Jump to content

Patty's Possible Face without Hair


Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor
4 minutes ago, OldMort said:

 

What has always stood out for me about the face is it's rather pale pigmentation.

 

Is this really the shade of skin that one would expect on exposed skin after a long summer of frolicking in the great outdoors?

 

Perhaps their skin is different from humans in that it does not produce melanin which darkens the skin serving as a buffer against harmful UV radiation.

 

Gimlin described Patty (and I paraphrase here) as having the leathered bronzed skin of a Native American.

 

Sticking to the film and what's on it, I don't see that. The face appears to be that of a paleface and is the lightest part of the creature in most available copies and still images. I guess that perhaps the facial area has been lightened in many images in order to pull out more available detail of its features.

 

I realize also that when film is copied over and over that contrast builds up and perhaps that's why we are seeing this effect. I believe I have read that same explanation being offered as to why the skin of the feet is also extremely pale. Makes sense to a degree. One explanation of the white feet that I'm not a fan of is that they were white because of the white sand that was stuck to the bottom of the soles. So the sand at Bluff Creek was white as snow when it needs it to be - yet other times - a bluish grey when it suits a different argument? But that's a separate debate entirely and for another time.  

 

For any members who have seen a sasquatch in person or have read a ton of witness reports, how would you describe the color of the exposed skin? Is there any kind of consensus?

 

 

 

 

 

 


I think it’s hard to extrapolate skin color from the PGF. But a couple of thoughts. Chimps seem to have skin color from white to dark. Some people claim that the more hair you have the less color your skin has. Certainly Europeans are hairy and white. But Mountain Gorillas have dark skin and are hairy. So there may be more at work with that theory. 
 

Also, if Bigfoot inhabits the dark forests of North America? How much sun light are they really getting? If your hanging out in the Olympics or Vancouver Island or the California redwoods? I bet not much. Probably so much so? That on a hot summer day your probably hiding in a cool crick bottom. Like a Bear would.

 

Hard to say.

 


image.jpeg

 

image.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

I agree with what Old Mort said about lighter tones getting lighter with each subsequent copy.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
13 minutes ago, gigantor said:

@Huntster thinks Patty is hot, I'm sure he'll want to see this.  :lol:

 

As do I, g, as do I. In fact, if she hadn't been completely covered in hair? Why, I'd be out there looking for her to this very day ;) 

Edited by hiflier
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 minute ago, hiflier said:

As do I, g, as do I. In fact, if she hadn't been completely covered in hair I be out there looking for her to this very day ;) 


That’s why they invented clippers..... they even have cordless ones now. Just in case your hirsute mate doesn’t wanna leave the woods behind.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trogluddite
BFF Donor

^^ Another great point and part of what I was seeing (with my eyes) but couldn't articulate.  If you had a casting call for a film noire "heavy" muscle guy who flexes, grunts, and looks menacing, then glued hair to that actor's face that's what I see.  And poorly glued at that, as there's a clear white circle around the mouth.   (NOTE: I'm not saying that's what it is.)

 

Its like that optical illusion where you only see the old crone until you see the beautiful young lady in the exact same drawing.  I can "see" the ape face and how it makes sense, but whenever I watch the film, I only the burly, sulky film noire heavy w/an 8:00 PM shadow.  Actually, Charles Bronson just came to mind as an example.  And like Old Mort I see a very, very white guy (like maybe a local barfly from the pacific northwest who isn't out in the sun doing a lot of work.  

 

Mind you, I'm not saying that any of these perceptions - either individually or collectively - "clinches" the conclusion that the PGF is a fraud.  They just bug me. And I just watched the stabilized clip again and noticed that any light colored areas in the film appear to be bleached out, like they're lighter than the should be.

 

And I also realize that adding some sort of facial make-up to the "suit" theory brings in a whole other set of complications and unlikely scenarios.  Very frustrating....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Believer57
BFF Donor
Posted (edited)

Here is an interesting comparison between Patty's proposed hairless look and the latest image from Steve Isdahl's channel of a kneeling bigfoot through a window.

Clear Sasquatch Face Photo Family Terrorized

 

BigfootKneeling.jpg

PattysFaceMirror.jpg

Edited by Believer57
Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
19 hours ago, norseman said:


I think it’s hard to extrapolate skin color from the PGF. But a couple of thoughts. Chimps seem to have skin color from white to dark. Some people claim that the more hair you have the less color your skin has. Certainly Europeans are hairy and white. But Mountain Gorillas have dark skin and are hairy. So there may be more at work with that theory. 
 

Also, if Bigfoot inhabits the dark forests of North America? How much sun light are they really getting? If your hanging out in the Olympics or Vancouver Island or the California redwoods? I bet not much. Probably so much so? That on a hot summer day your probably hiding in a cool crick bottom. Like a Bear would.

