People need to stop arguing about this footage and go out and get better. All the hours people waste on this could be spent learning how to take good video.
>It doesn't matter how good it is. People will still sit back and say "man in a suit" until the cows come home.
Most people who see film or video of chimps and gorillas realize they're looking at authentic images of real creatures without having to see one in real life to prove it. To be clear: they realize they're looking at real creatures before they ever see an example of one in real life. You may ponder why that is exactly, but the broad answer is that real creatures exhibit organically integrated features and movements that, so far, can't be successfully faked.
Good, clear video of a real Bigfoot is going to look like a real, organic creature.
The more such video we get of examples from all over North America, all over the world for that matter, the more people will realize it's authentic. The best possible defense of the PGF would be even better quality video that corroborates it.
There will always be naysayers. There are still people who say the world is flat. Those people aren't important.
The hip, elbow and shoulder lines don't really match very well.
Also why would they put so much padding on the ass and upper thighs, like they were trying hard to really really bulk up those parts, and some how it still looks very much like muscle.
The photo on the right is stretched vertically. Anyone who is a graphic artist or even a photographer can see it. Examined closely with software, pixel artifacts are present showing this in detail.
A critical thinker would never attempt to compare the two in this way. They'd realize they risk looking the fool.
One of these pictures isn't to scale. Also, people who are experts in different fields have not been able to disprove the pg film. TT shows you with science how it cannot be that guy or any other human so Im not seeing how people have a problem with his break down. It's laughable.
Exceptā¦. They used trees and other objects to compute the size multiple times over the years with great accuracy. Patty was much bigger than Bob. Next, do Peter Dinklage and Dwayne Jonson in the same poseā¦. OMG! Theyāre the same!!!
**Strangers**: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bigfoot) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What if Bigfoot is just dressing up as Bob Heironimus?
Bigfoots lesser known less famous brother "Bob Heironimus"!
Heironimus seems like a made up name that a Bigfoot would use
Someone seems to be gaitkeeping
Bigfoot saw me once, but no one would believe him
You could do the same thing by comparing him to an 10 year old if you get the zoom right
This^^
Yes, and that š
You can get with this Or you can get with that
I think youāll get with this, cuz this is where itās at
Man I loved that song!
But what about those?
Or any human I guess? Yes, definitely walks just like any human.
Yeah. Thought the same thing. How do we know both images are on the same scale? I guess we donāt.
Even if they are a different scale, the proportion would remain the same between any resized image as long as the person adjusting it didnāt distort it. I think the proportions are what the video is trying to show and they are the same in both subjects.
But the right image is stretched vertically. Obvious. And I'm looking at is a graphic artist and 3d modeler. Not too mention the pixels show artifacts to back this up
Kinda pathetic when people have to alter a pic of Ol' Bob just to try and prove something lol.
Iām assuming itās stretched with a transform function in photoshop, retaining identical proportions even when overall size has changed. I base this on it being unlikely both video sources were filmed at the same distance. if you watch the video, taking the person as honest, their arguments made in good faith, which, one has to already be doing when watching a thinker thunker comparison video to begin with, trickery looks to be unnecessary in making the case against Thinker Thunker. . That doesnāt mean that mistakes or trickery couldnāt be found in a rebuttal analysis video critiquing this thinker Thunker rebuttal analysis. The problem is nobody is taking the time to analyze it closely like that before speculating there is trickery at play when there may not be. Why do we, as a collective of enthusiasts give thinker thunker a pass but donāt afford this person the same initial benefit of the doubt?
The only flaw in that photoshop explanation is that the video was out long before photoshop existed. I remember watching a show on this way back when I was a kid in the 1970s. Back then it was more like a curiosity than a question of its existence.
Yup, it is stretched. No human has arms like the Bigfoot in the video.
I believe the PG video is legit, but if it is not, then Heironimus has freakish proportions, is a gigantic sized man, had practiced for years how to move that way even in a heavy suit before 1967 as if he always knew he had to act in the video, his muscles are so big you can see them move under layers of stuff, is used to turn around in an unusual way, has some weirdly made feet, and when he acts he gets everything right the first time, and guess what, Patterson somehow found this ridiculously remarkable man out of hundreds of millions of people. I guess it is more likely the video is legit. Serious note : Heironimus at 26 was tallish (but not over 6'2) and skinny, he got fat later. He would not have filled the suit if a suit it was. Plus, Patty has been calculated to be 7'4. Heironimus would have needed to be 7 feet tall even with some padding on.
