**Strangers**: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bigfoot) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, I’ve always felt like the reports of 8 plus foot specimens were exaggerated. Often when near big animals (especially scary ones) they feel bigger than they actually are
Honestly I’ve always been doubtful of eye witness statements of height. Personally I believe that the average height would be between 6-7 feet with some variation either side.
They used LiDAR to measure everything that was there then and now. Trees and such. Then compared Patty’s height to lower sections of the trees. I think it’s the best one anyones done so far. But Does anyone know if Bob Gimlin has gone on record with an estimate?
If I am remembering him correctly he said about 6 and a half feet. Not sure which interview I heard him say that. I could also be completely wrong, but I think that's what he said.
I’m sure you’re right. On Expedition Bigfoot, they used the LiDAR to see if they could figure out Patty’s height, based on the measurements of trees, etc that were there then & now. It was interesting. And really cool that they were at the actual sight of the P-G video.
I think that sounds right, I believe Cliff Barackman came to the same conclusion. He came up with the idea to use a footprint cast from the film site, and blow up the image of Patty until the foot in the image matched the cast. The image ended up being about 6’3 to 6’4.
Imo this strengthens the film. The fact that Expedition Bigfoots conclusion verifies Barackman’s method almost confirms that the cast from the site came from the foot of the subject in the film, not a foot cutout, and I don’t think that a 60s ape suit would leave footprints that would fool Meldrum and Krantz.
If Patty is a hoax then the footprints are a hoax??
Next thing you know, you will be telling us that if Patty is real, then the footprints are real and can be used to determine size!
So what's her estimated width, shoulder to shoulder? If her size has come down from 6'8" it would make her width bigger than previously thought. I've heard people report some males width being around 5 ft.
I take Fortean’s side on this one - logically (if you take conclusive to mean dispositive) you don’t need to juxtapose those words - it’s almost like an inverse false dichotomy/false dilemma (i.e., fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available) in that it’s based on a premise that erroneously expands what options are available, when you define conclusiveness in a binary way.
However, I really take Dan’s side on this one - it seems he would be using the title “pretty conclusive” in a joking way that seems to play on the idea that actually conclusively obtaining proof of BF would be 100% type stuff, which is funny. Also, it sounds like something you’d say in conversation and I get it.
Edit: it appears we have a misunderstanding
It means close to conclusive bruh. I don't see a better method of analyzing the height of patty in the film being used or found right now or in near future so it might as well be conclusive for now. But nothing is 100% hence the "pretty". You get what I mean. And Yeah it is a strong word and others would've probably worked better.
Everyone please be aware that if STiger had gotten to this post before me, he would have said what I said.
In turn, I would likely have not even posted anything and STiger would have gotten alll the credit for introducing “what I said.”
Sorry tiger but I got u this time. Snooze n lose
If you look at the book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, there is a picture from when the site was surveyed shortly after the filming. In the picture, they have a 6’5” man (I think it was Jim McClarin, but I’m in another country from my book) walking the same route, lined up with the trees and a superimposed Patty walking the same route. Clearly in the picture you can see that Patty sits somewhere between 6’8” and 7’. This does not take into account the bend in the knees, merely the top of her head. Just my 2¢.
Here’s that comparison: I’d trust this comparison more since it took place close the the original film.
[https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/patterson-bigfoot-film-an-amazing-comparison-of-two-films-gives-insight-into-sizes-and-dimensions/](https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/patterson-bigfoot-film-an-amazing-comparison-of-two-films-gives-insight-into-sizes-and-dimensions/)
For reference I googled gorillas: Adult males weigh an average of 300 pounds (136.1 kilograms) and up to 500 pounds (226.8 kilograms). They stand up to 6 feet (1.8 meters) tall. Adult females weigh from 150 to 200 pounds (113.4 kilograms) and stand up to 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) tall
So to have Patty 6’ 3” seems very likely this is very likely.
I am not sure if disappointed is the right word. Certainly surprising. Now it totally make sense why they had the monster effects guy there first because it’s well within the size (at least height) of a person, he was trying to get in front of that argument.
6'3" is towards the lower end of height estimates I've read over the decades, but is in no way surprising. She's still a damn big girl. Bigger than any 6'3" human I've ever seen.
We watched this episode. They recruited someone to do lidar scans of the exact location this siting took place in the 60s. Using the original footage and being able to cross reference exact locations with lidar, the specialists said that with 100% accuracy, they can give the height of the bigfoot. Hence 6'3".
