I've read many of the numerous sightings available, and am continuing to do so.
Something strikes me as a loose pattern. That being that maybe one in twenty talk about the animal being on all fours, for a period of the sighting.
I've also seen other forums that speak rather incidentally about this. As if it was a mode of locomotion exhibited by sasquatch.
I don't want to stir up any conflicts,.I've recently learned that one can do that regarding some subjects, on some forums. I'm new to the community and am apolitical.I want only friends in the sasquatch community. But I have to ask, because I have to learn. So if my questions come off as ignorant, it's because I am.
Are there 2 schools of thought on this? Does sasquatch sometimes walk as a quadruped? And if so, how does a gait like that work?
I'm trying as a bipedal creature, to imagine myself operating as a quadruped. It seems a really difficult thing. A hinged foot may help, I guess.
Does anyone have any thoughts?

Its really not that difficult at all. If you spend enough time in the woods off trail you find yourself at a point where getting down on all fours is the only way to procede.

As for bf, I've heard enough reports to convince me that while it may not be the preferred method of travel, it is nonetheless one that they will used from time to time.

I am in agreement with Bitter Monk. This was something that I wondered about when I first started reading sighting reports. I am convinced that they do this at times and from what I have read can move very quickly on all 4 if need be. Another thing that I have noticed is that the arm length versus leg length seems about right to give them a very flat and level back if they were to drop to all 4's. Something that humans don't have if they adopt this posture.

Could it be that they can move faster on all 4 rather then on just 2 ?
Most animals that can move both on all 4 or just 2 like Bears, Apes, Monkeys (All I can think of off the top of my head) move much faster on 4 rather then just 2 legs.

Then you take in the fact that moving threw the thick woods is easier the lower you are and again it seems that on all 4 would be the smart way to move threw it.
Then also going up a steep hill again 4 legs would work much better then 2 also.

So maybe they just use what ever is beat at that time. Maybe they are a ambidextrous but instead of being both right and let handed they are both legs and arms lol.

Keep in mind several more good reasons to drop to all fours ... it lowers your center of gravity and reduces your profile.

It's pretty easy to follow a human running through the woods, the bulk of their body mass is 5 feet off the ground (mostly because that's our height of eye too). It's a lot more difficult to follow something only 3 to 4 feet off the ground where there is more ground clutter.

Plus on all fours, you stand a much better chance of recovering from a slip or trip.

If Bigfoot is a bipedal like we are, it is going to have as much difficulty moving quickly on all-fours as we do.

DesertYeti, can you comment on this?

From the kinematic studies of Patty, BF does not appear to be a biped like we are. Their hips, knees, ankles, and feet work differently. There may be enough play in those bones and tendons to allow both types of locomotion.

The comments above indicate some speculators think Patty's arms are long enough so her back would be straight when on all fours. This would be similar to other apes but a definite departure from a human on all fours, allowing for much easier quadrupedal locomotion.

Quadrupedal locomotion in all non-human hominids relies on using the long arms to support the bulk of the animal's preacetabular weight (the part of the body above the hip socket). All human-like hominids (australopithecines and species of Homo) have shorter arms than quadrupedal, faculative bipedal apes, and have modified the pelvic girdle to the point where quadrupedal locomotion is all but impossible on the ground (unless the knees are used). The shorter, wider preacetabular blade of the ilium (the main blade of the hip bone) means that rearing up from a quadrupedal stance is also more difficult for a human than an ape since the shorther moment arm of the muscles means that more exertion needs to be applied. From the available sample of fossils and living hominids, it seems that there never really was a part-time biped. Australopithecines were already well adated to bipedal terrestrial locomotion (possibly as a carry-over from bipedal arboreal locomotion).

Looking at Patty, her arms are well within the australo.-human range of length, and nothing at all like what would be expected from a partially-quadrupedal hominid like a gorilla or chimp. Her torso is long, and the pelvis is quite wide (compared to the very narrow pelvic region of Great Apes), with a huge buttocks, suggesting that it is not at all designed for rearing up from a quadrupedal stance. Bears, apes, and even some dinosaurs had very similar pelvic adaptations for this behavior, despite being not at all related. So, Patty from all apparances has the arms, pelvis, butt, and legs of a fully-committed biped.

Is her gait truly different from a modern Homo sapiens?
Welllllll...maybe, maybe not...the flex-kneed gait is common to all people in a fast walk-about to run. Watch someone trying to catch a train or cab. Her pelvis appears to be the same as a human, and her feet are obscured by braches (though her tracks reveal a lot of flexibility in midfoot). Is any (or all) of this biomechanically significant? Can't tell for sure. Recent speculation that Australopithecus afarensis walked with a flex-kneed walk has been thrown around in the literature, and even there, the case is far from settled. And we have specimens of the thing!
Now, if only we could check Patty's knuckles for callusses and enlarged pads...