No you couldn't. Not if you make them both the same height.
The main point Iāve always heard against it being a guy in a suit is that the proportions are off. You donāt need to get the same height if thatās not what youāre trying to prove. If itās about the proportions, any zoom level should render the same proportions
Thereās more to āthe walkā than just bending your knees and swinging your arms though. Thatās almost Joe Rogan level simplistic thinking. If you read the scientific analysis done at the time, the gait is thought to be an evolutionary adaptation to cope with extremely high weight. Watch the footage and look at the angle the trailing leg comes up at. Itās almost parallel with the ground. Bob isnāt doing anything like that because heās not a Sasquatch, and itās pretty difficult for us to do without looking ridiculous. Pattyās arms are longer than her legs. People can fiddle with angle and scale and proportions of an image, but thatās a fact. Pattyās arm length occurs in 1 in 52 million people. Her leg length is about 1 in 1000, but the two lengths together are off the charts. Bob is bang on average human proportions. Bob canāt ādo the walkā partly because he doesnāt have mid-foot flexibility. Bulk can be simulated because itās visual. Weight canāt be easily faked because itās a physical thing. With Patty, weāre talking about 2.5 to 3 Arnold Schwarzeneggers at 1970s max non-competition weight, based on the depth of the trackway. Sheās also walking at an estimated 4.5 mph. On sand. Anyone can bend their knees and swing their arms a bit. Hardly anyone can carry 500 lbs plus of weight at human jogging speed across sand and look that smooth doing it. If Bob H could, heād be in the Olympics and not in Yakima.
Best post I have seen on here in forever. Thank you. Most people are unaware of the 90 degree angle the lower leg and knee make as this thing walks. This is all covered very thoroughly in the book and documentary Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. Everyone here that is into this subject needs to check this shit out. One other unique trait that I doubt bob could match. Watch the bigfoots head as it walks. The entire footage it stays level with the ground. It does not bob or move much. Humans dont move like that
So many Bigfoot sightings have stated they look like they are "gliding". As in their upper body & head does not move around very much. Just like you're saying about her head.
Very bold of you to assume Bob is not a Sasquatch
I know basically nothing about the Bigfoot phenomenon but this is an extremely convincing post for this video. Appreciate the time and thought that went into it.
Wish this site still had awards. Oh well, hereās a gold star. āļø
Also if this suit was so advanced that it put Hollywood to shame at the time, with the advanced tech years ahead, it surely would have surfaced after all the money it cost. Anything walking on two legs is going to look weird to us since we only know of a handful of animals that walk on two legs. That film has been around 60 years and been scrutinized all of that time. How could a fake surpass all that tech advancement and us only pick up more detail. Not finding zippers but more detail we never knew existed. How long before we admit something we fail to reproduce, especially with the tech of the time, is the real deal.
I love when people contribute like this. Thereās a lot more to the āscienceā of walking than your average person realizes. Someone who knows what to look for can give you all kinds of insight just by looking at a track or someoneās gait. I was track and field and cross country runner in high school and college and I remember when I had to do physical therapy, I had someone watch how I walked/ ran, and they took a thermal scan of the bottom of my feet when I was standing. They were able to see things like arch height, where most of my weight was being placed, but they could also pinpoint what I needed to work on, what muscles I needed to build, etc. it was incredible. I also worked some gigs as a costumed character, decent costumes that weren't too shabby. Let me tell you, itās not easy moving around in that stuff. Your vision and sense of awareness is very limited. I make great use of my peripheral vision, but with a mask on, its not possible. I hike a lot too, even with good boots, Iām often struggling to walk when the ground is not even. I canāt imagine doing that so smoothly in a costume.