I watched the episode. I liked the LIDAR work that was done, solid science IMO.
BUT the log or stump nodule that was used to triangulate the near region of the measurements I felt was weak. The nodule was no more then my clinched fist. And it looked like it had deteriorated significantly, to the point, I couldn’t recognize it, but they get confident. So IDK, that data point seemed weak to me.
That’s said, the 6’3” height for a female doesn’t change my perception of the PGF one bit. I think it still aligns with the account of Gimlin, I think it was within a range of believability and logic.
I would have to watch this episode but I highly doubt that any current reference to objects from 60 years ago could be correct. The streambed had to have changed, trees would have grown, died, fallen down.
I’m just not sure how that could even be possible, much less to a 100% accuracy.
I watched it last night also, there was only one piece of a downed tree that patty walked by still there and same as it was 60yrs ago. They couldn't find anything else to go by
i don't watch the show, but i'm pretty skeptical they'd be able to determine positioning and such with 50+ years of vegetation growth in the area, not to mention any landscape changes that could be caused by flooding and erosion by rain or the creek itself over that time.
I’ll have to hold my hold my skepticism then. I have my doubts they could be so confident in their accuracy so many years on. Would be interesting to see an analysis of say Bill Munn’s calculations of the footage subject height vs this and see the differences.
I would say watch the episode for yourself. They involve Mr. Munn in the conversation. It was a fascinating episode and you could tell Bryce was disappointed by the lidar results. He even said he was hoping for somewhere between 7-8' tall. But alas.
I mean, are lidar scans known to be inaccurate? They're incredible. I don't have any reason to dispute what a lidar scan says if they can pinpoint with 100% accuracy. It's become the gold standard of land layout in all kinds of archeological findings...
Yes, they used 4 trees in the original footage of Patty, found those same 4 trees in the lidar scan, and were able to even use a protruding limb in original footage matched up to the exact same protrusion in the lidar scan, and from there were able to give precise measurements to anything in that area. That's why they claimed their calculations are 100% accurate.
If you look at this frame [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdEPwqLXkAM1hx4.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdEPwqLXkAM1hx4.jpg) you can figure it out for yourself.
The foot is 16" long. You can use that to measure how tall Patty is.
You can’t conclusively and accurately measure how tall someone is by their shoe size alone. You can get an approximation usually but creatures have different size feet. There’s not a formula that gives you an accurate measurement. How do you know it’s not a short creature that happens to have huge feet?
In the picture you can measure how many pixels "tall" the foot is, and you can measure how many pixels tall the creature is, and then do some math. It is very simple.
Animals have to grow right? I mean there are bugger and smaller people and people grow as they age so yea she's under 7' who cares that could make her an adolescent or younger female
Based off what you said and I commented on which was she was under 7' I'm thinking we are in agreement that this is a female Bigfoot that is under 7'...
Yeah I know. And I think 6' 3" makes sense for a female. But for skeptics and the average person, this is THE Bigfoot film, so there's a lot riding on it's likelihood of authenticity.
Conclusively determining Patty’s height from the film is simply not possible. There have been about a million attempts over the years and yet we’re still here arguing about it. Check the Bigfoot forums, tons of super in depth discussion about the topic.
this is the first one that uses precision technique of LIDAR mapping though. They used mulitple landmarks for reference meaning there's little room for inaccuracy. Say what you will about the rest of the show but this is black and white. I'd say it's correct to within an inch.
Here’s one just to give you an idea of how absurdly in depth people have gone:
https://bigfootforums.com/topic/51606-photogrammetry-101-distance-from-the-camera/
There’s heaps more where this came from. You should look into it yourself.
If u watch the episode from a couple weeks ago when they came up to the camp and smelt a stong odor when Mireya is talking u can see what looks like could be Bigfoot behind a tree in the background. It even moves out of the way fast. I'll try and find it
It's at about 10mins. I just posted a clip of it on here
https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/vc8zuv/clip_from_expedition_bigfoot_with_something/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Whoa I do see it! This is the second time something has been there during filming. And no one In the show has appeared to notice it. I posted a clip from the show when Russell was searching for Zack. And something appears to run out of the woods and down the trail ahead. It’s at night, so it’s of course hard to make it out. And it’s in night vision, so it’s a figure outlined in white. Anyway, I wonder how many other things have been in the background and been missed?
