Sasquatch Chronicles Blog

Jul 22

ThinkerThunker: “Expedition Bigfoot” Claims Patty Was 6’3″

ThinkerThunker writes “A major TV network hires a “visual effects guy” to do something he’s never done before, using software in a way it wasn’t meant to be used, only to pin all their hopes on the wrong magical rotten log. But total failure didn’t stop them from declaring themselves THE WORLD’S FIRST to accurately measure Patty the Bigfoot. See for yourself.

You’ll also hear about how I blew my shot at a TV show, arguing over the “Squamish Bigfoot” video. And you’ll see my common sense approach that proves the Patterson Bigfoot was at minimum 7 to 8 ft tall.”

14 Responses to “ThinkerThunker: “Expedition Bigfoot” Claims Patty Was 6’3″”

  3. Charles R

    I would go with the original estimates made by Bob Titmus, I believe, maybe John Greene or some others that were at that site a short time after the event. After watching the original film they measured the trees or limbs at which she passed and estimated the height at 7 feet four to six inches. This would also coincide with the depth of the tracks that Bob Gimlin could not come close to achieving even jumped off a stump with boots on. It would also explain that at a hurried but very athletic and graceful walk, whe was able to achieve a track that measured from 42 all the way to 48 inches, that would seem highly doubtful for one at 6′ 3″. I saw their measurement during the episode last month and just dismissed it outright. The whole damn area has changed considerable in 55 years.

  4. Knobby

    ‘About 2 weeks have the filming of the P/G film John Greene and Rene Dahinden went tot the location, and estimating where Patty walked in front of a tree on the film, they determined she was 7’4″ to 7’6″. You have to remember that sasquatches walk in a compliant gait with the knees bent,and standing erect she was probably in the 8 foot + range. 6’3″? Ignorant of them not to investigate how it was measured back in the day, 1967.

  6. Mark R

    ThinkerThunker assumes and guesstimates as much as maybe more than the tv show. Not even the two men who made the film would be able to give an accurate measurement of height. I agree that reality TV isn’t reality but ThinkerThunker presents evidence that’s even less scientific than the show did.

    • Charles R

      I totally agree with you Mark R. The part he got right is that the dynamic area of Bluff Creek is not the same 55 years later and some limb on a decaying tree is not the same.

      • Mark R

        Charles R you are correct, like all nature Bluff Creek is a dynamic environment. It’s nearly hypocritical that his analysis uses trees for dimensions that aren’t even from Bluff Creek. He assumes sizes in three dimensions on a two dimensional film. We don’t know how tall the trees are in the Patty film. We don’t know how much the river bed plane changes because it’s obstructed by undergrowth. And we don’t know Patty’s distance behind the trees.

      • Mark R

        Thanks for the link. ThinkerThunker starts out by basically saying it’s not exact but “close enough.” As I said previously, that’s not scientific. Also, you can’t see the base or the tops of the trees so there’s no way to determine that they are mature Aspens in the Patty film. To add to the uncontrolled variables there is no way to tell if Patty is 20″ behind the trees or 20 feet. ThinkerThunker is guessing based on his trees he’s standing behind. He’s comparing apples to oranges. At least with the TV show they actually used lidar measurements taken at the site and not some other local.

        I’m not being sarcastic, but what is ThinkerThunker’s scientific degree in? His stuff is interesting and entertaining but imo he’s using far less science to determine the height of Patty than the TV show. And that’s not even mentioning his statement on her weight, that’s all conjecture and opinion.

  7. Mark R

    The other variable that neither side is considering is when Patterson filmed his footage was Patty mature and fully grown? An 8ft tall sasquatch was 6’3″ at some point.

  9. cynthia s

    I watched that episode and bought it because I guess I’m gullible. It still didn’t detract from my belief that the Patty film is legit. It could be the female is an adolescent, perhaps not fully grown even though she has breasts. She could still be gaining in height. No one really knows how they grow from infancy to adulthood. They probably are varied in height as they are in coloring and facial features.

  10. Bill F

    The best bet any of us have for accurate information is to turn off the TV.. better yet get rid of it. It is a distraction for low I.Q. “programming”.. and is MEANT to be just that. Toss that thing in a dumpster somewhere and forget it ever existed. Discover what is real.

Leave a Reply