Analyzing shin angles in the famous bigfoot movie

For those who want to believe - a video that compares the trailing shin angle between the biped in the Patterson Bigfoot film (73%) and humans (52%). (Via Bits & Pieces)



    1. I believe there’s dedicated study material for shin rise related biomechanics to be found on the internet, mostly on some fantastic sites with streaming video that ask you if you’re old enough to see all those shin rises.

  1. Everybody is thinkin’ it. I’m just sayin’ it.

    Big foot is walking away and to the east, and that skews the angle. They compare this to profile-views of people walking. Sigh.

    1. I thought this as well, the angled view changes the shin angle. Also, the aspect ratio (which I’m not sure is correct) in the bigfoot video could also lead to a different ‘shin angle’.

  2. You’ve got ‘bigfoot’ at a different angle than everyone else and they are also walking on pavement.  When you walk in the woods and have to navigate uneven ground you will talk differently.

    1. plus when you are wearing those big phony bigfoot feet over your shoes, you have to lift you shin more so the toes don’t drag. Jeez, what would you expect.

    2.  Yes, in the woods, you’d lift your foot higher to clear any brush on the ground, hence the higher shin rise.  Go walking in tall grass.  I guarantee your shin will rise more than 52 degrees.

  3. Comment from the original site: “Now put all of those people in the Big Foot costume and have them have to compensate for the “Big Feet” as they walk. You have no choice but to raise your feet higher, or you trip and fall.”

    1. I don’t want to steal your thunder by doing it myself, but perhaps you should suggest this on this guy’s YouTube page? I think you make a great observation here. I’m sure he’ll incorporate it into an experiment?

    2. I was also wondering if maybe (assuming it is a person in a suit) they are wearing some type of elevated shoes or short stilts?  That would make your knee to foot length longer and force you to raise it higher to compensate (especially in wooded terrain).

      1. I think it’s a combination of a bogus comparison (viewing angle, woman in high heels) and a film of someone who’s trying to pretend to be a big hairy critter. The suited guy was obviously a fan of Groucho Marx, or perhaps Mr. Natural. Keep on truckin’, sasquatch!

  4. Put someone in the bigfoot costume shoes and rerun the experiment on broken ground, not pavement. It’s such an obvious objection, it makes me wonder why the didn’t try to shoot holes in it to begin with. I’m guessing it’s a real problem for their hypothesis.

  5. EASY. The human leg inside the suit is still at 53°. The suit is affixed at the ankle but loose at the knee, where it is much thicker than a human leg and hanging from the back of his calf.

  6. Kind of agree with asdadsas. Wonder how you’d walk with big fake furry feet on…Tried to find a Youtube video of someone walking in big clown feet…No luck. But the idea would be the same. 

  7. The “bigfoot” is not walking perpendicularly to the camera. The people are. I think the difference is caused by the perspective.

    1.  That was my first thought. Film somebody walking somewhat away from the camera, and that angle will be easy to replicate.

    2. If he’s walking away from the camera, and not perpendicularly, then the shin angle will seem smaller (measured from the vertical), not larger.  (The apparent height of the knee and ankle won’t change, but the leg will be foreshortened.)  

      (If I had the time and a piece of paper, I’d do the trig here.)It seems to me much more likely that the necessities imposed by wearing a large, ill-fitting costume are to blame.    

  8. The people who dismiss the Patterson video as a “hoax” would also have us believe that there is a human being inside the Mickey Mouse “costume” at Disneyland. But I ask you this: do human beings habitually stand around with their left feet angled up 30 degrees!?! WE ARE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE.

      1. Don’t be ridiculous. When was the last time you saw a ballerina with size 37 quadruple-wide shoes?

        Next you’ll be telling us that Santa Claus’ guest appearances at the mall are really “just some guy in a fake beard and red suit.”

  9. If one was wearing a bulky suit, maybe with big heavy legs and feet wouldn’t their walk change? Maybe the angle is so great because the person in the suit didn’t want to trip over debris on the ground with those awkward, big ass feet?

    All I want is a movie that isn’t of crap quality. All videos of bigfoot that are shot look like shit. Also, you would think there would be hair and waste out there. No one ever finds any physical evidence. I know, they bury their dead supposedly so that is why we never find bones… Why don’t these bigfoot hunters place hundreds of trail cams all over the place? I’d love for them to be real but the fact that people who look for bigfoot full time are unable to find any real evidence is a bit disappointing.

    1. Another thing that came to mind was limited sight.  I know if I wear a mask or can’t see very well out of the lower part of my vision I have a tendency to over exaggerate my gait. 

      1. They haven’t  from that section of video which shows the upper body and the turn which footers always claim is impossible for a human to do, the legs are not visible.  The angle of the legs which this person is making his extreme illogical jump from is only visible for about two steps during very beginning of the film.  The rest of the time “Bigfoot” is walking behind rocks and tress.. 

  10. Watch Groucho Marx’s slightly crouched walk in any of his classic films, then talk to me about shin angles. And BTW, no confirming DNA, no bigfoot. Simple.

    1. Human beings capable of changing their gait as part of a performance? Preposterous.

      FUN FACT: Andy Serkis walks like an ape in his day-to-day life too.

  11. “For those who want to believe”– I have been mocked for “believing” in Bigfoot, but it’s really more “I suspect this is real.”   Taken as a whole, the evidence is compelling, and skepticism is OK but at some point it becomes a 50/50 proposition: is it more ridiculous to believe there is a large ape species we haven’t physically verified, or that there is an army of hoaxers running around in ape suits in the middle of nowhere (including during hunting season?)