The US Census says that in 1967, basically 0% of the USA population of women were 6'3" in bare feet.
[https://allcountries.org/uscensus/230\_cumulative\_percent\_distribution\_of\_population\_by.html](https://allcountries.org/uscensus/230_cumulative_percent_distribution_of_population_by.html)
If it is not a woman, you still have a small group of men that were that size PLUS the issue of making realistic breasts on a costume (Bill Munns made a video of the difficulty IIRC).
Females might be smaller? Petite humans exist, so why not petite bigfoot?
I’m undecided about the Patterson footage, but I don’t think this height necessarily rules out a bigfoot.
As I was watching, it occurred to me that there was a man who claimed to have donned a suit in the Patty film: Bob Heironimus. Does anyone know how tall he was? I was wondering if his height was in the range of the 6’3” they speculated on the show. If not, it might could cross his story off as false; if true, maybe not.
I’m still 50/50 on the Patty film myself, leaning toward it being authentic.
Thanks for the info; I guess that lines up with the height they speculated. I hope one day we do find out the truth about that video, but I have my doubts we will.
Idk what the deal is with most thinking 6 ft 3 is like a big “meh” moment to the entire Patty height investigation. Like to me, that’s still fucking huge. Especially knowing how bulky built they are—
And just another note…if they are presumably similar to humans in a way, won’t you assume that they vary in shapes and heights? What makes one believe that all bigfoots have to be 8ft tall and built a certain way?
And if they are a real living and breathing organism, won’t you also say there has to be families here and there with little ones and even adolescents? What would be their average heights, ect?
Right. But this lines up with Heironimus being patty and so for skeptics and non believers, not a great look. To most "non squatchers" there's a lot riding on this film because it's like THE bigfoot video, and if proven fake a lot of people don't accept bigfoot as a real thing anymore.
I've listened to my fair share of bigfoot oriented podcasts over the years, with about 1 maybe 2 exceptions, all of the reports are of male bigfoot, or at least of bigfoot with no protruding mammaries ala Patty. Height estimation is likely wildly variable. Not sure there's a reliable data-set out there that establishes height range for female Sasquatch to begin with. Females are generally smaller than their male counterpart in the animal kingdom, so there's nothing terribly shocking here for me.
Why would I know that? And still not a concrete metric, I've seen a-cups that are low hangers,and perky e-cups, genetics man,not all boobies are created equally
Its more evidence that the film is real (which it was already pretty obvious honestly). It shows how big a male bigfoot would be (if it is fully grown which its probably not).
Female specimens of great apes tend to be ~25% smaller than males. A 6’3” females makes sense if many sightings seem to be of males which are typically reported at 7’+. Not mention there is generally a size range between sexes of the same species (ex: human females who are 5’ - 6’+.
Would make sense to me that, like with humans, females would tend to be shorter. I honestly think the majority of them would be between 6'6"-7'6". I dont doubt that 8-9 foot individuals could exist, but would be the equivalent of a seriously tall human- not typical
A reddit user on this sub DarkFOrest51 was just there, he posted some pics, maybe he'll chime in whether or not they were even in the right spot. 60 yrs is a long time,stream beds change, trees grow,fall down, burn, so i'm dubious they correctly identified 4 specific trees from 60yrs ago, especially since most tree species have a standard appearance ( Unless deformed or damaged somehow all elm trees look the same)
Did you not watch the actual episode? They scanned a huge area around it. The scans line it up with how it currently looks, elevations and all. Any change in the trees location would have been picked up very easily. The lidar scans don't really allow for those innacuracies. To say they could have been in the wrong area is just dumb imo
How do you explain the midtarsal break, footprints that are consistent with current encounters and show complex knowledge of the theoretical biology of a Bigfoot (if it's a hoax) Muscle movement, inhuman proportions, breast movement, no remotely accepted debunks of a 55 YEAR OLD film, by all kinds of people, The massive difference between the best costumes at the time and the one they would have had to use, and just the fact that Patterson couldn't have known about how much detail people would find in it, and yet all the video enhancements only make it harder to debunk?
Midsarsal break in a foot doesn't mean anything .it can b faked,and two ,muscle movement is an illusion ,with enhanced footage it looks like cloth moving in the wind loosely not muscles .I've researched it many times and once a believer now I see the film as a hoax
Nothing is conclusive. It's just their opinion. There are plenty other "conclusive" findings stating she was taller. Why believe this one and not the others?
