Sasquatch taxidermy

[norseman]

 

[Celtic Raider]

That was pretty neat to see but one thing I think it shows is that despite all the attention to detail, professional workshop, modern technologies etc. Even as a sceptic I can see that the hair effect is nowhere near the realism of what the PGF portrays which really does make me think more and more that that creature on film was probably a real, living creature.

[Marty]

I'm in agreement with Celtic, I've been drawing my own rendition of Patty over the last couple weeks by really studying her anatomy in the film and I can tell you that it's hard to replicate, she certainly isn't human shaped at all and her hair is more like a modern great Ape than merely a shaggy human. However the base shape for that model is really nice. 

[norseman]

I noticed the nose was gorilla like.

[9-dot]

I am somewhat disappointed with the result.

This version is unlike anything I have heard described by over 10 aquaintances with whom I have discussed sightings, unlike what I personally observed in my own sighting, and unlike the 10's (100's) of portrayals done by artists like Harvey Pratt and Sybilla Irwin from witnesses of sightings.  Perhaps the underwriters  are shooting for dramatic effect.  If so they are doing so at the risk of having their product prove obsolete tomorrow, next week, or next year.

BTW, Patty doen not fit in the myriad of descriptions by my me, my acquaintances, or the mentioned artists either!

(I want to thank norseman for frequently adding food for thought regarding the bigfoot issue.)

 

[MIB]

2 hours ago, 9-dot said:

BTW, Patty doen not fit in the myriad of descriptions by my me, my acquaintances, or the mentioned artists either!

 

Patty IS a fit for what I saw.  Not exact, but correct.    Patty is female.   Imagine her male counterpart if the species has marked sexual dimorphism.   Assume she's 7'3" to 7'6", then picture 10-1/2 feet with more bulk to the shoulders, less to the belly .. not a lot, but "it's there."    If she's 6'2" like some claim, then you get an even different picture with 10-1/2 feet.   Then, again starting with Patty, assume she's a slightly pudgy middle aged mom ... now picture the equivalent of her 13 year old son, her height, but still relatively spindly ... spindly like a human tight end or power forward. 

 

So .. dunno what these people you mention, or you, saw, but what I saw is biologically consistent with Patty.     That's why when I finally did see the P-G-F, it was a no-brainer to me: that's real, that's in the ballpark with what I'd expect the female matching the male or the mom matching the late juvenile / early adolescent I saw SHOULD look like.   I do not expect them to be cookie cutter duplicates in size, bulk, hair color or length, ... or temperment.   That's biology: look for bell curves.

 

MIB

[9-dot]

My understanding of Bigfoot anatomy compared to Patty:
Taller
Broader at the shoulders with better muscle definition- more prominent trapezius muscles
Slimmer at the waist – more chiseled physique
Like a middle linebacker – but on mega-steroids – huge pectoral muscles
True for females as well as males such that only close observation reveals feminine condition
Much less body hair – especially sparse on chest area and hanging from the bottom of the arms like fringe on a western leather jacket – definitely more like hair than fur
Sparse facial hair - frequently no facial hair

This description is consistent for 100’s of sightings with which I am familiar (perhaps with 1000’s that are available) of documented sightings.

I agree with your assessment that Patty might fit in a normal Bigfoot population distribution, but I surmise that Patty is far from the middle of that distribution – like at least two to three standard deviations from the middle of that bell curve.

Perhaps Patty was a short, paunchy, out of shape, middle aged female with a case of hypertrichosis.  (I may have a skewed understanding of Sasquatch anatomy due to my association with witnesses in the Rocky Mountains – if homotypic variation follows geography.)

In any case, the subject rendition is like neither Patty nor, in my opinion, my general idea of Bigfoot!

[xdivision]

On 4/13/2021 at 6:10 PM, MIB said:

 

Patty IS a fit for what I saw.  Not exact, but correct.    Patty is female.   Imagine her male counterpart if the species has marked sexual dimorphism.   Assume she's 7'3" to 7'6", then picture 10-1/2 feet with more bulk to the shoulders, less to the belly .. not a lot, but "it's there."    If she's 6'2" like some claim, then you get an even different picture with 10-1/2 feet.   Then, again starting with Patty, assume she's a slightly pudgy middle aged mom ... now picture the equivalent of her 13 year old son, her height, but still relatively spindly ... spindly like a human tight end or power forward. 

