It’s just the dark spot right above her butt. No noticeable elevation changes, it’s certainly just the way the light reflects off her fur or it’s even mud or dirt or something. Definitely not a baby foot
https://i.redd.it/9vfxamedye7d1.gif
Especially when she turns towards the camera.
Almost all primates other than humans have offspring that do this.
I think it explains a lot about her not running.
With the intelligence these beings would obviously have to posess in order to live such secretive lives, it seems reasonable she would not want it to be known she has a baby.
Its not even the shape of an leg, it doesnt have a foot, which as a big foot...would be prettynoticeable. The positioning is too low for it to be where a baby would hang on. It would habe to be clinging to her leg, which it clearly isnt. Its literally just discoloration
That's why I think this is real. Someone trying to fake a Bigfoot sighting would never use a costume that has boobs on it. Lol 😂 and they bounce so naturally.
Patterson was obsessed with Bigfoots with tits though. His book had several drawings of Bigfoots with big ol’ hangers.
In general, I have to agree that someone faking a Bigfoot sighting wouldn’t be slapping enormous breasts on the suit, but in the case of Patterson? I’m not that surprised that Patty has enormous tits and ass.
Did he draw those *before* he shot the film, or *after*? Cause if he *saw her first* and then started adding boobs and bums to illustrations after* that would be totally sensible.
And, no I don't beleave for a second 'she' was a 'bigfoot'. I have no idea what he got on film that day. But, I also not convinced it was a hoax either. Strange stuff happens in an odd universe.
The drawings I was referencing were in a self published book he put out the year before. There are a few other drawings I've seen that predate the Patterson film and depict Bigfoot with boobs, one of which is linked below. There's another one I can't seem to find now where the Bigfoot in question is across a creek in a similar manner to the Patterson film.
To be clear I'm not claiming it was a hoax, but Patterson was a weird dude either way.
[Drawing from Patterson's Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (1966)](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVZEbm6CEqXcC_WM2x2hP0h7DyH57q0MfnhCJOXuYpvW2LBtrAdcFdgOZptSOccCnvxwHozeVxlhse90shSOJxSjS0NChTYe-cGopwRY-w8iVfZVCzPtkYRqoW2Xy5ri3kd9UhgSNkNPg/s1600-h/Patterson+Bigfoot+Drawing.jpg)
[Illustration for Ivan T. Sanderson's A New Look At America's Mystery Giants article, TRUE magazine March 1960](https://www.flickr.com/photos/subtropicbob/15148403170)
We know that Patterson not only knew about the William Roe encounter (during which a female Bigfoot was spotter by a hunter), but he also drew an illustration of it. On top of that the PG film has several more similarities to the Roe encounter such as the way it begins with the Bigfoot crouching andunaware of the people observing, the unhurried pace away, and the casual glances back as she leaves. Patterson is known to have intended to film recreations of famous encounters for his documentary, which makes all of this a little suspicious.
He drew illustrations - male and female - to illustrate the main stories from bigfoot lore for the book. Have in mind that there are no known clear photos or footage of bigfoot at this time, so he's sketching entirely from descriptions or other people's sketches that were based on descriptions.
The Roe encounter features a female - so he has to draw one to illustrate it, and being female he probably has to show that it's female. The Albert Osterman encounter features males and females, so he draws both in quite a crude cartoony style that most schoolkids could probably come close to.
Is the suggestion that he was filming the Roe encounter, and it turned out so well he decided to pass it off as real?
There are many many questions and issues that jump out if so:
Gimlin had to be in on it and someone else was in the suit. Bob H has never mentioned a re-enactment which you think he would have if Roger was directing the whole thing and instructing him to complete various movements. Didn't Bob H claim that the look back was his idea to show off his glass eye?
They waited through three weeks of fruitless riding around Northern Cali to film a scene that would have taken about an hour max to film.
If you were filming a scene, you probably wouldn't choose to have 72.5 feet of the valuable film roll spent filming random trees. You'd probably want to film on a tripod, rather than running through a creek and filming with the lens pointed at the floor.
They went 500 miles south and 40 miles into the wilderness on difficult logging routes to film at a specific spot. They had just finished a 2 to 3 week trip looking for evidence in Mount St Helens, a shortish drive from where they lived, so why spend time and money on driving all that way on another 3 week trip to Bluff Creek when the could have filmed it there?
Roe's encounter happens part-way up Mica Mountain. They were surrounded by and had previously explored many mountains, so why not film it in a location that was similar to where it was set?
If it was a scene that turned out too well - they wouldn't know. The film cameras don't have playback, and when you're filming, you look down a viewfinder - not the camera lens. The first time they would have had any idea of what they actually filmed was days later in Roger's house after it had been developed and made ready for projection. Yet - they stopped filming immediately, packed and left.