Bob Zenor's recent film analysis is revealing that the P-G figure has a smooth bipedal gait that appears human-like. It is also suggesting the height at around 6 foot.

BEH, those little pictures are cool. Can they be made larger?

hmm..I don't know of any human that walks naturally in this way. The arm swing is very unnatural for a human and the heavy footsteps look deliberate. Indeed for me that is the most problematic aspect of the PG film- the creature seems to be plodding along with deliberately heavy footfalls. However this is a massive animal/'human' so it may not be surprising that the dynamics does not follow that of homo sapiens.

As for the quadraped thing- the evidence doesn't support that it regularly walks on fours. Were are all of the hand prints? It may adopt a quadrapedal position on some occasions- perhaps deliberatley when crossing roads created by man to imitate other species. My persoanl opinion is that this is a highly intelligent being- perhaps even some variation of the homo line- some variation of human.

I believe that BF does have the ability to go quad at will. But I also think that there is a deference in the species, i.e sub species, that change in the enviroment. I also was thinking that as BF gets older That he does not drop to all 4s but only walks, and I base this on are own older population. A lot off older people for get that they have trunk rotation, and only turn there heads, and befor they know it its gone. It this is true, then Quadruped, might be somthing for the younger males, not the older ones. or Again more prevelent in a sub species of BF.

Exactly! I've said the same thing in other threads. The arms are swinging in an exaggerated way that doesn't coincide with the gait. The arms are swung too far back and then flung too far forward for the length of the stride. Patterson wanted a walk that would look like his mental image of a Bigfoot. Heironimus did this by swinging his arms just like everybody else did back then when imitating an ape. It only had to please Patterson, who thought it would fool an audience. The footsteps are more of the same, and probably was partly necessary because of the big clunky feet. Heironimus had to be careful about tripping or stumbling.



Maybe not so massive in life. But trying to look massive and imposing. That would have been the look Patterson had in mind.

What I meant by the "smoothness' of the gait is that the figure doesn't seem to alter its rhythm or tempo of gait. It doesn't seem to speed up or change its course.

^ HERETIC! Burn him at the stake!

Get in line!

B E H. Are you saying you dont believe in BF?

Dragoon, I am skeptical of the existence of Bigfoot. That should be no surprise. I would never think that the animal could not exist. I'm searching for quality evidence that works for me. I haven't found it yet. I don't think the P-G film is real. But even so, that in itself doesn't rule out Bigfoot. Even if every single sighting and piece of evidence is false it doesn't rule out the potential reality of the animal.

It is very disconcerting to see evidence hoaxed and other things boldly misinterpreted by those who are true believers. Why do that? To me, the Kiamichi site is ridiculous. They show deer carcass with a neck wound and a suspiciously broken leg. They describe it as a Bigfoot kill, in which the animal reached in through a slit in the neck and pulled out organs. This obviously didn't happen and the photo shows an intact abdomen with nothing missing. The story of the Siege on Honobia seems to describe this deer kill. But it talks about blood being everywhere and we see nothing like that in the photo. Man, if I was going to pull a hoax like this I'd at least slice the belly open (on the side you can't see) and pull out some guts! Then they show a dog skeleton while describing the Loud Hissers. Where is that skeleton and why hasn't it been offered to science as a new undescribed species? What kind of a freaking game is being played?

I mean, if you can't produce an actual Bigfoot at least offer some evidence that is real. If you've got garbage, at least spare the people the heartache of showing it. Don't post blobsquatches anywhere, please!

Ok Now I understand where you are coming from. I agree with you 100%.
I dont know why there are PEOPLE out there that think it is the coolest thing to make a Fake claim. In my book, there are nothing but a DREG.

B E H. I have had my own experiance with BF. I wish I could take you to the place where I no there is BF activity, but the place is not open to the public. Thoe it is around FT Lewis WASH. Iam in AZ now and not in the military, there is BF here, just have to find it.. I think my best guess would be out on the rim. Thoe Iam trying to work out a time to get to northen Calia and Wash, Mostly for the fresh Seafood, but to also spend a little time looking.

A friend of mine moved to Missouri, so i was thinking a bout a trip out that way some time in the next two years. I know there are a crap load of caves in Missouri, so could be a good BF sight.

All I really want from Kiamichi is for them to change the music. When I'm looking at a dead deer and Tee Pees I'd rather hear "When the Levee Breaks". A nice Jimmy Page riff would be much nicer than that X-Files heebie-jeebie stuff.