I’ve read books, Skeptical Inquirer articles and have seen most of the documentaries (actual and pseudo) that feature Roger Patterson’s “fortuitous” film footage of the “Bigfoot” slowly sauntering off into the woods. Most of the time these focus on things like the digitally zoomed-in face, the bottom of the feet (which appear to be white, to my eye) and kinetic studies of the subject in the film’s walk compared to a human’s walk. These kinetic studies, however, are always flawed from the very start, as I have never seen one studying the stride of human in a monkey suit compared to the stride of the subject in the film. Comparing the subject in the film with a guy in shorts and a pair of Nikes on a treadmill makes about as much sense as studying the stride of a stilt-walker in a parade to that of a person not wearing stilts and conclude the stilt-walker couldn’t be human because the guy not on stilts can’t duplicate the subject’s stride!
But something I’ve long noticed about the subject in the film, but haven’t seen mentioned anywhere (although I may have missed it or forgotten about it) is the buttocks area. Specifically the separation between the left and right buttocks, or should I say the lack of separation between the two butt cheeks! To put it crudely, the subject in the Patterson film has no butt crack.
But simians have butt cracks:
But the subject in the Patterson film has no butt crack:
And there’s that lily white foot bottom (with no arches or separation between toes) that one would think would get dirty from years of walking in the woods barefoot! But back to the butt…
The moving film version shows the lack of a butt crack clearer.
Obviously a man in a suit is much less likely to have a butt crack than a living biped.
I just wanted to post this to see if this obvious discrepancy has ever been mentioned in any skeptical literature and, if so, how do the true believers in either Bigfoot or the Patterson film explain away the lack of a butt crack.