 

So .. dunno what these people you mention, or you, saw, but what I saw is biologically consistent with Patty.     That's why when I finally did see the P-G-F, it was a no-brainer to me: that's real, that's in the ballpark with what I'd expect the female matching the male or the mom matching the late juvenile / early adolescent I saw SHOULD look like.   I do not expect them to be cookie cutter duplicates in size, bulk, hair color or length, ... or temperment.   That's biology: look for bell curves.

 

MIB

Me as well. And I've seen more than one in each one was different than the other. The only region that I am familiar with is Northern California but from those I have spoke to that have had experiences in other areas of the United States and Canada and describe different physical features, behaviors which seem to denote specifics to location and the variances of species itself. Of course there are outliers.

Edited April 15, 2021 by xdivision
Spelling

[norseman]

1 hour ago, 9-dot said:

My understanding of Bigfoot anatomy compared to Patty:
Taller
Broader at the shoulders with better muscle definition- more prominent trapezius muscles
Slimmer at the waist – more chiseled physique
Like a middle linebacker – but on mega-steroids – huge pectoral muscles
True for females as well as males such that only close observation reveals feminine condition
Much less body hair – especially sparse on chest area and hanging from the bottom of the arms like fringe on a western leather jacket – definitely more like hair than fur
Sparse facial hair - frequently no facial hair

This description is consistent for 100’s of sightings with which I am familiar (perhaps with 1000’s that are available) of documented sightings.

I agree with your assessment that Patty might fit in a normal Bigfoot population distribution, but I surmise that Patty is far from the middle of that distribution – like at least two to three standard deviations from the middle of that bell curve.

Perhaps Patty was a short, paunchy, out of shape, middle aged female with a case of hypertrichosis.  (I may have a skewed understanding of Sasquatch anatomy due to my association with witnesses in the Rocky Mountains – if homotypic variation follows geography.)

In any case, the subject rendition is like neither Patty nor, in my opinion, my general idea of Bigfoot!

Does it make any sense to you that a fully grown female Sasquatch would be narrow in the waist?

 

Whats an average human baby at birth? 8 pounds? So if we extrapolate a baby four times bigger we get about a 32 pound baby.....

 

Your gonna need those Patty hips to deliver a 32 lbs baby! And giant pendulum breasts of Patty to FEED its voracious appetite.

 

If you have seen females with narrow hips and small breasts? Your looking at a pre teen adolescent. And not a full grown adult.

[norseman]

Also.... chiseled.

 

In human women, if a woman’s body fat drops to low? They will stop ovulating.

[Twist]

It’s not that easy to say a baby Sasquatch is just going to be 4 times a human.  We don’t see that type of proportions in Gorillas which on average are around 400lbs but baby’s are around 4lbs.   

[norseman]

27 minutes ago, Twist said:

It’s not that easy to say a baby Sasquatch is just going to be 4 times a human.  We don’t see that type of proportions in Gorillas which on average are around 400lbs but baby’s are around 4lbs.   

Males are. Females are 150-250 lbs but only 4.1-4.11 inches tall. They are also a knuckle walker with a completely different pelvic region.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

 

I openly admit that my extrapolated number is just conjecture.

 

But even with female Gorillas we see wide hips and large breasts. Certainly not a linebacker build. Which is my point. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twist]

My only point was that we cannot extrapolate 4x heavier adult equals a 4x heavier baby.

[norseman]

25 minutes ago, Twist said:

My only point was that we cannot extrapolate 4x heavier adult equals a 4x heavier baby.

But we can! Whats bigger? A killer whale calf or a Dolphin calf? And by how much? 50 lbs vs 350 lbs.

 

Its a natural rule of thumb. The bigger the species the bigger the offspring. Of course there are exceptions. 
 

With an unknown species? Its all conjecture. 

But I would bet my bottom dollar that a BF baby is considerably larger than a human baby at birth. And that its growth rate is much faster as well.

 

Turkana boy was what? 5’10”?

[9-dot]

Thisis a sketch done by Sybilla Irwin from interviewing a witness.  If it were a photo would you think male or female?

It was a female - see BFRO Report #26522.