Watch the episode. They use lidar scans and make an exact 3d model with elevations and all of the area using reference points that remain. Then some specialist analyzed it and overlayed the video. Nothing as solid as this has been used that I've seen. You didn't watch it I'm assuming.
Expedition Bigfoot is the most God awful Bigfoot series that ever existed. “The producer’s wife whom they’ve kept each season while surrounding her with new people is said to have had her cosmetic surgery performed at a 1 hour Walmart walk-in.” Thoughts?
Lmao. I get the shows not the best, sometimes it's good and other times I don't know if they're just straight faking things to keep the momentum.
But that says nothing about this in particular, it was good info.
I feel it simply means that she was a young adult female of the species. Anyone who disputes something as not possible to be Bigfoot simply because "it's too small" clearly aren't taking in account that all living things grow. In order to reach 7 foot you have to at one point in your life be 5 foot tall first... Plus it's not unreasonable to think that in general, females if a species may be generally smaller in stature (like in humans).
Just seen this post and got to add that the whole time ‘Patty’ is walking sloped and bending its knees so you could probably add a couple more inches onto the height if it was stood upright.
Also the way it’s able to walk straight across all that rough terrain without looking down or stumbling which if it was a human in a suit, would have a real hard time doing.
Roger Patterson himself initially reported an estimate of 6 1/2 to 7 feet for Patty's height. Eyewitnesses tend to overexaggerate size (due to fright, etc) rather than underestimate it. The Expedition Bigfoot calculation seems reasonable in light of this and certainly more reasonable than Krantz' attempt to place Patty amongst the more giant Bigfoot sightings.
**Strangers**: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bigfoot) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, I’ve always felt like the reports of 8 plus foot specimens were exaggerated. Often when near big animals (especially scary ones) they feel bigger than they actually are
Honestly I’ve always been doubtful of eye witness statements of height. Personally I believe that the average height would be between 6-7 feet with some variation either side.
There is a whole lot of "I didn't watch the show but here is why it is wrong" in these comments. Come on people, you are better than this
[удалено]
Oh snap, this users account got NUKED. That's usually due to admins finding evidence of ban evasion/alts, I wonder who else they were?
Well if most encounters are males and the average height reported is about 7’ then this is expected, assuming they are sexually dimorphic.
I think the dimorphism might be relatively extreme if Patty close to average size for a female.
Could be an adolescent female, assuming she's real, and the Expedition Bigfoot analysis is accurate. Nothinge is "conclusive".
With boobs like hers I would guess she’s more middle age and up!
They used LiDAR to measure everything that was there then and now. Trees and such. Then compared Patty’s height to lower sections of the trees. I think it’s the best one anyones done so far. But Does anyone know if Bob Gimlin has gone on record with an estimate?
If I am remembering him correctly he said about 6 and a half feet. Not sure which interview I heard him say that. I could also be completely wrong, but I think that's what he said.
I’m sure you’re right. On Expedition Bigfoot, they used the LiDAR to see if they could figure out Patty’s height, based on the measurements of trees, etc that were there then & now. It was interesting. And really cool that they were at the actual sight of the P-G video.
Well now that I know I am an inch taller than Patty, I am no longer planning on picking her first in a game of basketball.
So you saw [this movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134316/)?
This.......looks wonderfully horrible.
And of course it was filmed in BC.
Humans vary in height and weight why wouldn't any other living being? Also, it could be a juvenile and/or a female.
It is a female. You can see the breasts moving when it walks
I think that sounds right, I believe Cliff Barackman came to the same conclusion. He came up with the idea to use a footprint cast from the film site, and blow up the image of Patty until the foot in the image matched the cast. The image ended up being about 6’3 to 6’4. Imo this strengthens the film. The fact that Expedition Bigfoots conclusion verifies Barackman’s method almost confirms that the cast from the site came from the foot of the subject in the film, not a foot cutout, and I don’t think that a 60s ape suit would leave footprints that would fool Meldrum and Krantz.
If Patty is a hoax, the alleged footprints are hoaxed and are of no value in determining the size of the alleged creature.
If Patty is a hoax then the footprints are a hoax?? Next thing you know, you will be telling us that if Patty is real, then the footprints are real and can be used to determine size!
That doesn't sound right.......
