It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Patterson Bigfoot film creature a female?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
A few weeks back Paranormal Radio had Melissa M. Hovey on the program to talk about Bigfoot. She and other female researchers were featured on the History Channels Monster Quest. It was interesting to hear about some of the new cases and evidence that has surfaced in the past couple of years.

Captain Jack talked about the enhanced video of the Patterson film that is out there, and something was brought up about the film. Please tell me if anyone else has touched on this, but does anyone else notice in the video that it looks like the creature has breasts? If this is the case and it is what is being seen, it would suggest that the creature it self would have been female. And no confessor that has come forward about being the one in the supposed "Monkey suit" has ever admitted to this as part of the supposed suit.

Has anyone else made this observation?





[edit on 1-1-2008 by Jimmy_of_wprt]




posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Yep-It's been discussed numerous times. It's definitely a female. The more I see that footage, particularly with the muscle enhancements and some of the recent facial details that were on History channels Monster Quest, the more I'm leaning towards that film footage being the real deal of an actual sasquatch. The female mammaries, the thigh muscles flexing and contracting, the weird gait that I have yet to see any human be able to duplicate, and the latest enhancement on the aforementioned TV program where you can see the creatures mouth opening, and its top lip appears substantially low down from its nose (like a chimpanzee) make me lean towards this being an actual Bigfoot.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I am not sure I have seen this before, can you please provide a working link



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Sorry, I posted just a screen shot before, maybe the whole video would be better.


link to the video



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Ahhh that old famous video. Yes, I do see breasts. Thats the first time i have seen it enhanced. I would have to say it is a female (if its real)



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Also, the 'bigfoot' being a female also adds credence that it might not be a hoax. I would think that adding breasts to a monkey suit would be the last thing a hoaxer would do.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


Totally agree hikix. Did you see the Monster Quest show where they were doing the enhancements to the footage? Some of the details that came out were phenomenal, and the primate experts pretty much agreed this was a real creature that had ape-like features and weird muscle morphology.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Well it COULD be a poorly trained male too. I mean look at the size of that thing. Its hardly swinging in trees to work out and its obvious not doing much running. Maybe there's a reason why Bigfoot is mainly sighted in America?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
'Patty' as she is known, is the famous Bigfoot in the Patterson film. Yes, she was a female and Patterson is responsible for declaring that


People are often lead to believe that Bigfoot is a he, and that there is one of him. Obviously, real species don't operate that way. There are males and females, and a breeding population. Patty was most definitely a female.

Males have been reported to be as tall as 12 feet. In the film, Patty is about 6'7'' (am I correct?). Imagine for a moment if Patterson had caught a male on film? It would have been impossible for people to see an animal that large and declare it to be a hoax. Thankfully, we have Patties muscle tissue movement and swinging breasts to confirm that she wasn't a man in a suit either.

Still the single best piece of evidence for the existence of Sassy, despite the many hucksters who claim to have debunked it.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I have always thought that why would a hoaxer go to the extra expense and complexity of adding pronounced breasts to a suit? All the monkey suits, commercial and custom made, are always invariably 'male'. This aspect just doesn't add up for me. For me, there's a more than 50% chance it's genuine.

Paul in UK



posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by merka
 





Originally posted by merka
Maybe there's a reason why Bigfoot is mainly sighted in America?


Oopsies, its been spotted in australia - yowie and asia - yeti. Its just the american bigfoot gets lots more media attention.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Jimmy_of_wprt
 


This link doesn't work neither. I think I've seen this Bigfoot video but I can't make up if it's a male or female. I have to see it again.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Robertlaw
reply to post by Jimmy_of_wprt
 


This link doesn't work neither. I think I've seen this Bigfoot video but I can't make up if it's a male or female. I have to see it again.
www.unknownexplorers.com...

Does look like breasts.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
That is Chewbacca's love interest. Makes one wonder who came up with the Chewbacca character!

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Peace to all.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Yup, that's a female buttock if I ever saw one!


I have always felt from the moment I viewed the film in the 70's that this was a female. Did the OP ever wonder why they refer to her as "Patty"?



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I think this is fake.

The fur (thick hair) covered breasts actually add more weight to fake IMO. Along with the plastic looking soles of the feet...



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
if it was a female, instead of calmly walking into the woods, she probably would have turned around and started arguing with patterson


j/k

I remember discussing this years and years ago, it's probably the best evidence for the film being genuine, but it certainly isn't proof of it




top topics



 
0

log in

join