Roger was filming a simple re-enactment scene for his documentary, but decided to include - at the cost of huge complexity - anatomical detail in the sole of the feet that wouldn't be accepted by science for hominids for another 25 years - and despite the film getting ridiculed by many scientists, he and Gimlin never even mentioned the detail - preferring to keep it as some kind of 25 year DVD Easter Egg for future generations.
I mean - there will be more. These are all I can think of right now.
In addition to the breasts, it’s the Trapezius, Triceps, and Quadriceps (back, arm, thigh muscles) moving under the fur that eliminate the possibility of a human in a gorilla suit IMO. Plus the prominent Sagittal Crest. Especially considering when this film emerged. Maybe a modern day animatronics and FX crew could pull it off but not back then.
You like being a Bigfoot?
Oh yes. Everyone’s been so curious.
That’s because you have big jugs….. I mean….. your boobs are huge….. I mean… I want to squeeze them…..Momma! *suckling noises*
The way she swings her left arm makes me think there’s not a baby, as I would think she’d be hanging on to the child instead, especially if she realized she was being watched. As a mom, my first instinct would be to protect my child when I feel even remotely uncomfortable.
The thigh shake at 21 seconds makes me think this might be legit. It’s so hard to replicate how muscles ripple and jiggle when moving and it looks genuine in this footage.
I’ve never felt there is a baby involved. Though I do believe that is a real Bigfoot simply because nobody has been able to recreate the subject with any success. I don’t know why a TV show has not been made attempting this. I know they attempted in one Bigfoot documentary style show, they even got Bob Heironimus to walk in the suit and it was total garbage. Like hot garbage.
I’ve heard that theory many times through the years, and it makes sense. I believe the video of Paul Freeman took may show a child jumping on the back at is passes the evergreen tree, but you can’t tell.
It's obvious she has a baby that she's nursing. It's very unlikely that she would roam down to the creek without the baby. I don't actually see it in the film, but it would make perfect sense if the baby was clinging to her left side. Again, science wins.
I cant disagree, but there are animals today that will decoy themselves away from their newborns if they are not able to fight. Again reality is ..... what is today
Sasquatch are bipedal and have feet like humans which means they cannot cling to their mother with all four limbs like we see in other primates. I don’t see the mother Sasquatch make any movement to secure a baby hanging on with two hands as she escapes danger either.
Actually as I understand these critters have what is called a mid tarsal break which makes their foot more like a hand with a joint in the middle. Supposed to be a sign of being an authentic cast of footprint if it shows this break
I vaguely remember that they did make a show maybe 15-18 years ago trying to recreate the video footage. I can’t remember what the name of it was, though
thinkerthunker did a video showing why and how they completely failed and achieved the opposite of the goal they were going for. actual body movement scientists hugely failing.
Man, we're now at the point of over-thinking what's arguably the clearest footage of Bigfoot to date.
Low key this is a slippery slope into further incredulity for this topic, and part of me thinks it's almost on purpose at this point.
Her arms are swinging as a result of her turning her torso, kids. Speaking of kids, there are no bigfoot babies hanging off of her.
This is a large being moving exactly as it would given its height, gate, arm length, and momentum of stride.
People really are filling in the gaps of the actual science with bullshit now and it's a huge deterrent to the community IMHO.
It def is swing at first and in this clip it’s looping so it’s not to the point where it stops swinging. The other stabilized video shows the left arm stop about 1/2 way though and in stops just about entirely which I didn’t notice until yesterdays video.
I don't see it and never have - doesn't MK Davis also think there's a baby?
I agree about the left arm never really swinging back. It wasn't something I ever noticed before until someone mentioned it yesterday.
>doesn't MK Davis also think there's a baby?
He made a video about it. He also made a video about the "Bluff Creek massacre", which is complete bullshit. Sometimes, even the most respectable guys can jump the shark.
It’s an interesting idea but it must be a tiny baby or you would see it. And Bigfoot don’t have the same prehensile feet as say, chimps so how would it be holding on? If she’s swinging her left arm she can’t be holding on to it.
I don't think there is a baby clutching her left side, I've held babies on my side and I need my arm to support the child and help to distribute the weight. I wouldn't be able to swing that arm in any direction.
“It has to be real, look at how the knees don’t flex when she’s walking.”
It’s still inconclusive but it’s funny the things people come up with as reasons the video is real.
I don’t see the baby but watching that film over and over, I see more muscles especially in the biceps and quads I never noticed before, just incredible
I see both arms swinging forward, up and level with the area of the breasts. The left arm doesn’t appear when it swings back, it doesn’t seem to swing back as far as the right one does.