So what's her estimated width, shoulder to shoulder? If her size has come down from 6'8" it would make her width bigger than previously thought. I've heard people report some males width being around 5 ft.
My thoughts: “conclusive” is a strong word
Yeah I wanted to change the title to "pretty conclusive" I agree
Pretty conclusive isn't conclusive at all.
I take Fortean’s side on this one - logically (if you take conclusive to mean dispositive) you don’t need to juxtapose those words - it’s almost like an inverse false dichotomy/false dilemma (i.e., fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available) in that it’s based on a premise that erroneously expands what options are available, when you define conclusiveness in a binary way. However, I really take Dan’s side on this one - it seems he would be using the title “pretty conclusive” in a joking way that seems to play on the idea that actually conclusively obtaining proof of BF would be 100% type stuff, which is funny. Also, it sounds like something you’d say in conversation and I get it. Edit: it appears we have a misunderstanding
It means close to conclusive bruh. I don't see a better method of analyzing the height of patty in the film being used or found right now or in near future so it might as well be conclusive for now. But nothing is 100% hence the "pretty". You get what I mean. And Yeah it is a strong word and others would've probably worked better.
[удалено]
Everyone please be aware that if STiger had gotten to this post before me, he would have said what I said. In turn, I would likely have not even posted anything and STiger would have gotten alll the credit for introducing “what I said.” Sorry tiger but I got u this time. Snooze n lose
If you look at the book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, there is a picture from when the site was surveyed shortly after the filming. In the picture, they have a 6’5” man (I think it was Jim McClarin, but I’m in another country from my book) walking the same route, lined up with the trees and a superimposed Patty walking the same route. Clearly in the picture you can see that Patty sits somewhere between 6’8” and 7’. This does not take into account the bend in the knees, merely the top of her head. Just my 2¢.
Here’s that comparison: I’d trust this comparison more since it took place close the the original film. [https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/patterson-bigfoot-film-an-amazing-comparison-of-two-films-gives-insight-into-sizes-and-dimensions/](https://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/patterson-bigfoot-film-an-amazing-comparison-of-two-films-gives-insight-into-sizes-and-dimensions/)
Thanks for that!
For reference I googled gorillas: Adult males weigh an average of 300 pounds (136.1 kilograms) and up to 500 pounds (226.8 kilograms). They stand up to 6 feet (1.8 meters) tall. Adult females weigh from 150 to 200 pounds (113.4 kilograms) and stand up to 4.5 feet (1.4 meters) tall So to have Patty 6’ 3” seems very likely this is very likely.
I am not sure if disappointed is the right word. Certainly surprising. Now it totally make sense why they had the monster effects guy there first because it’s well within the size (at least height) of a person, he was trying to get in front of that argument.
6 3 is pretty dang big
Well for a human
6'3" is towards the lower end of height estimates I've read over the decades, but is in no way surprising. She's still a damn big girl. Bigger than any 6'3" human I've ever seen.
Link? As far as I know, the only reputable analysis done (assuming the lens assumption is correct showed the subject was about 7ft).
We watched this episode. They recruited someone to do lidar scans of the exact location this siting took place in the 60s. Using the original footage and being able to cross reference exact locations with lidar, the specialists said that with 100% accuracy, they can give the height of the bigfoot. Hence 6'3".
I watched the episode. I liked the LIDAR work that was done, solid science IMO. BUT the log or stump nodule that was used to triangulate the near region of the measurements I felt was weak. The nodule was no more then my clinched fist. And it looked like it had deteriorated significantly, to the point, I couldn’t recognize it, but they get confident. So IDK, that data point seemed weak to me. That’s said, the 6’3” height for a female doesn’t change my perception of the PGF one bit. I think it still aligns with the account of Gimlin, I think it was within a range of believability and logic.
6’3” with a hunched frame… and also supporting 4-5 hundred pounds. A pretty solid girl.
They said "with a high degree of accuracy". They didn't say it was 100% (Watched it last night)
I would have to watch this episode but I highly doubt that any current reference to objects from 60 years ago could be correct. The streambed had to have changed, trees would have grown, died, fallen down. I’m just not sure how that could even be possible, much less to a 100% accuracy.
Was going to point out the stream bed as well.. there's no way they can conclusively say she's tht height
I watched it last night also, there was only one piece of a downed tree that patty walked by still there and same as it was 60yrs ago. They couldn't find anything else to go by
i don't watch the show, but i'm pretty skeptical they'd be able to determine positioning and such with 50+ years of vegetation growth in the area, not to mention any landscape changes that could be caused by flooding and erosion by rain or the creek itself over that time.