    So this video is interesting, perhaps a part of the puzzle, perhaps not.  And even then it only confirms or denies whether the Patterson-Gimlin film is legit or not.

    1. …is it more ridiculous to believe there is a large ape species we haven’t physically verified,

      In Africa, maybe. In North America? That would be pretty darn astounding.

      …or that there is an army of hoaxers running around in ape suits in the middle of nowhere (including during hunting season?)

      “Army” seems a bit strong since the number of sightings which would require hoaxers (i.e. photos & video that unmistakably depict a furry hominid) are pretty few and far between. Most of the “evidence” is open to some pretty wide interpretation, to say the least.

      Consider this: the number of people who carry high-quality cameras with them at all times has increased exponentially over the last generation. Why aren’t we seeing a corresponding increase in Bigfoot photos?

      1. I get the impression that when it comes to Bigfoot many skeptics are really just offended, as if they think any serious consideration of it is damaging to science.   I am not a die-hard true believer, I AM skeptical, but that doesn’t mean I have to be automatically dismissive.  

        Yes, the lack of solid physical evidence is a valid point, but that doesn’t mean people should stop looking.  Our knowledge of the fossil record is not complete either (I would actually expect that Bigfoot, if real, came over an Arctic land bridge just like humans did.)  I can picture natural mechanisms whereby a population of these things could survive (particularly in the areas where they are most often sighted) without a lot of contact with humans. Sure, I carry a camera (phone) around all the time, but a lot of the images I want to capture are fleeting, and the camera is not out and ready to snap away.  (Besides, millions of cameras being carried around a large city is not the same as a lone cameraman hiking in a vast expanse of forest– I apparently hiked right past a feeding moose once without even noticing.)

        There’s no denying that it would be very cool, particularly from a scientific standpoint, if someone found incontrovertible evidence of Bigfoot, so I won’t mock anyone who is seriously and honestly studying it, any more than I would have mocked the Wright Brothers with “everyone knows flight is impossible.”

    2. Well we know there was one who got hit by a car. That’s one hoaxer, not one heretofore unheard of North American large ape. 

      We also know that people, while some times clever, can be infinitely stupid. This gets demonstrated regularly.Now there are fossils of large North American apes that have been found, but these are very ancient fossils. 

      So your question boils down to this: is it more likely that  there a species of non-human large ape still living in North America, or that there are a lot of very very stupid people living in North America?

      I would not put those odds at 50/50. I’d put forth the suggestion that we KNOW there are a lot of very very stupid people living in North America.

      1. Now there are fossils of large North American apes that have been found, but these are very ancient fossils.

        Really? I hadn’t heard that. What fossils were those?

        1. Thought there were. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m neither a paleontologist, nor some one who is very interested in the field. So it’s totally likely I’m misinformed.

          [Edit: google seems to suggest these were hoaxes as well FWIW. Learns me for relying on news from my childhood]

          Even if there had been though it wouldn’t suggest bigfoot is one or exists.

          Rather even that wouldn’t make it a 50/50 split between Bigfoot and Stupid People.

          1. It would be neat to find something like that, but as far as I’ve heard the only non-human primates known to have reached the Americas have been New World Monkeys.

          2. That would be correct. ZERO fossil evidence of great apes in the western hemisphere. Prior to the arrival of new world monkeys, there is some very fragmentary early Paleocene fossil evidence in western North America of small, primate-like mammals roughly similar to squirrels and tree shrews in appearance, but that’s it. Unless you want to count Nebraska Man.

          1.  How is this relevant to the non-evidence of any ape in the western hemisphere?

            Chinese Academy of Science research suggests that the rise of the Tibetan plateau 1.6 million to 800,000 years ago altered the climate of South Asia, ushering in a colder, drier period when forests shrank. Also, Gigantopithecus’s neighbor, Homo erectus may have over-hunted and/or outcompeted him into extinction.

            It’s also unexplained how this lumbering, 1,200-pound quadruped that only ate C3 forest plants like bamboo could (1) get to the western hemisphere in the first place, and (2) turn into a swift, agile, upright walker in such a short time on an evolutionary timescale.

  12. Saw an article somewhere else today about someone in America trying to raise cash for a Bigfoot hunt using thermal imaging gear attached to a blimp……supposedly going to criss cross the forest somewhere etc. I like the weirdo stuff but Bigfoot’s never interested me much. 

  13. Poop.  Still waiting for someone to find some bigfoot poop.  A corpse would be even more convincing but if you can’t find me some poop at least I’m going to doubt the existence of the creature in question.

    “But…but…but bigfoot doesn’t have an anus!”  No excuses.  If you want bigfoot to be a part of biology proper then evidence or STFU.

    1. Still waiting for someone to find some bigfoot poop.

      Bigfoot poop is actually quite plentiful. The problem is that it’s biologically indistinguishable from bullshit.

  14. There are a lot of elaborate explanations on here employing unverifiable variables. Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest solution is most likely true which would mean that the most scientific reading is that the film does indeed show a non-human hominid of indeterminate origin. Most likely your mum.

  15. it’s pretty clear that the guy in the bigfoot suit is forced to raise his heel higher because the suit has VERY BIG FEET, otherwise the toe would drag as he brings his leg forward.

    comments and ratings disabled, lol.

  16. I believe that there is only one group of people on the planet that can solve this mystery…… MYTHBUSTERS!  Call Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman stat!  Active the MYTHBUSTERS signal!

  17. And this proves what, besides that a person can lift their foot up higher than normal during a few strides of exaggerated walking?
    If you are wearing rubber clown feet it happens naturally ..

Comments are closed.