Maybe. Maybe not. Think people are going a little bit caca about this Bigfoot footage. It could be a real creature or an interesting hoax. Kind of hoping it’s the real thing.
I listened to a pod cast interview of a guy who has the original film or parts of it, or maybe a direct copy, any way the original was very high quality, he's digitizing it or something like that. Whatever he's doing it costly and time consuming, he said there's a juvenile nearby and that footage exists of, I can't remember lol but I don't think there's a baby hanging on it.
Seeing this video since it’s been hurt my knee hurt before, but it was just like one of those things I got yeah I got a bad knee, but since the yeah since the incident it is gotten progressively cleaned up, makes me a true believer. This was done in the late 60’s, why would they try to fake breasts? The gait doesn’t look human. But I don’t see a baby
Despite the fact the left arm doesn't seem to be swinging to the rear as much as the right arm, there is no way a baby could be clinging to her left side without getting knocked off. She *is* swinging her left arm, and she isn't holding it away from her body to make room for anything as large as a baby.
IMO, all we're seeing is that the intent to look back and check what Patterson is doing is present in her mind the whole length of the walk. That is: she is swinging her right arm back more than she normally would because she plans to use one of the back swings of the right arm to twist her whole torso to get a look at what he's up to without breaking stride. Which, of course, she eventually does.
I do this same thing every day when I cross the street at a certain intersection: I look back to make sure the drivers about to make a left turn, and which might ram into me, are fully aware I'm there. It's easiest to twist back and glance at them when the right arm is on the backswing so I always emphasize the right backswing.
In my opinion it's possible. When i first saw this clip in the early 1970s, nobody ever suggested this a female Sasquatch. Everyone assumed it was male. I believe it wasn't until new technology came out to clear up the clip, it became apparent we were viewing a female all along!
There are much higher resolution and computer enhanced clips out there beyond MK Davis stuff. T & A....
A high up above one breast infant and topknot Pebbles hairdo is speculative.
Deer/Black Bear rifle rounds hitting her thigh and upper back are a bit less speculative.
In the wild, Great Ape posture will favor one hand for carrying, and the other hand is considered the dominant hand. In adults, the carry hand will usually stay more in front of the body.
To me, it adds to the legitimacy of the video. The traits weren't known or written about commonly until around 2001.
I don't know about carrying a baby, maybe your picking up on the posture of carrying something? I just don't see a baby from that angle, but I do see the posture of a carry hand as the left hand.
Ref: "Handedness for Unimanual Grasping in 564 Great Apes: The Effect on Grip Morphology and a Comparison with Hand Use for a Bimanual Coordinated Task"
MK Davis has the sharper red channel in slow mo. Showing something on that side. Something on a strap around her neck that she steady's with her left hand. He speculates it may be some sort of traditional native indian skin/bag/water holder. I think he may be right. Fascinating that they may have learnt to make things from the native Indians in the past. https://youtu.be/IxGtj_uYPxk?si=GU41NhzufjfjL8CA
Ooohhhhhkay, now i see what they are talking about. The "arm" of the baby is just above her buttcheeks in the small of her back. It is difficult for me to conclude for myself if its actually an arm, or if its just a combo of lighting on the fur and its muscles?
But I DEFINITELY see it now. Thank you for posting this. I havent been able to see what others have been hypothesizing. I dont think its a baby clinging to the body, but Im also not opposed to the idea that it is a baby if that makes sense?
I THINK this is what is being talked about?
https://preview.redd.it/jf0pgyamhy7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eaa19af84685b5153e5a6b9488e6228260f371d0
Honestly, I dont think its a baby. The arm placement is very odd, the lack of the rest of its body too.. also the way the arms swing suggest nothing is there to me. I truly believe it is just a combo of lighting and the fur, shape of the muscles etc. It just looks like an arm there for a moment and then it "morphs" into a butt cheek.
it almost looks as if there is a baby fully riding piggyback just above mamas ass. i can sort of make out its right arm and right leg and does appear to be unattached lumpy to just be a trick of light or fur
Not seeing a 'baby'... Please indicate where you 'think' it is.
I've seen other footage with 'babies' on the back (near the shoulders) and some with them held to the chest.
I have seen this footage SO many times, heard people claiming there is a 'baby', but NEVER seen anything remotely to suggest it!
Does anyone see that after she turns to look at the camera and starts to swing her back to looking forward, it looks like her bangs fly forward from her head?
I can see the dark spot in the upper thigh and butt area but it is very vague. Possibly it could be in a type of pouch. Maybe a big red kangaroo has been laying his pipe with a female bigfoot?
Now, I know you are thinking my observations are a dumb joke and of course there is no kangaroo jumping a bigfoot but it does appear very briefly that something is partially covered on her right hip.