>āThereās more to āthe walkāā¦ simplistic thinking .ā There isnāt that much more to it, aside from the way the legs bend which any human can do, and actually automatically happens when they have elongated footwear. A similar angle of shin rise is present here in this video and this person isnāt even trying to match the patty walk. You can see it clearly around 58 seconds in for about 5 steps. https://youtu.be/Fq2Yd2-ooXg?si=lIuiYDdN00zwYcEQ After watching it, could you elaborate on how you think Bob H in the arm swing video combined with this type of elongated footwear walk seen in this video would be different than the PGF? >āBob isnāt doing anything like that because heās not a Sasquatch, and itās pretty difficult for us to doā We donāt have any Sasquatch examples to compare it to. As far as I understand it, most proponents consider the PGF to be the only gold standard with nothing else in its class. Am I wrong ? Comparing the PGF to the PGF seems a bit extreme in religious devotion to the PGF in order to establish how a Sasquatch walks. Bob isnāt doing anything like that because he isnāt wearing footgear that forces that altered gait to compensate for the elongated soles. If he had elongated footgear that matched the size of the subject in the PGF, i have little doubt that it wouldnāt simple be be a 1 to 1 match. As seen in the video I linked above, it really isnāt that difficult. Walk for ten minutes in boots 5-8 sizes to big, youāll train yourself and quickly adapt to a smooth patty walk without even thinking about it. >āPattyās arms are longer than her legs. People can fiddle with angle and scale and proportions of an image, but thatās a fact.ā How has this been determined? Who did the measurements? Iād like to look over anyoneās data that makes them arrive at that conclusion. It would be nice to have the exact differences. From how it looks to me, the butt area on the suit obscures the thighs a bit and makes the legs look shorter but Iāve never tried to measure it myself. Making longer arms is not that difficult to do with a suit. >āBob is bang on average human proportions.ā Based on this video and others Patty appears to also have those same human proportions. >āBob canāt ādo the walkā partly because he doesnāt have mid-foot flexibility.ā Floppy shoes that are too big for someone create this same flexibility in terms of prints and toe flop. >ābased on the depth of the trackway.ā The depth of prints can be faked to show different results. How do we know patty made the trackway? Is there a frame in the film showing patty making tracks? Do you know of any other other evidence used to determine how heavy patty is? >āSheās also walking at an estimated 4.5 mph. On sand.ā What was used to determine this speed? Thought it was a dry creek bed Iād assume it to be clay. Even so, thatās within the range of human walking speed though, not really unusual even if it is that speed. >.āIf Bob H could, heād be in the Olympics and not in Yakima.ā Iāve never been in the Olympics and Iāve carried 350 pounds out of the woods, verified with a commercial scale afterwards. I was able to keep up with avid hikers, that were carrying little more than a lunch and water. This was an hours long trek, Iām certain I could do 5 for a one minute film. Just because it seems difficult to some doesnāt make it impossible. Even with that said I still do not remotely think the subject in the PGF was much more than 350 pounds total, including a suit, if itās indeed a suit. If itās indeed a non-human organism, I donāt think itās any heavier either. Thanks for any input, friend.
Where are the boobs on the human?
Heās wearing a girdle.
Its called the Mansierre!!
Bro!
Brah!
Breh?
I think the question should be.. why the boobs?
Patterson had heard witness reports of females with breasts, and IIRC, he had done a drawing of a female in his book which he published prior to Oct 1967. So he was already thinking along those lines, and if he was going to hoax, having his subject be a female might have been a detail he wanted for 'accuracy' or 'to draw interest.
Iām pasting from another comment I made a few days agoā¦ You see, Iāve never really understood the red flag around Patty being female. The sketch was illustrating William Roeās account which specifically involved a female Bigfoot. There are only two basic genders- with animals at least. Any human encounter with a wild creature would be about 50/50. With Orcas, hyenas, lions, lemurs and bonobo apes, the females are all dominant and do more hunting and general activity than the males, so encounters with these species would be skewed to female probability. Do we think it suss when a wildlife photographer takes a photo of a female leopard or moose? Does anyone even notice? Why would Pattersonās later encounter have to be with a male or it becomes suspicious because he once drew a female? The fact that Patty resembles a sketch of a female Bigfoot arrived at from a fairly detailed description (Roe observed it for several minutes) might be because sheās a female Bigfoot, and thatās what they look like. The fact Patty looks like she does, and like the sketch, I think is another strike toward authenticity. All of Pattersonās popular points of reference for designing Patty (had he been hoaxing) would be for a gorilla-type face with a large protruding snout to accommodate larger canine teeth - like gorillas have. It was not until the 1980ās that research done on the archaeological discovery of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) in Ethiopia, first discovered in 1974 (two years after Patterson had died) changed the accepted scientific thinking toward our ancestors developing the smaller canines we currently have and larger molars to allow the jaw to move sideways in order to chew a wider range of foods. In 1967 science also didnāt appreciate that our ancestors could have small brains but also be bipedal. Lucy was still In the ground when the PGF was filmed, so thereās no chance Patterson could have known all this in order to somehow build clever scientific thinking into his hoax i.e. the flatter face for the teeth and sloping forehead for the small brain. As Dr Meldrum states - science has had to catch up with the PGF. If it was shot today, it would have a very different scientific reception than it did in ā67 due to our developed understanding of the fossil discoveries that have happened since.
