Patterson’s “Bigfoot” Footage - A Cheeky Question
Posted: 16 December 2007 09:31 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1064
Joined  2007-06-20

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: 

GorillaBack2.jpg

GorillaBack.jpg

But the subject in the Patterson film has no butt crack:

PattersonBack2.jpg

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.

[ Edited: 16 December 2007 09:33 PM by Rocinante ]
 Signature 

There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.

—James Madison

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2008 03:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4622
Joined  2007-10-05

I never thought of that angle, but you make an excellent point. How would the poor thing defecate?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2008 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
fotobits - 15 January 2008 03:28 PM

I never thought of that angle, but you make an excellent point. How would the poor thing defecate?

I think he’d have to take off the costume pants ...

wink

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2008 04:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  80
Joined  2008-01-14

Very impressive! That’s the fastest, most succinct and to the point debunking I’ve ever seen.

I never thought of that, but now you point it out, it couldn’t be clearer. I just regret I can’t take it over to the site-that-shall-not-be-named to open the eyes of some of the more credulous junior cryptozoologists!  LOL

 Signature 

People say we need religion when what they really mean is we need police.—H.L. Mencken
Split hairs, not atoms.

Profile