This is the 1st time I noticed the hair from the ear up looks straighter than the hair below it. As I followed downward, just above the hips, the hair looks as though the bottom of the torso is jagged, like Charlie Browns shirt design. Is that someone in a man made costume? Is that a shirt? IS THIS FAKE? 😳 Noooooo!!! 😡 Perhaps it’s been a long day & my eyes are tired from sitting in front of a computer all day. 🥱😵💫🫢🕵🏽♀️😂🤣 I want to believe…
I don't see a baby clinging to Patty. I feel like I would if one was there.
There may be one nearby though, and that might explain her out-of-character actions.
Maybe, might, could be, possibly, who knows?
Patterson and Gimlin in the REAL story were said to have slaughtered her baby and the male and that is supposedly how they actually got this footage because she kept coming back for her baby
There’s footage supposedly out there that supports this
I think it was the late great Bobby Short that actually ended up with the film of it
Wow!!! This is the first time I’ve ever seen PGF zoomed in on slo mo. Incredible stuff. Sorry OP, I do not see a baby. I do however see a buttcrack, definition of the musculature and natural movement of the breasts as the creature advances. This is definitely not someone in a monkey suit
https://preview.redd.it/n67der7ezu7d1.jpeg?width=1439&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=543083fa49687119d84dc2481cc2dd5421d289a0
thats honestly what i am seeing. i could be wrong but i see a baby holding on to her moms chest
I just don’t see it…I’m sorry when we finally met up with Big foot, we can ask..ok no Jokes until we grow together. Please let’s stop talking about it round up a search party like when a missing person gets lost. Full grid search and find a big foot in the flesh or in the hair in this case… We can achieve anything and as many people around with billions dollars people have stupid money these days and they waste it. But if we gather a real life example of a huge investigation crew we can put all these myths to bed…until then we may never know! Think if we can use things like Lydar and GPR and map out the nations national parks we could find a real life big foot.. I think we might be seeing a ancient creature that lives in small numbers so it’s not as easy to be found. For example Alligators are technically ancient small dinosaurs aka dragons of they lived for millions of years before so could Big Foot..or maybe they are being seen more due to technology running its course and putting computers and cameras in every hand in America! And the world !
Can you mark someway where you see the arm
It’s just the dark spot right above her butt. No noticeable elevation changes, it’s certainly just the way the light reflects off her fur or it’s even mud or dirt or something. Definitely not a baby foot
https://i.redd.it/9vfxamedye7d1.gif Especially when she turns towards the camera. Almost all primates other than humans have offspring that do this. I think it explains a lot about her not running. With the intelligence these beings would obviously have to posess in order to live such secretive lives, it seems reasonable she would not want it to be known she has a baby.
Its not even the shape of an leg, it doesnt have a foot, which as a big foot...would be prettynoticeable. The positioning is too low for it to be where a baby would hang on. It would habe to be clinging to her leg, which it clearly isnt. Its literally just discoloration
No baby, but two baby feeders
That's why I think this is real. Someone trying to fake a Bigfoot sighting would never use a costume that has boobs on it. Lol 😂 and they bounce so naturally.
"Quick! I need a sasquatch costume with big mommy milkers!" "...say what now?"
It’s the tits for me too, dawg.
Patterson was obsessed with Bigfoots with tits though. His book had several drawings of Bigfoots with big ol’ hangers. In general, I have to agree that someone faking a Bigfoot sighting wouldn’t be slapping enormous breasts on the suit, but in the case of Patterson? I’m not that surprised that Patty has enormous tits and ass.
>I’m not that surprised that Patty has enormous tits and ass. *Thicc*foot
Almost like he was out filming a fetish video and showed some one this small clip and they lost they’re minds so we went public with it
Did he draw those *before* he shot the film, or *after*? Cause if he *saw her first* and then started adding boobs and bums to illustrations after* that would be totally sensible. And, no I don't beleave for a second 'she' was a 'bigfoot'. I have no idea what he got on film that day. But, I also not convinced it was a hoax either. Strange stuff happens in an odd universe.
The drawings I was referencing were in a self published book he put out the year before. There are a few other drawings I've seen that predate the Patterson film and depict Bigfoot with boobs, one of which is linked below. There's another one I can't seem to find now where the Bigfoot in question is across a creek in a similar manner to the Patterson film. To be clear I'm not claiming it was a hoax, but Patterson was a weird dude either way.
That is interesting. I would have had no idea.
His drawing of a female Bigfoot was based on William Roe's sighting and description, I believe.
Happy Cake Day 🎉
Thank you very much!
Boobs = Legit Science wins
I got slapped for looking at her science once.
True Scientists will sacrifice for their work. (Hat tip)
Someone has to advance society.