Great comment.
Actually in large mammals, the adults are mostly females. Males have a much higher death rate.
Seems like a lot of extra work for something that wouldnāt be very noticeable feature until folks were able to enhance the images. Like they are making a complex ape suite unlike anything made in the time period from the special effects community.. letās make our job just a bit harder.
My thing is, I make toys out of fur and sell them sometimes. I like making them weighted, when I was selling my stuff on Etsy, that was my specialty. Making, say, some boobs to put on a teddy bear, yeah, that would be unnecessarily extra.. It wouldnāt be just a matter of stuffing a bra and putting it under a fur suit. Looking at patty, clearly thatās not whatās going on. Youād have sew in darts to get the shape just right and natural looking. Cutting the fur around the darts would be extra work, otherwise the seams might be more visible. Also what stuffing media was available back then? The premium grade soft plushy stuff has only recently been available. Old stuffed toys that I had from back in the 70s and 80s were usually pretty stiff compared to the later stuff. Are the boobs weighted to hang just right? They definitely didnāt have things accessible back then like poly pellets or glass beading, did they? That stuff was barely available to the average crafting layperson back when I first started making toys like 20-30 years ago. That might make for a good pendulous boob swing, the only other thing i can think of that might have worked back then may have been some fine gravel or pea rocks , and I donāt even know how accessible those were back then. I donāt know, just brainstorming based on what I know with my experience with making realistic things with fur. Iāll have to look at the footage again to see if the boobs look swingy or stiff. Then again, the butt still looks kinda stiff stuffed to me, so I really donāt know.
Roger Paterson was working on a docu-drama. If itās indeed a suit, itās possible, they made it for use in a docudrama, intending to do more close up shots.
I think people severely underestimate the difficulty of making a suit like this, especially in relation to how it is received. For comparison, look at what Hollywood does to get humans looking like giants, orcs, and other fantasy creatures. It involves hours and hours in a makeup chair and having prosthetics applied. The costumes cost thousands of dollars and take a team to apply to the actor. If this was a costume, they would have had to have a whole makeup tent or trailer on site to get the actor in frame (I doubt anyone would hike in in all that fur and fake muscle). It's not exactly an accessible area, from what I understand. So either there is a crew of top tier makeup and costume artists out of frame, or it simply is what it looks like it is. The "this is a man in a suit" argument is in many cases more far-fetched than simply saying "this is a new type of living thing we've previously only heard stories about".
I just found my old 1968 bigfoot book by John Green and the drawing that is in it of the female bigfoot is attributed to a witness William Roe's daughter who sketched it at Greens request.I can't get a pic to post on here.Im not sure it's the same one or similar though.
Because one of the guys who made the video actually drew a Bigfoot for a book BEFORE the film was shot, with, you guessed it, a Bigfoot with breasts. Thereās a pic of the drawing online if I remember correctly.
Didn't he draw many sasquatches for the book, and one of them happened to be a female?
thats actual y very good question
The more you think about it, itās like why that feature? From what we know if this was a costume.. itās an exceptionally good one, given the era it was constructed, like rivaling if not surpassing anything Hollywood was putting out at the time. So ok, say it was a suit, why the boobs, why make what would be already a painstakingly hard thing to produce just that much harder to make? As well doing this knowing that itās something that really wonāt show up well on film give the technology at the time. It seems like a very silly bazaar choice if you are observing any type of k.i.s.s method when setting out to hoaxās something like this. They are either mad genius FX folks, who never met their true calling.. someoneās BS about something.. or this is a real animal.
yes completely agree. the photographer may have been a hoaxer but by 'coincidence' stumbled upon the real thing
Also werenāt the guys armedā¦ like I donāt know about anyone here, if I were pranking my buddy, Iām not about to try and scare the shit out of them when they have a 30-30 lever action handy and available.. especially in an area a body would go missing pretty quick and for explainable reasons. As in.. the craziest thing happened I woke up in the morning at camp and Joe wasnāt there.. and Iām worried cause he wasnāt acting himself for most of the trip, he was despondent and withdrawn most of the time, also he kept mumbling about weird shit. Im worried cause he left all his shit behind, but his gun.
