I saw this video, of course I've probably seen it before, which slows down and shows the thigh muscle flexing as Patty plants her right foot. I went back and watched the full film and I never noticed how clearly you can see the muscle flex in two consecutive steps on the film. I read somewhere that this was pointed out to Bob H. and he claimed that it was his keys shifting in his pocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5tvXoGQ4UI&NR=1

Full film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o...feature=related

Keys seen shifting.... through horse hide?

what do you call it when a muscle tears and the under bits kinda squish out. Is that a hernia? Can you have them on your thigh? cause that muscle movement just didn't look right at all to me. Ouchie!

It'd be called a rupture, or a tear (but a tear wouldn't be visible like that) but there are no under bits to squish out in that area. I agree there's a funny-looking spot on her thigh, but I don't think it's a muscle tear... for it to be that prominent, it would have to be a complete rupture, and fairly recent, and her gait's way too normal for that to be the case. If it were a ruptured quad muscle it would have to be and old injury, and the muscle would have atrophied so much that it wouldn't be that visible, especially through the hair.

Maybe she's old enough that she's actually lost muscle mass and gained fat, and that's just an odd fat deposit...maybe it's just an anomaly on the film itself (like so many other things that have been "found" after the image has been enlarged--let's remember that Patty's height on the original piece of film itself is only 2 millimeters)... but it's not a ruptured quad.

You can see the hamstrings contract when the foot hits the ground. I love that.

I think what we are seeing is that the thigh muscle is just so huge and pronounced that as she plants her foot the muscle bulges out above the knee, much like you would see in an athlete or weightlifters leg muscles.

The thigh muscle is one of the things that looks real to me on Patty............ I just still can't believe the face though......... always looks like a scarf pulled in front of her face to me.

I saw this video while watching the ones linked.

That guy is lucky he didn't kill someone...............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjPqsVxCRlQ&NR=1

Those can't be real rounds can they? Entertaining though for sure!

I thought the 'Hernia' was theorized to be A. the fingers disturbing the fur as they pass by or B. Pixelization in the film.

Now there's a guy that bf needs to tear "limb from branch". Idiot.

What a moron!

Ooooh! I can't believe I get to be the first one to nominate him for the Darwin Awards!

I don't know about the hernia but what is obvious is that it isn't a costume

After watching this film about a zillion times and again here at the posted links the thing that stands out to me is how the back of the head and the crest hair flows into the back area in such a natural way as well as what appears as a hair flow line down the center of the back to the top of the butt..IMO so unlike what I would expect a '60s suit to look like based on suit photos I have seen.

Also the snapping back of the head to look where it is going after the look back also looks so unlike a man in a suit.

This has probably been brought up before so I apologize in advance if it has.

I agree that the dark hairline down the middle shoulders (elongated triangle or hackels) does flow beautifully. it would either have to be incorporated as part of a long hood that is somehow held down in a way that seams are inconspicious. That is one of the still problematic details that suitniks need to explain.

That bulge you are seeing occured in 1/16th of a second?

I just finished reading all 29 pages of the infamous Dfoot's Skeptical info re: PG film, the OFFICIAL thread for Dfoot's 'suit investigation' (It took me a week. Read a bit, take an aspirin.....read a bit, take and aspirin...)

It's footage like this in the youtube video that nightscream posted that makes me wonder how anyone would think that that's somebody wearing a comstume or that it's padding. Nevermind someone actually admitting to wearing the suit.

--------------------

"As the evening sky faded from a salmon colour to a sort of flint gray, I thought back to the salmon I caught that morning, and how gray he was, and how I named him Flint." -- Jack Handy

I see the buckling of a rubber hip wader-type boot beneath a covering of hair, so I wonder how folks can look at this sequence and think that's not a suit. This is actually the most damning sequence of frames I've seen on Patty in a long time.

If anything, I see an indentation on the side of Patty's leg, and sort of a triangular bulge framed by the "hamstring", that weird ball on the side of her knee, and the lateral bulge on the upper thigh (the "top of the boot"). I know this is apples and oranges, but just check out kind of the same area of a well-muscled athlete's leg in motion in the attached jpg. For one, the quad bows out, not in as in Patty, and the main muscle mass attaches to tendons behind and on the side of the knee joint so that there is a smooth decrease in muscle mass toward that joint. This is not the case with Patty in which there's a big lump right behind and to the side of the same joint. She doesn't limp in the footage, so all this talk about "ruptures" and "hernias" doesn't seem to square with the evidence of fluid motion on film.