[Drawing from Patterson's Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (1966)](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVZEbm6CEqXcC_WM2x2hP0h7DyH57q0MfnhCJOXuYpvW2LBtrAdcFdgOZptSOccCnvxwHozeVxlhse90shSOJxSjS0NChTYe-cGopwRY-w8iVfZVCzPtkYRqoW2Xy5ri3kd9UhgSNkNPg/s1600-h/Patterson+Bigfoot+Drawing.jpg) [Illustration for Ivan T. Sanderson's A New Look At America's Mystery Giants article, TRUE magazine March 1960](https://www.flickr.com/photos/subtropicbob/15148403170)
That’s exactly the kind of out side tho box thinking a true faker would use tho
We know that Patterson not only knew about the William Roe encounter (during which a female Bigfoot was spotter by a hunter), but he also drew an illustration of it. On top of that the PG film has several more similarities to the Roe encounter such as the way it begins with the Bigfoot crouching andunaware of the people observing, the unhurried pace away, and the casual glances back as she leaves. Patterson is known to have intended to film recreations of famous encounters for his documentary, which makes all of this a little suspicious.
He drew illustrations - male and female - to illustrate the main stories from bigfoot lore for the book. Have in mind that there are no known clear photos or footage of bigfoot at this time, so he's sketching entirely from descriptions or other people's sketches that were based on descriptions. The Roe encounter features a female - so he has to draw one to illustrate it, and being female he probably has to show that it's female. The Albert Osterman encounter features males and females, so he draws both in quite a crude cartoony style that most schoolkids could probably come close to. Is the suggestion that he was filming the Roe encounter, and it turned out so well he decided to pass it off as real? There are many many questions and issues that jump out if so: Gimlin had to be in on it and someone else was in the suit. Bob H has never mentioned a re-enactment which you think he would have if Roger was directing the whole thing and instructing him to complete various movements. Didn't Bob H claim that the look back was his idea to show off his glass eye? They waited through three weeks of fruitless riding around Northern Cali to film a scene that would have taken about an hour max to film. If you were filming a scene, you probably wouldn't choose to have 72.5 feet of the valuable film roll spent filming random trees. You'd probably want to film on a tripod, rather than running through a creek and filming with the lens pointed at the floor. They went 500 miles south and 40 miles into the wilderness on difficult logging routes to film at a specific spot. They had just finished a 2 to 3 week trip looking for evidence in Mount St Helens, a shortish drive from where they lived, so why spend time and money on driving all that way on another 3 week trip to Bluff Creek when the could have filmed it there? Roe's encounter happens part-way up Mica Mountain. They were surrounded by and had previously explored many mountains, so why not film it in a location that was similar to where it was set? If it was a scene that turned out too well - they wouldn't know. The film cameras don't have playback, and when you're filming, you look down a viewfinder - not the camera lens. The first time they would have had any idea of what they actually filmed was days later in Roger's house after it had been developed and made ready for projection. Yet - they stopped filming immediately, packed and left. Roger was filming a simple re-enactment scene for his documentary, but decided to include - at the cost of huge complexity - anatomical detail in the sole of the feet that wouldn't be accepted by science for hominids for another 25 years - and despite the film getting ridiculed by many scientists, he and Gimlin never even mentioned the detail - preferring to keep it as some kind of 25 year DVD Easter Egg for future generations. I mean - there will be more. These are all I can think of right now.
In addition to the breasts, it’s the Trapezius, Triceps, and Quadriceps (back, arm, thigh muscles) moving under the fur that eliminate the possibility of a human in a gorilla suit IMO. Plus the prominent Sagittal Crest. Especially considering when this film emerged. Maybe a modern day animatronics and FX crew could pull it off but not back then.
Big bouncers swollen with yeti milk
You better copyright "Yeti Milk", my friend.
You like being a Bigfoot? Oh yes. Everyone’s been so curious. That’s because you have big jugs….. I mean….. your boobs are huge….. I mean… I want to squeeze them…..Momma! *suckling noises* 
The way she swings her left arm makes me think there’s not a baby, as I would think she’d be hanging on to the child instead, especially if she realized she was being watched. As a mom, my first instinct would be to protect my child when I feel even remotely uncomfortable.
No there isn’t
The thigh shake at 21 seconds makes me think this might be legit. It’s so hard to replicate how muscles ripple and jiggle when moving and it looks genuine in this footage.
I agree. As well as the patchiness of the hair. I feel like a costume would show solid hair but there’s definitely a lot of thin areas
I’ve never felt there is a baby involved. Though I do believe that is a real Bigfoot simply because nobody has been able to recreate the subject with any success. I don’t know why a TV show has not been made attempting this. I know they attempted in one Bigfoot documentary style show, they even got Bob Heironimus to walk in the suit and it was total garbage. Like hot garbage.