 

Hard to say.

 


image.jpeg

 

image.jpeg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pic of the chimp shows some hair pattern of that of a real-life chimp.  Those hair patterns are not so thick where they look like a fur carpet.  Instead, they are more of a combed hair look with a little 'scalp' showing through.  I can observe a lot of variation in that dark hair.  I see this same effect in the PGF on Patty.  Others may not.  Yes, the detail I claim to somewhat see in the PGF is not at the level of detail in this chimp picture.  I get that.  In this pic of the chimp, the armpits on the viewing left (chimps right) and the whole right side (chimps actual left) look dark or blacker.  The other areas like the pectoral (chest) look less dense.  Some of this is based on body area and some of it is based on the amount of light hitting the body.

 

The fact I can see this type of effect on Patty makes me think Patty is either 1) natural (real) or 2) mimics well what is seen in the natural world (great fake).  

 

The face and head shape is hard to make out for me anyway.  I don't know how much mouth movements and other claimed detail could really be determined on the PGF with any accuracy other than generalized.  I would think of it this way:  Whatever level of detail we can see on the Jim McClarin walk is about the amount of detail I would think we could expect to see on Patty.  If Jim has a detailed focus grade school grade of, say, a C+ or B- on seeing detail, then I would think claiming Patty is a B+ or A- would be a stretch.  By that same token though, a skeptic claiming the detail is an D- or an F grade is equally inaccurate.

 

See the source image

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
11 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

The pic of the chimp shows some hair pattern of that of a real-life chimp.  Those hair patterns are not so thick where they look like a fur carpet.  Instead, they are more of a combed hair look with a little 'scalp' showing through.  I can observe a lot of variation in that dark hair.  I see this same effect in the PGF on Patty.  Others may not.  Yes, the detail I claim to somewhat see in the PGF is not at the level of detail in this chimp picture.  I get that.  In this pic of the chimp, the armpits on the viewing left (chimps right) and the whole right side (chimps actual left) look dark or blacker.  The other areas like the pectoral (chest) look less dense.  Some of this is based on body area and some of it is based on the amount of light hitting the body.

 

The fact I can see this type of effect on Patty makes me think Patty is either 1) natural (real) or 2) mimics well what is seen in the natural world (great fake).  

 

The face and head shape is hard to make out for me anyway.  I don't know how much mouth movements and other claimed detail could really be determined on the PGF with any accuracy other than generalized.  I would think of it this way:  Whatever level of detail we can see on the Jim McClarin walk is about the amount of detail I would think we could expect to see on Patty.  If Jim has a detailed focus grade school grade of, say, a C+ or B- on seeing detail, then I would think claiming Patty is a B+ or A- would be a stretch.  By that same token though, a skeptic claiming the detail is an D- or an F grade is equally inaccurate.

 

See the source image


I think in your comparison with Jim McClarin who is 6’6” tall says everything. Look at her bulk. Look at how the root wad root lines up with both right legs of each subject. They line up dang close. I can also see calf muscles working with Patty. Back muscles. Foot flex. Etc, etc.

 

If it’s a costume? Who is wearing it because it’s NOT Bob Heronimous. It’s someone way bigger. Probably in the 1% of humanity in giantness.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wooly Booger
1 hour ago, norseman said:


I think in your comparison with Jim McClarin who is 6’6” tall says everything. Look at her bulk. Look at how the root wad root lines up with both right legs of each subject. They line up dang close. I can also see calf muscles working with Patty. Back muscles. Foot flex. Etc, etc.

 

If it’s a costume? Who is wearing it because it’s NOT Bob Heronimous. It’s someone way bigger. Probably in the 1% of humanity in giantness.

Exactly. Unless Roger Patterson hired a 7ft muscle bound stuntman or professional wrestler, then it would be nigh on impossible for Patty to be a man in a suit. And size is just one factor to take into consideration. Never mind body proportions and movement. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Celtic Raider
On 3/25/2021 at 8:53 PM, norseman said:

I think it’s hard to extrapolate skin color from the PGF. But a couple of thoughts. Chimps seem to have skin color from white to dark. Some people claim that the more hair you have the less color your skin has. Certainly Europeans are hairy and white. But Mountain Gorillas have dark skin and are hairy. So there may be more at work with that theory.

 

Not to be pedantic or anything but Chimpanzees usually have light skin colour when young but it goes dark with age and almost all older chimpanzees have black skin or very dark skin on their faces. Doesn't happen with gorillas though 🙂

 

The model of the face that Jeff Meldrum had a photo taken next to was about the best realistic likeness I've seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...