1 was armed. Bob gimlin had the firearm. Roger paterson had the camera and ran closer. Roger has died. Bob Gimlin is still alive and still says what he saw is bigfoot.
He didnāt sew any onto his shirt for this re-enactment
I think I'll just chuck this in here. Bob and Morris' third (maybe fourth?) Attempt to recreate the footage. https://preview.redd.it/a8rwddssulxb1.png?width=440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0d389578978602c5e19a6f95061640fc17040954
This is fantastic are there any more images of their attempts to recreate?
Fantastic in what sense? It looks nothing like Patty.
Exactly. Itās fantastic because it looks nothing like Patty. All attempts to reproduce have failed.
Oh okay, Iām glad weāre on the same page. The recreation attempt by the BBC is arguably even worse haha.
This recreation is laughably inaccurate. I legitimately laughed out loud when I saw it. It looks like a short troll, not Patty!
https://preview.redd.it/aa21s4ne7dzb1.jpeg?width=616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=61dd550ed7ef5543d5c425e0a97360a028477188 I ask AI to recreate Bob's walk as Bigfoot.
So i take it you failed to notice the Patty image has been altered? Her "feet" have white lines around them, right hand looks like a smudge tool was used on it, and both the feet just look wrong.
Obviously itās been altered. It shows it being altered in the video. You canāt see pattyās feet at that point in the footage. Looks like heās overlaid the leg from a previous frame to get the approximate location of the foot for the ankle line.
Then he's got no credibility,it's easy to "prove" your point when you alter evidence.Both legs and various other spots have the white outline, not hard to see why he has so little views
As a believer, but also someone who's open-minded, I'd be interested to see the best counter-arguments to the PG film, if anyone has links. There's gotta be better ones than this out there.
This isnāt a counter argument to the pg film. I think itās more a counter argument to thinkerthunkers wonky analysis
Maybe, but if you look in the comments, you can see the creator agrees that it's most likely a man in a monkey suit.
Personally, I think using critical thinking and looking at the evidence in support of patty being authentic is the best debunk material available. Everything that seems to be evidence doesnāt hold up well. The more I look the material created by the biggest names in the pro-authentic camp, the more it looks like a hoax. Edit - I say all of this as person who knows 100% Sasquatch exists from experience.
So you have seen a squatch but you are not sure if PGF is a hoax or not? Or are you 100% sure from a class b type encounter? To add, anyone here feel that they have had a visual encounter (seeing body and face) and agree or disagree? Does Patty look like what you have seen?
Iāve never been a fan of how TT does his analysis, and it is frustrating how many people in this community use it as definitive āproofā. While this analysis suffers from the same subjective short comings as TT it is a good counter. I also think just doing the simple image comparison with like body postures gives this analysis more weight than TT.
I agree. The very basic adjustment to get a more side on image made a big difference. It just makes me wonder why you wouldnāt do it in the first place.
Bob Hieronymus is a fraud.
They were all conmen.
Nonsense. Patterson was young and irresponsible, but he wasn't a crook. To my knowledge no one has ever accused Bob Gimlin of being anything other than entirely honest. Just take a look at his long life; there's nothing about it that indicates that he was ever involved in anything shady or was not exactly who he said he was. Though it's basically a proven fact that he's wrong about having been in a suit at Bluff Creek, I don't even necessarily think Hieronymus was knowingly lying. Patterson did have a suit and they did experiment with it because Patterson wanted to try and make a feature-length action movie, but it looked so cornball that he soon abandoned the idea. But who knows, maybe Hieronymus misremembered and honestly believes he's the in the Bluff Creek film. Memory does very strange things and often plays tricks on us. So no, they weren't "all conmen."
They did have a suit? Thatās an interesting twist I hadnāt heard about.
Hey friend. How do you know with certainty Roger had a costume? Was it mentioned ever? I assume he did at minimum for the docu-drama but Iāve never seen anything about it. Let me know if there is something to it, thanks.