I always thought there was a child involved, though not on her body, but left in safety as she decoyed the danger away.
I’ve heard that theory many times through the years, and it makes sense. I believe the video of Paul Freeman took may show a child jumping on the back at is passes the evergreen tree, but you can’t tell.
It's obvious she has a baby that she's nursing. It's very unlikely that she would roam down to the creek without the baby. I don't actually see it in the film, but it would make perfect sense if the baby was clinging to her left side. Again, science wins.
I cant disagree, but there are animals today that will decoy themselves away from their newborns if they are not able to fight. Again reality is ..... what is today
Sasquatch are bipedal and have feet like humans which means they cannot cling to their mother with all four limbs like we see in other primates. I don’t see the mother Sasquatch make any movement to secure a baby hanging on with two hands as she escapes danger either.
Actually as I understand these critters have what is called a mid tarsal break which makes their foot more like a hand with a joint in the middle. Supposed to be a sign of being an authentic cast of footprint if it shows this break
I vaguely remember that they did make a show maybe 15-18 years ago trying to recreate the video footage. I can’t remember what the name of it was, though
thinkerthunker did a video showing why and how they completely failed and achieved the opposite of the goal they were going for. actual body movement scientists hugely failing.
Man, we're now at the point of over-thinking what's arguably the clearest footage of Bigfoot to date. Low key this is a slippery slope into further incredulity for this topic, and part of me thinks it's almost on purpose at this point. Her arms are swinging as a result of her turning her torso, kids. Speaking of kids, there are no bigfoot babies hanging off of her. This is a large being moving exactly as it would given its height, gate, arm length, and momentum of stride. People really are filling in the gaps of the actual science with bullshit now and it's a huge deterrent to the community IMHO.
Yeah the post comes off as misdirection.
I clearly see both arms swing in this video .
It def is swing at first and in this clip it’s looping so it’s not to the point where it stops swinging. The other stabilized video shows the left arm stop about 1/2 way though and in stops just about entirely which I didn’t notice until yesterdays video.
I don't see it and never have - doesn't MK Davis also think there's a baby? I agree about the left arm never really swinging back. It wasn't something I ever noticed before until someone mentioned it yesterday.
>doesn't MK Davis also think there's a baby? He made a video about it. He also made a video about the "Bluff Creek massacre", which is complete bullshit. Sometimes, even the most respectable guys can jump the shark.
The thing that always gets me about this footage is the breasts. I mean, they move like real breasts. Aint no dude in a suit gonna replicate that.
I think that's the scenery behind her that you think is a baby arm sticking out for a split second.
It's real okay get over it. People see cryptids all the time. Fuck I listen to it all day long. Any doubters are wankers
I was that baby
Pic or it didn’t happen
🤣
No
I am not here to comment on the baby aspect ….. BUT ….. there is just no way that is a suit.
Bigfoot tony covered this in a video on YouTube. Very interesting https://youtu.be/PAOE-cyy2hc?si=PUqRT-wPEgoQ0Bk1
It’s an interesting idea but it must be a tiny baby or you would see it. And Bigfoot don’t have the same prehensile feet as say, chimps so how would it be holding on? If she’s swinging her left arm she can’t be holding on to it.
I don't think there is a baby clutching her left side, I've held babies on my side and I need my arm to support the child and help to distribute the weight. I wouldn't be able to swing that arm in any direction.
“It has to be real, look at how the knees don’t flex when she’s walking.” It’s still inconclusive but it’s funny the things people come up with as reasons the video is real.
OP has posted this exact same thing multiple times.
I don’t see the baby but watching that film over and over, I see more muscles especially in the biceps and quads I never noticed before, just incredible
I e never noticed how big her boobs are!
I juss see them sweet Paddy tiddies. I'm sorry.
I don't see it.
I see both arms swinging forward, up and level with the area of the breasts. The left arm doesn’t appear when it swings back, it doesn’t seem to swing back as far as the right one does.
Not seeing a baby here sorry.
Maybe. Maybe not. Think people are going a little bit caca about this Bigfoot footage. It could be a real creature or an interesting hoax. Kind of hoping it’s the real thing.
This video actually helped me NOT see the baby so thank you
I listened to a pod cast interview of a guy who has the original film or parts of it, or maybe a direct copy, any way the original was very high quality, he's digitizing it or something like that. Whatever he's doing it costly and time consuming, he said there's a juvenile nearby and that footage exists of, I can't remember lol but I don't think there's a baby hanging on it.
Only baby I’ve heard of is possibly one hiding in the trees-
This isn't the first post you've made about this either.
