Here are the Todd Gatewood YouTube videos... "This channel is about my restoration of the Patterson Bluff Creek film of a Bigfoot or Sasquatch taken in 1967."
Somewhere in that mess below is information that sorts everything out about the enhancement of both frame 352 (and the whole film, I guess), once and for all...
Something quite large is XING abreast with Bigfoot out there and there seems to be a lot of evidence for this.
Male and female apes have nipples, so can we focus on or enhance the chest to get a closer look? Beware that these can be faked also. No ape other humans has the big mammaries so does that make the supposed Bigfoot in the frame here a human?
(Aug 9, 2025 07:50 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Been a long time since I encountered unabashed tiddy humor. At least since junior high I'd say. Can't say I missed it much.
Just my way of asking how they know the Sasquatch in frame 352 is a biological female?
(Aug 9, 2025 07:50 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Been a long time since I encountered unabashed tiddy humor. At least since junior high I'd say. Can't say I missed it much.
Just my way of asking how they know the Sasquatch in frame 352 is a biological female?
You should try asking that directly next time instead of getting off on ridiculing anonymous women's breasts. It would really help your credibility--if you had any that is.
I still maintain the likelihood of MR not believing any of his so called weird and beyond claims.
MR….10 yrs ago posted a thread in which was stated the following:
Quote: A fascinating analysis of the famous Bigfoot footage at Bluff Creek in 1967. This is not even to mention the obvious breasts that have been discovered on the creature, indicating a female now called Patty. Who puts breasts on a monkey suit just to fake a Bigfoot? Nobody. The film is of a REAL Bigfoot!
No responses back then but perhaps MR relishing some newfound notoriety.
The video link posted then is now blocked by National Geographic for copyright infringement. But that’s besides the point since it’s obvious from above quote that breasts were not included in the fascinating analysis of sighting. There’s also a few claims, one that nobody puts breasts on a monkey suit to fake Bigfoot plus video is of a real specimen, claims that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
Breasts on Bigfoot was not new in 1967. In fact the story of a William Roe sighting in 1959 mentions them. I like how he describes the creature as ‘IT’ for the most part but he also compares IT to A man when describing IT’s back.
C CAug 10, 2025 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: Aug 10, 2025 04:49 PM by C C.)
(Aug 10, 2025 11:50 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [...] Breasts on Bigfoot was not new in 1967. In fact the story of a William Roe sighting in 1959 mentions them. I like how he describes the creature as ‘IT’ for the most part but he also compares IT to A man when describing IT’s back.
Why couldn’t Patterson have modelled a Bigfoot suit using Roe’s description? Can it be proven he didn’t?
Unlike humans, other primates don't have permanent breasts. So (if real), a female Bigfoot with breasts would be one that developed such in the late stage of pregnancy, extended into the nursing period of an infant.
Since Bigfoot has a sagittal crest and is inferred to have a typical ape-sized brain, that indeed places it in the realm of majority primates. Any connection to possible human lineage would date back to a branch before or concurrent with the still crested Paranthropus aethiopicus, well before Homo type mammalian glands.
Going against the grain of "other primates" is the obvious human-like nose on Patty. Even Paranthropus aethiopicus didn't have that (had to wait for the development of Homo erectus).
And there's the absence of Patty carrying an infant, though it could have died or not been born yet. (Does Patty look pregnant? Both gorillas and chimps have prominent bellies when their breasts appear.)
Bigfoot enthusiasts associate the creature with Gigantopithecus, which stemmed from the Ponginae branch of Hominidae that also developed orangutans. Humans and their ancestors are not descended from the Ponginae branch. So both the "arid climate" nose and permanent breasts are utterly foreign to the latter. Gigantopithecus was a resident of wet Southeast Asia, like orangutans.
Alberta Sasquatch: The head, though massive by direct comparison to that of man, has been described as “relatively” small for an creature of that size, indicative of a rather small brain. The head develops a sagittal crest in adult males as well as in females, probably bony, which sometimes produces the effect of a person wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Some creatures, possibly younger, have a round head. Brain volume is probably close to or slightly above that of the gorilla.
Nasal morphology and the emergence of Homo erectus: Modern humans, among extant hominoids, possess a unique projecting, external nose [...] This anatomy appears with the emergence of Homo erectus ca. 1.6 million years ago. [...] it appears to have been primarily a response to the need for moisture conservation in an arid environment via turbulence enhancement and ambient cooling of expired air. Its appearance at this time in hominid evolution [...] indicates a shift to increasingly prolonged bouts of activity in open and arid environments.
Aug 8, 2025 08:34 PM
(This post was last modified: Aug 8, 2025 10:04 PM by C C.)
![[Image: v6kbXtJ.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/v6kbXtJ.jpeg)
