Jump to content
Guest

Patty's Upper Leg Mass Proportions Among Other Things

Recommended Posts

Guest

I've searched far and wide on the forums for a thread or even a few posts (albeit there are a few) about the mass of the upper legs of Patty when compared to human females and how similar I find them. Now, being as I have a lot of girlfriends (just friends, not actual dating), I can't get over the fact of how well Patty represents the female anatomy. Girls tend to have a much wider and larger upper leg when compared to the lower leg, and a lot bigger overall mass when compared to males upper leg proportions. Also known for girls, larger hips to support birth. When you look at patty, she has exactly this, at least in my opinion.

Some will agree with me, and some will point out that this is simply just padding...

Patty.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

I agree. That was one of the first things I noticed about Patty that led me to believing she's real and not a costume. It's not easy to explain, but it has a very natural look to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

Good point Austin and her massive legs seem to connect naturally to the rest of her body. That's a real problem for the suit-nicks (obviously).

:scratchhead:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVDBogart

Even though it is far from a "scientific based" opinion and I present zero "facts" to support it, I believe the PGF film is the real deal based on the simple fact that it just plain LOOKS NATURAL!

Go ahead and burn me at the stake for that view, but I have watched that film THOUSANDS of times, backwards, forwards, upside down, inside out, super fast, super slow, and everything in between. I cannot help but to reach the same conclusion every time. The creature simply behaves NATURALLY. I know, I know, "how do you know what a Bigfoot moves like naturally?" For starters, I have seen one myself and it's movements and behavior were exactly like Patty's. Secondly, like most of us here, we have seen so many failed attempts to duplicate these natural movements in videos. It usually doesn't take long to notice that the movements simply do not look natural to the human eye. Totally unscientific, I agree, however that "gut feeling" should not be dismissed. That "gut feeling" is a little leftover from the old days when humans had to listen to that unscientific "gut feeling" in order to survive. We still have a little bit left in out tanks.

Toss in all the standards like muscle movements, cost involved, etc., and what you have here folks is a genuine film. I don't blame any doubters out there though. For the majority of my life, I was 99% certain that Bigfoot was a real creature. However, there was always that little 1% doubt lurking around. That little remaining doubt can only be erased by seeing the creature with your own two eyes. Listening to a billion first hand reports from credible, well-educated, and respectable folks will never erase that doubt. Heck, even if the Pope had a Class A encounter, then there would still be a little doubt. It's a natural and logical thing to have some doubt. Another instinctive trait for survival. If humans believed everything other humans told them without question, then we would have been extinct long ago!

All I can tell the doubters is if you seriously want to know the truth once and for all, then you got to put in the time. Get out there in their backyards, be pure of heart with noble intentions, without any weapons and as non-threatening as possible, and if you are deemed worthy by them, then you will be granted the gift of a lifetime!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I'm impressed by what appeares to be flexion of the vastus lateralis in the followin' few frames Austin M. provided, she simply looks real to me.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have stated several times that the mass/girth of patty's waist/legs compared at least to BH's size

are completely incompatible. And have yet to hear a good explanation how puny BH became this

massive patty as we see in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Even though it is far from a "scientific based" opinion and I present zero "facts" to support it, I believe the PGF film is the real deal based on the simple fact that it just plain LOOKS NATURAL!

Go ahead and burn me at the stake for that view, but I have watched that film THOUSANDS of times, backwards, forwards, upside down, inside out, super fast, super slow, and everything in between. I cannot help but to reach the same conclusion every time. The creature simply behaves NATURALLY. I know, I know, "how do you know what a Bigfoot moves like naturally?" For starters, I have seen one myself and it's movements and behavior were exactly like Patty's. Secondly, like most of us here, we have seen so many failed attempts to duplicate these natural movements in videos. It usually doesn't take long to notice that the movements simply do not look natural to the human eye. Totally unscientific, I agree, however that "gut feeling" should not be dismissed. That "gut feeling" is a little leftover from the old days when humans had to listen to that unscientific "gut feeling" in order to survive. We still have a little bit left in out tanks.

Toss in all the standards like muscle movements, cost involved, etc., and what you have here folks is a genuine film. I don't blame any doubters out there though. For the majority of my life, I was 99% certain that Bigfoot was a real creature. However, there was always that little 1% doubt lurking around. That little remaining doubt can only be erased by seeing the creature with your own two eyes. Listening to a billion first hand reports from credible, well-educated, and respectable folks will never erase that doubt. Heck, even if the Pope had a Class A encounter, then there would still be a little doubt. It's a natural and logical thing to have some doubt. Another instinctive trait for survival. If humans believed everything other humans told them without question, then we would have been extinct long ago!