Another big difference is that what folks are interpreting as the "hamstring" is both in the wrong place and way too big, even for Patty. Look at the runner. Only a small portion of his distal (toward the knee) hamstring is even visible; it certainly doesn't frame his thigh when viewed in profile as does Patty's. Next, compare the cross sectional area of his hamstring (tiny) to that of Patty (look's like a good 2" in diameter).

Click to view attachment

This is not "Saskeptic's attempt to debunk the PGF" or anything silly like that. I just wanted to find a way to illustrate my interpretation of the "apparent muscle contraction" alleged in the film. My background in this is based in some anatomy (from about 22 years ago, so take with a grain of salt) and my experience from a few summers of hiking for miles and miles in some very rugged Appalachian terrain in hip waders. The rubber waders bend and buckle in all sorts of weird ways - they don't conform to the muscle action of the legs inside.

Just because there's movement under Patty's fur doesn't mean that it's muscle movement. The link to the You Tube sequence in this thread illustrates, to me at least, features far more congruent with a hip wader boot than with the moving muscles and tendons of the leg of a bipedal hominid.

Carry on.


PS: Don't mean to pick on you, TheGooch. I'm just spelling out another view on these few frames from the PGF. Welcome to the BFF!

Thank you very much for the welcome, Saskeptic. And I don't feel picked on at all.

While I was reading some older post on here, (this forum ROCKS!!!) I ran across this one.

I guess the debate will rage on.

--------------------

The government will be requiring new food labels that are more specific. Products will now be labeled: no fat; low fat; reduced fat; and fat, but great personality.

C'mon, everyone knows what the bulge is. It's Bob Heironimus' chewing tobacco wad that he mistakenly stuffed in the wader's right pocket.

It's her quadricep.

1. "The bulge" is one thing that strikes me as odd.

2. The gait. Patty walks like a big man, and doesn't walk either like a female or have the smooth "cross country skier" gait people describe seeing in BF

3. The turn of the head. The low neck people describe seeing on BF, with the huge back of the neck muscles (trapezius) limit a full head turn like that, and people often say that BF's have to turn most of the upper body to look behind them. This is one detail that is consistent in sightings with the actual expected musculature of an earlier form of Homo, in gorillas and chimps they have to look up as well as around to look behind them, or actually turn the whole body as people often describe in BF.

The bulge or hernia is IMO neither. It is the effect of the hand brushing across the thigh and ruffling the fur. Try watching a good quality loop of the bulge and the motion of the hand as it comes down to the thigh. There is evidence that I've seen where the same effect is present as Patter gets to where she's in the trees right after frame 352.

Her head leads only slightly before her entire upper torso turns.



Edited to add: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6boWouLfe8...feature=related

Vilnoori :

" The gait. Patty walks like a big man, and doesn't walk either like a female or have the smooth "cross country skier" gait people describe seeing in BF"



well how is a Bigfoot female supose to walk like? Pamela Anderson? =o i dont think so. and Btw i want LONGTABBER, Mr. " The real deal" to put his Sience mind aside just for a short period...and watch the videos of the thigh movement again,,,,, and again,,, and again,,,x10 you are allways derailing the emotional part. this is a chalange to you. be emotional for once,, look at it.. x20 times. can you see what we see or is it just a bunch of numbers flying around, ?



watch it,... again,,, and again. look closely. use your inner caveman. bring it forth.

Btw explain how the " buttcrack " and Glutes flexing can be seen thru this so called " suit " mr Real Deal 1.03 and forward . watch it... over and over again,,, and again. and AGAIN.. it doesent make any sence.. Bob H in a Horse hide suit? HAHAHA ! yea right



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PaAVmvbRxw...feature=related

I know, I've given some consideration to the idea that maybe sasquatch females don't have the feminine pelvic adaptations that we have. But it was the first thing that struck me, the incongruity of the male gait and the feminine ahem..equipment.

I'm still undecided on the "suit" but starting to lean more toward hoax. That doesn't mean to say I disregard everyone's sightings and experiences, each one is judged on it's own merit.