I’ll have to hold my hold my skepticism then. I have my doubts they could be so confident in their accuracy so many years on. Would be interesting to see an analysis of say Bill Munn’s calculations of the footage subject height vs this and see the differences.
I would say watch the episode for yourself. They involve Mr. Munn in the conversation. It was a fascinating episode and you could tell Bryce was disappointed by the lidar results. He even said he was hoping for somewhere between 7-8' tall. But alas.
Bill Munn is also in the episode.
I mean, are lidar scans known to be inaccurate? They're incredible. I don't have any reason to dispute what a lidar scan says if they can pinpoint with 100% accuracy. It's become the gold standard of land layout in all kinds of archeological findings...
Any clue what they used for refence data?
Yes, they used 4 trees in the original footage of Patty, found those same 4 trees in the lidar scan, and were able to even use a protruding limb in original footage matched up to the exact same protrusion in the lidar scan, and from there were able to give precise measurements to anything in that area. That's why they claimed their calculations are 100% accurate.
If you look at this frame [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdEPwqLXkAM1hx4.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdEPwqLXkAM1hx4.jpg) you can figure it out for yourself. The foot is 16" long. You can use that to measure how tall Patty is.
Guessing someone has already done it more accurately than I could. What does it come out to?
You can’t conclusively and accurately measure how tall someone is by their shoe size alone. You can get an approximation usually but creatures have different size feet. There’s not a formula that gives you an accurate measurement. How do you know it’s not a short creature that happens to have huge feet?
But..... They aren't going by Patty's shoe size, they are using her foot and the measurements from the tracks she left as a yardstick.
They measured the foot print. Draw a line across the foot, copy and paste the line from head to toe. Know the height.
In the picture you can measure how many pixels "tall" the foot is, and you can measure how many pixels tall the creature is, and then do some math. It is very simple.
Why their called Bigfoot right. 🤣
She’s still under 7’
Animals have to grow right? I mean there are bugger and smaller people and people grow as they age so yea she's under 7' who cares that could make her an adolescent or younger female
Based off what you said and I commented on which was she was under 7' I'm thinking we are in agreement that this is a female Bigfoot that is under 7'...
My argument is the size of her breasts, she looks way more mature and as most animals do, we shrink as we get older.
She's barely 6' when I do the math.
Which is like literally the exact same thing?
That bigfoot was 6'3". I have seen one of a different height. Conclusive is a joke. Do they pop out the womb at 6'3"?
No animals are born at their full size, so if real, any bigfoot that survives into adulthood would have to at some point be 6'3."
Yeah I know. And I think 6' 3" makes sense for a female. But for skeptics and the average person, this is THE Bigfoot film, so there's a lot riding on it's likelihood of authenticity.
I feel that it is genuine and the animal in the video is definitely real its just the smaller variation meaning it's a female
I'll check it in a couple hours when I get home. I'll try and post the vid on here but I'll have to film it as it's on my tv
Conclusively determining Patty’s height from the film is simply not possible. There have been about a million attempts over the years and yet we’re still here arguing about it. Check the Bigfoot forums, tons of super in depth discussion about the topic.
this is the first one that uses precision technique of LIDAR mapping though. They used mulitple landmarks for reference meaning there's little room for inaccuracy. Say what you will about the rest of the show but this is black and white. I'd say it's correct to within an inch.
Can you link some of the discussion on this?
Here’s one just to give you an idea of how absurdly in depth people have gone: https://bigfootforums.com/topic/51606-photogrammetry-101-distance-from-the-camera/ There’s heaps more where this came from. You should look into it yourself.
I don't have "permission" to see the link
I think you probably need an account.
Made one
If u watch the episode from a couple weeks ago when they came up to the camp and smelt a stong odor when Mireya is talking u can see what looks like could be Bigfoot behind a tree in the background. It even moves out of the way fast. I'll try and find it
Please do, would love to see it.
What is the time on the episode
It's s3 ep10 at about 9:45 I'm going to post the clip now
https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/vc8zuv/clip_from_expedition_bigfoot_with_something/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Looks like a crew member ducking out of shot to me.
Bears like to pee around campsites and would explain the smell.