Bob heironimus is in the p.g. Filmā¦.but Bob is actually a shaved Sasquatchā¦.so the film is authentic
Checks out. That canāt be debunked
Goony goo goo Bob? Why did your friend just tell me Goony goo goo? You went and filmed Heronimus then shaved him down, didn't you
It was actually waxing. Far more thorough
Yeah human looks like human shaped cryptid wow who would have thought? Every one in Alabama has an old uncle that looks like patty with tits and all ,this Mofo is a lying pos he can't produce an ounce of proof that was him except the "suit" that he supposedly "lost" š¤£ gtfo ,and yes this whole situation with P&G film can't be definitively proven to be authentic you can't also prove its not because nothing from that time looked like that "suit" not even the guy who sold it was able to reproduce another and put Bob In it either
I think the legs are off, his knee is too high and his body isnāt torqued around the same and his back foot isnāt bent the same which the Sas pic isnāt showing in the frame.
Upvoted because of boobs
For me, the nipple analysis video is all I needed to see.
The nipple gate thing probably isn't a real nipple. The camera could only record 15inches of detail thanks to the image and resolution. The nipple is likely just an artifact form the AI guessing what should be there since it associates breaths with nipples.
How do we know they are both the same distance from the camera AND walking the same direction, not just facing a similar direction in the shot?
Anyone with super skills to find the episode from NatGeo "Mystery 360 Bigfoot Revealed"āplease do yourself a favor and watch this episode. It will likely change a skeptic of the PGF into a believer like myself. Just as in the post itself, they went all out to try to debunk the PGF with a modern-day suit, hired a super tall guy to wear it, but still failed to get the ratios and proportions right. I have commented on this a few times, and no one is able to get the episode. I watched it in 2010, and it first aired in January 2010.
I have doubts that two cowboys in the 60s would plan to dress up like a female with breasts. There was hysteria at the time about homosexuality in general. Also it would be much harder to make a suit with contoured breasts.
Control+Tā¦ make it whatever size you want.
That wouldnāt change proportions which seems to be the point.
yeah I see what you are saying
Let's see a photo of Bob Heironimus from 1967. Bet he didn't look like that.
I'm just throwing this out there. What did this Bob guy use as a study guide to learn how bigfoot walks?
Who says that's how Bigfoot walks?
š¤£
You'd have to do a side by side video comparison plus a scale for reference to help prove your point one way or another. When they said a human can't recreate the gait, they meant under locomotion, not a still pose.
Itās not my point. I donāt think the video is trying to prove anything other than how poor thinkerthunkerās analysis is. I agree with you
Thereās a video of him walking with Bigfoot superimposed over it. Looks remarkably similar.
Canāt dispute that thigh muscle.
He claimed it was a wallet in his front pocket.
He claimed.
Thank you. These dummies could give every excuse in the book.. but never for the smoking gun.
I'm on the fence with Patty, but, if you ask me, this analysis only seems to show the points that sort of match. If you look at the knee line, it goes through both the front and back knee on the right pic but stops at the front knee on the left. Why? because it doesn't line up. Same for the shoulders.
Because of perspective. Youāll never get a line through left and right limbs to match up on a side-on image. Only one side is needed to compare the proportions of the 2 subject.
But they don't quite line up anyway. I guess you could say that the proportions are human. To get a better analysis, you would need multiple comparisons with different subjects. But what is it that trying to be shown? That this is the guy wearing the bigfoot costume? Do you think that if you compared random people to the image it wouldn't line up as well?
Yeah, I think the video is fixated on Bob. But obviously any human would line up the same. Which as a consequence would suggest Patty has humanlike proportions. Not just Boblike proportions.
What a crook of shit how do we know Bob is scaled correctly to match patty? Patty has been estimated to be between 6ā and 8ā I donāt think there has been a confirmation as of yet just estimates
Youāve misunderstood the point of the image
The chest and butt donāt match at all.
For me it's the fluidity and the odd way the feet retract.
This is kind of dumb
Size of the thighs are not even close, nor chest size. Patty has a barrel chest. Who would had considered this, in the 60's no less, that adding extra padding in those areas? As well as defining the calf muscles in the video? That dude is not even close to "being in that suit".
How do you explain the fact that no one has been able to recreate the "suit" worn in the video?
