I have been spending too much time on facebook. This article is in response to comments I have read.
Man, apes, and monkeys are all primates. All primates can stand erect and walk, and small primates can even run bipedally. Gorillas can stand and walk clumsily on their back legs but they can't run very well, if at all. In order for a large primate to run and jump as bigfoot is reported to do, he must have a rigid foot with a strong arch. Bigfoot has a thick pad on the sole of his foot which masks the arch in his tracks giving the appearance of a flat foot . What is purported to be evidence of a mid-tarsal break in bigfoot tracks can also be seen in human tracks under similar conditions.
In the Patterson film, the subject is walking on terrain littered with sticks and stones, her feet are sinking into the muddy soil. Under such conditions a compliant gait is called for even for humans. Due to the unevenness of the terrain, during most of the film, her lower legs are obscured except in a few images where she raises her foot off the ground. In these images there is foreshortening due to the angle to the camera. One should look at these images with fresh eyes and not be biased by suggestions from people trying to influence your perceptions. I see no indication that the ratio of upper leg to lower leg is any different than human.
In walking on such terrain one will naturally raise his foot higher due to the obstacles and miry ground whether one is human or otherwise. Don't be misled by comparisons to people walking on a sidewalk with shoes on. People raise their foot only enough to clear the ground. To do otherwise is energetically inefficient. Put people in the same terrain as Patty before you make comparisons. I'm sure you will see that they raise their feet higher in such terrain.
When someone hears the word primate they assume that it means ape or monkey. Some people seem to think that when Melba Ketchum used the word primate to describe the creature that allegedly mated with a human female, she meant the human female mated with an ape. That is not true.
If you are unfamiliar with Melba Ketchum see http://www.bigfootencounters.com/films/ABCtelevision.htm
The use of the term "primate" by Melba Ketchum is misleading because the "primate" was the aboriginal bigfoot who had to be human enough to mate with a human female (assuming that Melba's conclusions are true). The addition of a small amount of human DNA to bigfoot DNA probably didn't make much difference in the appearance and behavior of the creature and some bigfeet may not even have this DNA. The "primate" was bigfoot who was already human
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/IM.htm
William Mayes