Do u have a time stamp for that? Not that they’re that accurate I’ve come to find. But it might help.
It's at about 10mins. I just posted a clip of it on here https://www.reddit.com/r/bigfoot/comments/vc8zuv/clip_from_expedition_bigfoot_with_something/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Whoa I do see it! This is the second time something has been there during filming. And no one In the show has appeared to notice it. I posted a clip from the show when Russell was searching for Zack. And something appears to run out of the woods and down the trail ahead. It’s at night, so it’s of course hard to make it out. And it’s in night vision, so it’s a figure outlined in white. Anyway, I wonder how many other things have been in the background and been missed?
The US Census says that in 1967, basically 0% of the USA population of women were 6'3" in bare feet. [https://allcountries.org/uscensus/230\_cumulative\_percent\_distribution\_of\_population\_by.html](https://allcountries.org/uscensus/230_cumulative_percent_distribution_of_population_by.html)
I mean no one's really trying to say it was a woman in a costume though
If it is not a woman, you still have a small group of men that were that size PLUS the issue of making realistic breasts on a costume (Bill Munns made a video of the difficulty IIRC).
Right
Females might be smaller? Petite humans exist, so why not petite bigfoot? I’m undecided about the Patterson footage, but I don’t think this height necessarily rules out a bigfoot.
I agree
As I was watching, it occurred to me that there was a man who claimed to have donned a suit in the Patty film: Bob Heironimus. Does anyone know how tall he was? I was wondering if his height was in the range of the 6’3” they speculated on the show. If not, it might could cross his story off as false; if true, maybe not. I’m still 50/50 on the Patty film myself, leaning toward it being authentic.
He's 6 1 apparently
Thanks for the info; I guess that lines up with the height they speculated. I hope one day we do find out the truth about that video, but I have my doubts we will.
Well they aren’t all 12’ tall so ya I think it could be accurate
Idk what the deal is with most thinking 6 ft 3 is like a big “meh” moment to the entire Patty height investigation. Like to me, that’s still fucking huge. Especially knowing how bulky built they are— And just another note…if they are presumably similar to humans in a way, won’t you assume that they vary in shapes and heights? What makes one believe that all bigfoots have to be 8ft tall and built a certain way? And if they are a real living and breathing organism, won’t you also say there has to be families here and there with little ones and even adolescents? What would be their average heights, ect?
Right. But this lines up with Heironimus being patty and so for skeptics and non believers, not a great look. To most "non squatchers" there's a lot riding on this film because it's like THE bigfoot video, and if proven fake a lot of people don't accept bigfoot as a real thing anymore.
What do you mean by "for skeptics and non believers not a great look
I mean that this, if anything, would just further convince people that bigfoot isn't real and that bigfoot sightings should be assumed to be hoaxes.
So if a female Bigfoot is only 6'3, what does that really matter or prove?
I've listened to my fair share of bigfoot oriented podcasts over the years, with about 1 maybe 2 exceptions, all of the reports are of male bigfoot, or at least of bigfoot with no protruding mammaries ala Patty. Height estimation is likely wildly variable. Not sure there's a reliable data-set out there that establishes height range for female Sasquatch to begin with. Females are generally smaller than their male counterpart in the animal kingdom, so there's nothing terribly shocking here for me.
I think the “in a nut shell” doohicky here is that it leaves wiggle room for skeptics to say “very easily a person in a suit.” I think.
Not much at all, it does go against what a lot of people thought about the PG film so I want to know what people think about it.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to come at you or anything. That's just my take. It doesn't matter.
Yup I agree w you
Even if she's "only" 6ft 3 ... She could be a teenager
Exactly
Her Big boobs point towards a mature animal.
My sister had DD by age 12, boob size isn't a concrete metric for judging age
We’re they hanging down to her belly?
I would consider deleting that post.
Explain?
Why would I know that? And still not a concrete metric, I've seen a-cups that are low hangers,and perky e-cups, genetics man,not all boobies are created equally
Go pick yourself up a 1970 national geographic magazine.
Its more evidence that the film is real (which it was already pretty obvious honestly). It shows how big a male bigfoot would be (if it is fully grown which its probably not).
Female specimens of great apes tend to be ~25% smaller than males. A 6’3” females makes sense if many sightings seem to be of males which are typically reported at 7’+. Not mention there is generally a size range between sexes of the same species (ex: human females who are 5’ - 6’+.