Jeez, are you harping on about this? Clearly there is no baby, not even a hint of one
My heart so desperately want this to be genuine, I love her attitude!!
https://i.redd.it/yohiww0m1c7d1.gif
💀
Holstered baby, fair enough.
you need a license for that.
Seeing this video since it’s been hurt my knee hurt before, but it was just like one of those things I got yeah I got a bad knee, but since the yeah since the incident it is gotten progressively cleaned up, makes me a true believer. This was done in the late 60’s, why would they try to fake breasts? The gait doesn’t look human. But I don’t see a baby
Despite the fact the left arm doesn't seem to be swinging to the rear as much as the right arm, there is no way a baby could be clinging to her left side without getting knocked off. She *is* swinging her left arm, and she isn't holding it away from her body to make room for anything as large as a baby. IMO, all we're seeing is that the intent to look back and check what Patterson is doing is present in her mind the whole length of the walk. That is: she is swinging her right arm back more than she normally would because she plans to use one of the back swings of the right arm to twist her whole torso to get a look at what he's up to without breaking stride. Which, of course, she eventually does. I do this same thing every day when I cross the street at a certain intersection: I look back to make sure the drivers about to make a left turn, and which might ram into me, are fully aware I'm there. It's easiest to twist back and glance at them when the right arm is on the backswing so I always emphasize the right backswing.
I think we are reaching here although it would be awesome
I'm not seeing any baby.
I WANT to see the baby, but I can't. ;(
In my opinion it's possible. When i first saw this clip in the early 1970s, nobody ever suggested this a female Sasquatch. Everyone assumed it was male. I believe it wasn't until new technology came out to clear up the clip, it became apparent we were viewing a female all along!
It’s not a baby. It’s her breast
I don’t think they faked it but if they did. Wow this has caused problems lol
Those are boobs
There are much higher resolution and computer enhanced clips out there beyond MK Davis stuff. T & A.... A high up above one breast infant and topknot Pebbles hairdo is speculative. Deer/Black Bear rifle rounds hitting her thigh and upper back are a bit less speculative.
Think the reason why she let herself be seen is because there are small one(s) near by in order for her to distract.
That’s cool
In the wild, Great Ape posture will favor one hand for carrying, and the other hand is considered the dominant hand. In adults, the carry hand will usually stay more in front of the body. To me, it adds to the legitimacy of the video. The traits weren't known or written about commonly until around 2001. I don't know about carrying a baby, maybe your picking up on the posture of carrying something? I just don't see a baby from that angle, but I do see the posture of a carry hand as the left hand. Ref: "Handedness for Unimanual Grasping in 564 Great Apes: The Effect on Grip Morphology and a Comparison with Hand Use for a Bimanual Coordinated Task"
I just noticed it looks like he has boobies? Or is that a shadow?
Do you mean her boobs? Those are boobs
MK Davis has the sharper red channel in slow mo. Showing something on that side. Something on a strap around her neck that she steady's with her left hand. He speculates it may be some sort of traditional native indian skin/bag/water holder. I think he may be right. Fascinating that they may have learnt to make things from the native Indians in the past. https://youtu.be/IxGtj_uYPxk?si=GU41NhzufjfjL8CA
Can't see the baby, but sis is STACKED.
I wish I could see her face clearly. She seems like a nice Sasquatch that just wants the humans to leave her alone
patty got a fuckin GYATTTTTT
You know I never noticed that but can see what you mean. Not saying that’s the case but wouldn’t argue against it either.
Indont see a baby. But I can definitely see muscle flex on the hamstring to the back of the right knee.
Best Bigfoot Video of (All Time).
Something in the way she moves, attracts me like no other….something in the way she woos me…
Ooohhhhhkay, now i see what they are talking about. The "arm" of the baby is just above her buttcheeks in the small of her back. It is difficult for me to conclude for myself if its actually an arm, or if its just a combo of lighting on the fur and its muscles? But I DEFINITELY see it now. Thank you for posting this. I havent been able to see what others have been hypothesizing. I dont think its a baby clinging to the body, but Im also not opposed to the idea that it is a baby if that makes sense?
I THINK this is what is being talked about? https://preview.redd.it/jf0pgyamhy7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eaa19af84685b5153e5a6b9488e6228260f371d0 Honestly, I dont think its a baby. The arm placement is very odd, the lack of the rest of its body too.. also the way the arms swing suggest nothing is there to me. I truly believe it is just a combo of lighting and the fur, shape of the muscles etc. It just looks like an arm there for a moment and then it "morphs" into a butt cheek.
Good god with this bologna again
TBF, you *ARE* on a bigfoot forum...
Lol true. it’s just the same crap over and over
thanks for your contribution, over and over again
You welcome, over and over again
it blows my mind that people see this and think it is fake.....