All I can tell the doubters is if you seriously want to know the truth once and for all, then you got to put in the time. Get out there in their backyards, be pure of heart with noble intentions, without any weapons and as non-threatening as possible, and if you are deemed worthy by them, then you will be granted the gift of a lifetime!

I always thought the footage looks good, it looks like a real animal to me. Having said that though, what I have learned about the back story has given me great pause. I'm on the fence now, it seems like the real deal, but considering nobody has come up with any footage since, and there are no decent pictures either...in the 45 years since...well, that seems almost too hard to believe, especially considering all the places people claim to be seeing BF. I'm waiting for something new to come to light.

I do think the stabilized footage looks good though.

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good point Austin and her massive legs seem to connect naturally to the rest of her body. That's a real problem for the suit-nicks (obviously).

:scratchhead:

I noticed this as well after watching the film for what must have been 24+ hours. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BlurryMonster

Things like thigh size are largely variable from person to person. I have incredibly thick thighs, for example; thicker than most girls of comparable height/weight. My legs actually look a lot like that picture of Patty. I also seem to share many other anatomical features usually given to bigfoot, like long arms (especially in comparison to my short legs), wide chest, and incredibly wide feet. I've even hairy, and I've been able to do the Patty walk since I was about eight. Am I a bigfoot? No, but I could probably pass for one if someone put an out of focus camera on me. I think people put way too much effort into talking about what is "definitely" bigfoot anatomy, or inhuman, or whatever, and what isn't.

By the way, I've also seen higher res versions of that same frame used to point out "obvious" indicators of a suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

I'd love to see what is passing for some as "higher res" images, Blurry. That would be interesting considering that such images do not exist as far as anyone knows.

Edit to Add: That's a great screen-name, btw, BlurryMonster. Too funny!! : )

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BlurryMonster

Well, it's not like the image was "high res," just higher resolution than that small black and white frame with very little detail. It was bigger and probably taken from one of the better copies of the film; I saw it on another forum, but for all I know, it's been posted here before. Either way, I was just pointing out how the same frame that someone uses as obvious proof can be used by someone else to show an obvious hoax.

And thanks for the compliment. I took the name from a

about bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

Hey! I've seen that guy on TV, he's funny. : ) The thought of a normally out-of-focus in pictures monster living in the woods is hilarious but, it might also be true. This image to me (including the legs) is extremely convincing:

post-131-0-20034600-1339650967_thumb.gif

(click)

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

I agree, the large thighs are impressive evidence that this creature is not BH suited up, and unlikely to be any other human suited up. It's really hard to pad up a thigh and keep it looking real.

However, the knee is better evidence, because if you pad up a knee at all it looks false at once. Joints are tricky.

So Patty's knee joint is an even better indication that this is a real, massive, unknown biped.The knee is proportionately massive, it's obviously hard and knee-like, and it visibly connects to the thigh and lower legs in the appropriate way for such a leg. It moves well.

No padded-up skinnier human leg would have such a convincingly massive knee-- padding alone would give a 'balloon-like' impression.

So, must we believe that Roger Patterson engineered a hard- material functioning knee unit to fit over BH's knee and under the suit? Or is it a real knee of very large proportion?

I think it has to be a real,non homo sapiens sapiens knee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have yet to see any "obvious" signs of a suite. Every single thing that has been pointed out as signs of a suite has been shown to exist in photographs of Gorilla's and other animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I agee, she looks like a live animal. An I have yet to see somethin' pointed out by skeptics that suggests a suit. The only "anomaly" I can see or think of is the horizontal thing across her upper thigh, however, I have seen a great many "anomalies" in other livin' animals, not the same, but "anomalies" unique to that particular animal. There's a ol' buck lives down near the beach, it was hit by a car a few years back, snapped its lower leg. It has healed over, the buck seems ta be fine, its lower leg is...well, it deffinately shows the damage it incurred. Just saw the buck the other day, now it has a large growth of sorts on it jaw line, simply another "anomaly" on a real animal. I've seen images of three legged gorillas, bears, cats an dogs, I've seen two headed turtles etc., nature does what it does. My opinion is she suffered a injury or somethin', because when I study her leg, it appears to function quite similar to my own leg. I'm more than impressed an sure what was filmed is indeed a sasquatch, my opinion...it's the real deal.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×