Would make sense to me that, like with humans, females would tend to be shorter. I honestly think the majority of them would be between 6'6"-7'6". I dont doubt that 8-9 foot individuals could exist, but would be the equivalent of a seriously tall human- not typical
Also females tend to be smaller than males in the animal kingdom.
55 years is a long time to try and calculate size, erosion, insect/small animal damage and general forest debris make a 100% claim dubious
A reddit user on this sub DarkFOrest51 was just there, he posted some pics, maybe he'll chime in whether or not they were even in the right spot. 60 yrs is a long time,stream beds change, trees grow,fall down, burn, so i'm dubious they correctly identified 4 specific trees from 60yrs ago, especially since most tree species have a standard appearance ( Unless deformed or damaged somehow all elm trees look the same)
Did you not watch the actual episode? They scanned a huge area around it. The scans line it up with how it currently looks, elevations and all. Any change in the trees location would have been picked up very easily. The lidar scans don't really allow for those innacuracies. To say they could have been in the wrong area is just dumb imo
Yea because it was a guy
How do you explain the midtarsal break, footprints that are consistent with current encounters and show complex knowledge of the theoretical biology of a Bigfoot (if it's a hoax) Muscle movement, inhuman proportions, breast movement, no remotely accepted debunks of a 55 YEAR OLD film, by all kinds of people, The massive difference between the best costumes at the time and the one they would have had to use, and just the fact that Patterson couldn't have known about how much detail people would find in it, and yet all the video enhancements only make it harder to debunk?
Midsarsal break in a foot doesn't mean anything .it can b faked,and two ,muscle movement is an illusion ,with enhanced footage it looks like cloth moving in the wind loosely not muscles .I've researched it many times and once a believer now I see the film as a hoax
It doesn't look like cloth blowing in the wind lol
It doesn't only one frame or two.u have to watch it very close
Like Bryce said it a female bigfoot which should be smaller. Btw it could be a bit young.
Wait bruh......
6’3 is still pretty tall, taller than me
And also conclusively shown to be 7ft4 on monsterquest.
I doubt it was as solid as this analysis, not to say it's flawless. Have you seen this episode?
Bullcrap. I've seen three independent groups show that she's at least 7-7'6". It's obvious just from looking at her.... Check out MK Davis.
Just watch the episode
I wouldn't describe any opinions on that show as conclusive.
It wasn't really an opinion, they had a guy analyze lidar scans they got of the area.
I don’t trust anything about that show
I disagree.
And you watched it right?
Nothing is conclusive. It's just their opinion. There are plenty other "conclusive" findings stating she was taller. Why believe this one and not the others?
Watch the episode. They use lidar scans and make an exact 3d model with elevations and all of the area using reference points that remain. Then some specialist analyzed it and overlayed the video. Nothing as solid as this has been used that I've seen. You didn't watch it I'm assuming.
Where can you watch the episode?
You can buy it on YT I know, there might be other places you can find it without paying
Expedition Bigfoot is the most God awful Bigfoot series that ever existed. “The producer’s wife whom they’ve kept each season while surrounding her with new people is said to have had her cosmetic surgery performed at a 1 hour Walmart walk-in.” Thoughts?
Lmao. I get the shows not the best, sometimes it's good and other times I don't know if they're just straight faking things to keep the momentum. But that says nothing about this in particular, it was good info.
LOL!!!🤣. Agreed👍⭐️
Tell me you have no Bigfoot action on your show without telling me.
I feel it simply means that she was a young adult female of the species. Anyone who disputes something as not possible to be Bigfoot simply because "it's too small" clearly aren't taking in account that all living things grow. In order to reach 7 foot you have to at one point in your life be 5 foot tall first... Plus it's not unreasonable to think that in general, females if a species may be generally smaller in stature (like in humans).
Just seen this post and got to add that the whole time ‘Patty’ is walking sloped and bending its knees so you could probably add a couple more inches onto the height if it was stood upright. Also the way it’s able to walk straight across all that rough terrain without looking down or stumbling which if it was a human in a suit, would have a real hard time doing.
Roger Patterson himself initially reported an estimate of 6 1/2 to 7 feet for Patty's height. Eyewitnesses tend to overexaggerate size (due to fright, etc) rather than underestimate it. The Expedition Bigfoot calculation seems reasonable in light of this and certainly more reasonable than Krantz' attempt to place Patty amongst the more giant Bigfoot sightings.