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)

Discuss

66 Responses to “Analyzing shin angles in the famous bigfoot movie”

  1. The PG film is not a hoax.

  2. Mitch_M says:

    I really need a closer look at the lady on the right to be sure.

    • Florian Bösch says:

      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.

  3. lknope says:

    Seems legit.

  4. Nizaris says:

    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.

  5. ObstacleMan says:

    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.

  6. Ivan Kirigin says:

    What about a test in snow with snow shoes? Maybe you need to lift your legs more to avoid dragging your toes in snow.

  7. asdadsas says:

    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.”

    • Rob Bloom says:

      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?

    • bcsizemo says:

      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).

      • William Nicholls says:

        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!

    • lavardera says:

      sure, its like walking in swim fins.

  8. $19428857 says:

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. Urbane_Gorilla says:

    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. 

  11. isn’t there probably huge variation just among humans?

  12. harison says:

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

    • anansi133 says:

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

    • DevinC says:

      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.    

  13. Brainspore says:

    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.

    • bcsizemo says:

      People who have taken years of ballet and classical dance have a tendency to flare their feet out. 

      • Brainspore says:

        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.”

      • Mark Dow says:

        But ballet and classical dancers are easily distinguished by their ears.

  14. 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.

    • bcsizemo says:

      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. 

  15. Prufrock451 says:

    If it’s good enough for Jane Goodall, it’s good enough for me (“appeal to authority” warning).

  16. Chentzilla says:

    Since when do we measure angles in percent?

  17. Roger Patterson’s own comment on the Bigfoot walk would make a perfect title for a hard-boiled crime novel: SHE WALKED LIKE A BIG MAN IN NO HURRY.

  18. Rider says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzRBzBmUjE

    It has been obvious to everyone who lives in the area it was Bob in the costume ever since they first watched it. 

    A human can bend there leg at that angle so I’m not sure what the point of saying the angle is different is. 

    •  That video is quite hypnotic, but why have the all-important lower legs of Bigfoot been cropped out?

      • Rider says:

        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.. 

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IORdWpu5KM

  19. plainsaman says:

    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.

    • Brainspore says:

      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.

  20. Well I, for one, am totally persuaded.  Must be Bigfoot.

  21. chris jimson says:

    “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.

    • Brainspore says:

      …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?

      • chris jimson says:

        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.”

    • blueelm says:

      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.

      • Brainspore says:

        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?

        • blueelm says:

          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.

          • Brainspore says:

            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.

          • plainsaman says:

            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.

          • Brainspore says:

            I said “North America.” I’m well aware that there were (and are) non-human apes in Asia.

          • plainsaman says:

             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.

  22. Mike says:

    You try walking in clown shoes or snow shoes on rough ground and see what happens.

  23. Drabula says:

    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. 

  24. wysinwyg says:

    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.

    • Brainspore says:

      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.

  25. robertdee says:

    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.

  26. It’s a guy in a suit, get over it already.

  27. alan brown says:

    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.

  28. lasermike026 says:

    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!

  29. enlo says:

    If you walk through deep snow all day long, you would raise your feet that high too.

  30. Gregory Gatz says:

    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 ..

Leave a Reply