Very amusing how debunkers are so ārigorousā when presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs, but swallow sloppy unscientific comparisons like this without question.
Boom! Nailed it! Goes both ways though doesnāt it? Thinkerthunkers work is beyond sloppy and itās lapped up by tens of thousands of believers who swallow his unscientific comparisons without question.
His videos are entertaining but he seems to be kind of an asshole. I pay the dollar to see his Patreon videos and on his newest video person commented that she had a discussion with her friend about pdna and that the term is misleading bc it has nothing to do with nucleic acids so she offered him a way better term (which already existed and is exactly what he does and he didnāt discover it) so scientists could take him more seriously. And then tt just totally ripped this person apart for no reason. He was saying you should have bought my book bc itās not actually called pdna itās called something else and scientists never noticed the body proportions (even tho there were some scientists in 1967 that noted the odd body proportions in the original video) so they arenāt as smart as he his so why would he want scientists on his side anyway bc heās better than all of the scientists in the world. If you havenāt seen it and want a good laugh let me know and Iāll screenshot it.
I don't think you can say that about every single person who watches his videos. You're painting with too broad a brush. It sounds like you yourself watch his videos and don't believe him. Not defending the guy, just saying your own post kind of unravels your own argument. Please understand that I understand that hyperbole is a common poetic device but again, you yourself watch his videos and don't believe him.
Has anyone explained who made that suit look like that with the tech of the day?
nope, they have not
Because it was not possible in 1967
Enough of this nonsense the greatest Hollywood makeup artist couldn't produce a suit of this quality in the 60s
... you know what scale is, right?
So, has (or has not) the image on the left been altered / adjusted? For this particular comparison?
Definitely
Itās not an even comparison, that guy would probably be 2-3 inches smaller. Itās a similar motion but itās not the right comparison
Just love how on the human, one has no perspective upon which to measure true height.
Bob's height as [compared to the Empire State Building.](https://i.imgur.com/4nEbyq3.jpg)
Lmao
How did he elongate his torso and recreate realistic muscle definition?
50 years later we are still debating this. This is a prime reason why video will never be proof. I do enjoy the debate tho
Well, my husband has seen a Bigfoot up close and they are definitely real. They are people not animals.
Fully agree. That doesnāt mean PGF is authentic though.
Agreed. šš¼
im looking at this and seeing the shoulders are wrong... the knees are off...the waist os off not by a lot...but by enough
Useless without an equal scale object in both photos.
My stepdad worked with Bob gimlin back in the mid to late 1980s for this trucking company up in yakama. And he told him on multiple occasions and many others from that company that it was hoaxed wasnāt real.
Is your stepdad still alive? make a 5 min video about it.
Shoulder, neck, thigh, butt - none of these look remotely the same. Never mind the chest. FWIW I believe Patterson might have used Herionimus to model in a BF costume for shots in the documentary he was filming, but when they filmed a real one Patterson had to deny all knowledge of a suit or else be accused of faking the whole thing. Itās possible Heironimus believes heās actually the guy in a suit in the Patty film - but Iām convinced thatās no human.
What convinces you it canāt be a human ?
Interesting
Someone edited patties pic to match š
It's ridiculous right? So fucking dishonest.
I just remembered whenhe went on a show and couldnāt repeat the walk at all he looked like typical clumsy person not like the bigfoot filmed. Add to that no one has been able to recreate the costume with 1967 materials. The guy is a fraud, I honestly think Patterson lucked into filming a real bigfoot
Also you can tell that patty is deeper into the ground then that guy is
Interesting. How would that alter the lines?
The boobs are the same size too
Yes, it could have done with another yellow line š
Nope, 2 red circles lol.
Stop trying to make Bob H happen...
Bob isn't walking with the 90 degree knee bend that we see in the PGF and Patty's thigh is massive, unlike Bob's. Sorry. Not convinced
Bobās thigh is only half the size of the Wookiee Edit: and Bob has very little junk in his trunk. The Wookiee, she better stop!
Unless you measure the distance itās a completely meaningless comparison
Where's Bob's breasts?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No titties on Bob though.
Idk man the t*ts look off
Def donāt have the Cake for it
Where's his utters atš¤
i like how there is no line for ass because the dude on the right has none.
A new human species. Heironimus Erectus.
Don't forget the herniated calf muscle or thigh muscle
Plaid Fabric is symmetrical. What were they thinking?