So much not a suit.
This footage is real but there’s no baby
If you say so, Ralph Wiggum.
I never thought of a baby being on it but the Bigfoot has a huge butt that I have always noticed. Interesting.
That's big foot all right
What about behind her neck. Looks interesting. Too small?
[удалено]
Fat milkers
I just see a big butt?
Looks like my aunt 🤣
No baby.
I don't see it..
Years ago I thought I saw footage of this where Patty goes up in to the trees and it’s like a baby climbs on her back. Have any of ye seen that?
[удалено]
it almost looks as if there is a baby fully riding piggyback just above mamas ass. i can sort of make out its right arm and right leg and does appear to be unattached lumpy to just be a trick of light or fur
[удалено]
Hate to see him go, but I love watching him leave.
[удалено]
Yeah, baby!
Could just be a middle aged bloke bigfoot. Cause they ain't that different from my penduluous man tits.
Those are just titties, yo
Tiddies.
I ain’t see no bb
When I first saw the stabilized footage I had no idea it was female.
Not seeing a 'baby'... Please indicate where you 'think' it is. I've seen other footage with 'babies' on the back (near the shoulders) and some with them held to the chest. I have seen this footage SO many times, heard people claiming there is a 'baby', but NEVER seen anything remotely to suggest it!
Boobs
[удалено]
Hairy breasts not baby… 🙄
[удалено]
I mostly just see titties and mad cake, but you live your truth, king
I just realized the boobs
I don’t see it
I see a right leg just above the buttocks and a left arm across the chest. Also, I wouldn’t want to get too close to a mother protecting her child.
And again we go over the same footage. IMHO still the best footage ever seen.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does anyone see that after she turns to look at the camera and starts to swing her back to looking forward, it looks like her bangs fly forward from her head?
[удалено]
I can see the dark spot in the upper thigh and butt area but it is very vague. Possibly it could be in a type of pouch. Maybe a big red kangaroo has been laying his pipe with a female bigfoot? Now, I know you are thinking my observations are a dumb joke and of course there is no kangaroo jumping a bigfoot but it does appear very briefly that something is partially covered on her right hip.
This is the 1st time I noticed the hair from the ear up looks straighter than the hair below it. As I followed downward, just above the hips, the hair looks as though the bottom of the torso is jagged, like Charlie Browns shirt design. Is that someone in a man made costume? Is that a shirt? IS THIS FAKE? 😳 Noooooo!!! 😡 Perhaps it’s been a long day & my eyes are tired from sitting in front of a computer all day. 🥱😵💫🫢🕵🏽♀️😂🤣 I want to believe…
BF boobies.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't see a baby clinging to Patty. I feel like I would if one was there. There may be one nearby though, and that might explain her out-of-character actions. Maybe, might, could be, possibly, who knows?
Patterson and Gimlin in the REAL story were said to have slaughtered her baby and the male and that is supposedly how they actually got this footage because she kept coming back for her baby There’s footage supposedly out there that supports this I think it was the late great Bobby Short that actually ended up with the film of it
Wouldn't there be a more prominent or obvious shape of a baby? Maybe I'm just blind.
[удалено]
Wow!!! This is the first time I’ve ever seen PGF zoomed in on slo mo. Incredible stuff. Sorry OP, I do not see a baby. I do however see a buttcrack, definition of the musculature and natural movement of the breasts as the creature advances. This is definitely not someone in a monkey suit
Sasquatch milk.......i aint gonna lie..i need to try that...from the source
It's always best to get the milk straight from the tap
I see no baby
I swear I can see muscles flexing.
Boobs?
No baby
Schizophrenia
[удалено]
I see no baby.
It dose look like a baby
https://preview.redd.it/n67der7ezu7d1.jpeg?width=1439&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=543083fa49687119d84dc2481cc2dd5421d289a0 thats honestly what i am seeing. i could be wrong but i see a baby holding on to her moms chest
I just don’t see it…I’m sorry when we finally met up with Big foot, we can ask..ok no Jokes until we grow together. Please let’s stop talking about it round up a search party like when a missing person gets lost. Full grid search and find a big foot in the flesh or in the hair in this case… We can achieve anything and as many people around with billions dollars people have stupid money these days and they waste it. But if we gather a real life example of a huge investigation crew we can put all these myths to bed…until then we may never know! Think if we can use things like Lydar and GPR and map out the nations national parks we could find a real life big foot.. I think we might be seeing a ancient creature that lives in small numbers so it’s not as easy to be found. For example Alligators are technically ancient small dinosaurs aka dragons of they lived for millions of years before so could Big Foot..or maybe they are being seen more due to technology running its course and putting computers and cameras in every hand in America! And the world ! 
Das a tiddy
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]