That famous Bigfoot movie footage from the 60's has been digitally analyzed and has been proven to not have been a hoax. with the enhancement you can actually watch the muscles on the face move as the creature turns to face the camera. and the fact that they used 8mm grainy film and could have no way (40 years ago) to have foreseen the possibility of digital enhancement tools also lends major credence to the fact it wasn't hoaxed. they have also done computer generated models and have proven that the gate and walking characteristics are well outside the range of humans so it isn't possible that it was a man in a suit. not to mention if you look close the bigfoot has huge titties who would think of that
this is not true. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense) that tells us this is just another - in a long list - of bigfoot hoaxes ... just a few items as food for thought...
1) Bob Hieronimus, a close associate of Patterson and Gimlin, claimed to be the guy in the suit. Multiple friends and relatives not only back up his story, and claim they were aware of it in 1967, but also claim to have seen the suit in his trunk before Patterson and Gimlin reclaimed it. Add to this a confession by a known maker of gorilla suits that claimed to have sold Patterson a suit, which he was fully capable of modifying. I mean, what are the odds that the best footage we have to date was shot by a guy who was purposefully out to film Bigfoot, with a rented camera, at a time when having and renting cameras was not commonplace. Smells fishy to me.
2) Despite the claims, many independent experts have stated that the footage seems to depict a person of human height and girth, with a human center of balance, walking with a gait (albeit forced) within human means.
3) The breasts (glad you mentioned them) probably molded on so as to explain why this Bigfoot wasn't 8 feet tall (being a smaller female), were covered with fur - an anomaly in the primate world. The fur also seems to be of uniform length all over the creature, further indication of a costume. Add to that the immobile fur diaper, and you got...monkey suit!
4) Failure of Patterson and crew to pursue the creature after the 60 seconds of footage, even when the creature was not moving very fast. Footage is jerky and amateurish, even to a ridiculous degree. No attempt to manually zoom into subject and the film is full wide the whole time.
5) Failure of anyone, anywhere to get better footage than this in almost 40 years despite advanced equipment like trip cameras and the almost universal presence of hand held cameras tells me the creature does not exist.
6) Patterson and crew where on horseback clomping through the woods and snuck up on one of the most elusive creatures?!?
7) The footprints taken from the scene don't have any toes!
8 )Patterson and company agreed beforehand not to shoot the bigfoot (a very good idea if your buddy is wearing the costume).
9) Patterson only had 2 minutes of film left? Why -- how many other bigfoots was he filming?
10 ) let's go back to the rented camera - this guy has to be the luckiest in the world - as he rented a film camera (very expensive and unusual 40 years ago) and was fortunate enough to see and film a bigfoot the very first time out!!! Coincidence, luck, or bullshit? you decide.
That's just a few - I'm sure you can come up with more reasons the footage... and bigfoot is baloney.