Bigfoot Depictions Vs. Reality

[Doug]

Do you know where that info is? I would like to re-read it now that I have some interest in it.

[Doug]

I figured out as to where I came up with the rework of that from of the film. I thought I read it, however, I believe now, that I saw it on Youtube under the title "MKDavis Discusses The Paterson Film Frame 352". After listening to and watch the video, I realized that it is where I got that info from. I'm not a big M K Davis fan, but, he seems to have the info to back up his claim of it being altered. 

[hiflier]

That's, interesting, Doug. I can look it up but a link would help things. Probably saw it already somewhere in my past senior memory  

Edited August 11, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

17 hours ago, Doug said:

I figured out as to where I came up with the rework of that from of the film. I thought I read it, however, I believe now, that I saw it on Youtube under the title "MKDavis Discusses The Paterson Film Frame 352". After listening to and watch the video, I realized that it is where I got that info from. I'm not a big M K Davis fan, but, he seems to have the info to back up his claim of it being altered. 

 

If there is a version of frame 352 out there that has been “altered”? It’s still going to be more accurate than a artist sketch. Unless someone photoshopped bunny ears onto it or something like that. It’s pretty easy to tell...

[SWWASAS]

Too many of the drawings look too much like each other.   Too much artist interpretation going on in my opinion.     I have not had a face to face with an adult BF but I have with a juvenile.   That alone makes me wonder if there is more than one species or major variations because of the differences with that juvenile and Patty.   I am sitting here comparing an  8 x 10 of the juvenile with Patty.   The juvenile has what looks like a mohawk of hair running over a brow ridge that is way more exaggerated than Patties crested head.   Mostly hair that seems to be at least 2 inches standing straight up as would a human with a mohawk.   It almost looks as if it has been groomed to stand up that way.    Patty's head is conical but the juveniles is more pronounced.    Short furry ears seem to be in view where as Patty does not have visible ears.     The light color on Patty's face is across her eyes.      The juvenile is nearly black with a  bright pink patch in the nose area.   Its eyes are large and very dark.    No white showing.   It is just hard for me to extrapolate the juvenile looking like Patty as an adult.    Of course hair color and skin color likely change with age and sun exposure.   When we see pictures of human children they often remind us of their parents.    Of course genetic deviation or even malformation due to inbreeding may well be very prevalent in isolated BF populations.    One would think such malformations would be much more common than with a large and diverse human population.    I have wanted a look at an adult to compare with the juvenile.    That may give me more insight as to what happens as they age.  

 

Just comparing the eyes and nose of the juvenile to the blowup of Patty.    The location of the eyes and nose to each other are similar.    But Patty has a prominent nose and the juvenile has a flat looking nose.    Childrens noses are smaller then tend to grow as an adult but I cannot see the flat nose of the juvenile getting the shape of Patty's even with growth. 

Edited August 12, 2019 by SWWASAS

[Twist]

Looking at the diversity in our facial features I don’t think much can be taken from the 2 examples you have to work with SWWASAS.   Not enough sample size.  

[SWWASAS]

That is very true.      Not enough good pictures around to make much of a comparison.    

[Twist]

Nope,  is the 8x10 you have one you drew yourself or had drawn by an artist?   I don’t recall seeing it, if I do a search would it be found here?

[SWWASAS]

It is a picture I took during an encounter.   Not published here as holding it back in case I decide to write a book and do not want to have copyright issues.   Those issues were discussed on another thread by someone knowledgeable with photography copyright issues and from what he said I am glad I have not put it on the forum.     As I mentioned, should anyone run into me at a BF convention I normally have the picture with me and will show it as long as it is not out of my possession.    It does not show much more than the head and one arm.  

[Twist]

Sounds interesting.

[Arvedis]

22 hours ago, Doug said:

I figured out as to where I came up with the rework of that from of the film. I thought I read it, however, I believe now, that I saw it on Youtube under the title "MKDavis Discusses The Paterson Film Frame 352". After listening to and watch the video, I realized that it is where I got that info from. I'm not a big M K Davis fan, but, he seems to have the info to back up his claim of it being altered. 

 

There's an old adage in bigfootery. Ignore everything that MK Davis says.

[Doug]

I take most of this stuff with a grain of salt. Especially all the Youtube stuff. Anyway, norseman's point about drawings verses photos is pretty much spot on.

[Huntster]

On 8/12/2019 at 10:31 AM, SWWASAS said:

..........It does not show much more than the head and one arm.  

 

But does it show the face with any clarity?

[Madison5716]

There's an artist named Satanfudge who does amazing bigfoot artwork, primarily faces. I think they are based off of reports? Pure awesomeness. 

 

https://satanfudge.com/sasquatch/

[Wolfjewel]

5th from the top, right side, is a very “ethnic” looking face that could relate to what Native Americans have seen as a people. Different from the ape-like ones.