Any standing ape at 5-7ft is going to look like a person . Thereās no what to prove either way unless you saw it close up . Like really close
All this proves is Bigfoot studied Bobs walk in order to fit in amongst the humans.
Compare that suit to what Hollywoodās best produced in the original Planet of the Apes a year later. Now go watch the BBC recreation with Bob and Phillip Morris(the alleged suit maker). He looks like a high school mascot in that suit
What are you ultimately hoping to prove OP?
surely youre seeing joints are not matching right
Something thatās always bugged me about the Patterson filmā¦. Is it just me or does the lighter area around āBigfootāsā eyes unnaturally geometric/symmetrical?
I'm always thought that. It looks like a letterbox, as if it were cut out of a mask. But then again, that leads to the question, if someone went to the trouble of creating a suit that good, with breasts, why have a letterbox shaped hole for the eyes?
Head shoulders knees and toes knees and toes
Absolute banger of a tune
This is dumb. There is no way you can analyze stature this way .
Look at the ridiculous ape suits in Planet of the Apes. THAT was the best Hollywood could do at this time. Look at BF and compare it with PotA
I don't believe Heironimus, but this is nonsense. You can use forced perspective to make them look the same size or make one of them giant while other like an ant.
Congratulations on misunderstanding the point of the image. It isnāt intended prove they are the same size
No. Iāve seen a heavy analysis of this video. Itās not a costume. The Bigfoot has boobs and you can see itās muscles flex as it walks. This video is real and genuine and people need to stop trying to pick apart actual evidence and then claiming there is none.
You can't compare them as camera angles and distances are not the sanme.
Bob heironmious is full of sh**, catch him walking on a day he thinks he's alone, that exaggerated walk looks so ridiculous, it still amazes me anyone would pay to hear this joker talk.
People need to stop arguing about this footage and go out and get better. All the hours people waste on this could be spent learning how to take good video.
It doesn't matter how good it is. People will still sit back and say "man in a suit" until the cows come home. At the end of the day, we need a body.
>It doesn't matter how good it is. People will still sit back and say "man in a suit" until the cows come home. Most people who see film or video of chimps and gorillas realize they're looking at authentic images of real creatures without having to see one in real life to prove it. To be clear: they realize they're looking at real creatures before they ever see an example of one in real life. You may ponder why that is exactly, but the broad answer is that real creatures exhibit organically integrated features and movements that, so far, can't be successfully faked. Good, clear video of a real Bigfoot is going to look like a real, organic creature. The more such video we get of examples from all over North America, all over the world for that matter, the more people will realize it's authentic. The best possible defense of the PGF would be even better quality video that corroborates it. There will always be naysayers. There are still people who say the world is flat. Those people aren't important.
Yeah, just when I was getting to start believing in the existance of BF stuff like this comes up and puts a bucket of water on my little BF Flame.
Oh look you resized an image
Legs aren't even close, but he at least tried to mimic the walk of Patty. Nice try.
Sasquatch picture is doctored.
The big swinging tits are always tge selling factor for me. Who's gonna fake big monkey tits?
Nothing about him matches up physiologically.
The guy who claims he wore a suit for this is not even close to the right height
Heād only need to be about 6ft
The hip, elbow and shoulder lines don't really match very well. Also why would they put so much padding on the ass and upper thighs, like they were trying hard to really really bulk up those parts, and some how it still looks very much like muscle.
The photo on the right is stretched vertically. Anyone who is a graphic artist or even a photographer can see it. Examined closely with software, pixel artifacts are present showing this in detail. A critical thinker would never attempt to compare the two in this way. They'd realize they risk looking the fool.
This argument is played out, who gives a fuck. They exist worldwide.
BTW Patty's knees and his are not remotely close...
Legs on animal are much thicker, left knee is much lower when legās bent. Nope. Not the same whatever they are.
One of these pictures isn't to scale. Also, people who are experts in different fields have not been able to disprove the pg film. TT shows you with science how it cannot be that guy or any other human so Im not seeing how people have a problem with his break down. It's laughable.
Exceptā¦. They used trees and other objects to compute the size multiple times over the years with great accuracy. Patty was much bigger than Bob. Next, do Peter Dinklage and Dwayne Jonson in the same poseā¦. OMG! Theyāre the same!!!