Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Avindair]

Long-time lurker, deciding to join the fray.

I'm ashamed to admit it; I actually used to read the BFF. From 2003 until 2006, I thought it was goofy fun to watch the guys there rip apart all new evidence for their beloved questing beast. These guys actually seemed like they wanted to know the truth.

Then I voiced my opinion that the PGF was clearly a guy in a suit (the head looks like a furry motorcycle helmet, fer cryin' out loud!) and I got to see the real nature of the board.

Yow.

The rule for discourse over at the BFF, apparently, was "everything is open for scrutiny except Patterson's film." The phrase "sacred cow" isn't strong enough to convey the level of irrational adoration directed towards those sixty seconds of needlessly shaky footage. By stating my opinion that all it showed as a guy walking in a furry suit, I might as well have dropped a nutty steamer in the baptismal fountain of the Church of St. Patterson and the Blessed Gimlin.

Which brings me back to both the PGF, and a few questions that I've never had adequately answered over on the BFF:

1. No Pattyphile has ever adequately explained why Bob Heironimus' gate matches Patty's gate so precisely.

This isn't a matter of opinion or conjecture. All you have to do is watch the side-by-side animated .GIF that Dfoot put together to see what I'm talking about.

This is pretty signifigant. Bob claims he was in the suit, and he walks funny in exactly the same way that the PGF furry walks funny. No need to squint and tilt your head; it's right there on the screen, with nary a blobsquatch or red circle on a fuzzy frame to be found.

To date, responses to this query have been a erudite "Nuh-uh!". Dissatisfied with this useless, if brief, response, I ask it again: How does a proponent explain this match without conceding Mr. H's claim?

That being said...

2. Whatever happened to the recreated footage using Bob H. in a Morris suit?

Though I believe Morris spoke to Patterson before the PGF was shot, I don't buy that the suit on screen was made by his company. Nevertheless, I do recall seeing some stills of this effort. Sure, the suit wasn't that purty, but neither was the Patty suit.

I'm just interested in seeing a much older, much heavier Bob in motion in squatch rags again.

What happened?

3. No Pattyphile has ever adequately explained why they insist that Mr. Heironimus has never passed a polygraph test when he actually has, and that it's part of the public record.

Of course, a certain BF-friendly link that I sadly can't provide (too few posts here) contains a couple of lines of delightful Woo ("...Heironimus is unable to produce the alleged costume...Heironimus footprints do not match those left by the creature in the Patterson Film...") and one outright lie ("...he is unable to duplicate the locomotion of the creature filmed by Roger Patteron in October of 1967..."), but by now I'm used to this kind of fact-spinning.

4. "Muscles" and "bulky build" = "Padding on a costume". Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

5. Why do Pattyphiles not recognize the concept of pareidolia when viewing the squirming goo that is the enormously blown-up mess of any given frame of the PGF?

6. Why is it that the observations of professionals like Chris Wallas, Dfoot, and others in the film and makeup industry are ignored, but a couple of random straight lines drawn by a few guys who know how to use Photoshop is considered compelling evidence?

7. Why is it that the vast majority of eye-witness drawings of the Big Monkey look absolutely nothing like Patty? Additionally, why are Dfoot's matches to an existing mask ignored, despite the obvious similarities?

8. Am I the only one who noticed that the PGF seems to follow the same script as the much earlier William Roe sighting?

Please tell me that I'm not the only one to find this fishy.

9. How, exactly, did the film make it off the mountain, to a developing lab, and onto a projector in record time?

...and the big one...

10. Forty years on, and this is the best film evidence available? Even with video and still cameras on cell phones, trail cams, and encroaching civilization? This is it?

No, the Freeman footage doesn't count. Not only is it poorly acted, not only is it a pretty obvious suit, but the source is a known hoaxer. That "evidence"? Out the window.

Not the Memorial Day Footage, either. My costume-making friend and I roared at the enhancements on the "Legend Meets Science" DVD where you could see the unsewn calves of the gorilla suit flapping as the actor ran, and when the guy lifted off his mask to cool down.

Redwood footage? Nope. Anyone remember the notorious jokester in the bar who got information out of the Hollywood types before they hit the road?

So, we're left with the PGF...which is shaky, blurry, and clearly Bob in a costume. A fact which, oh, yeah, people up in Yakima were aparently already aware of for years.

That's just sad.

Looking forward to responses.

 

[manofthesea]

Worthy of a Booknote

Long-time lurker, deciding to join the fray.

I'm ashamed to admit it; I actually used to read the BFF. From 2003 until 2006, I thought it was goofy fun to watch the guys there rip apart all new evidence for their beloved questing beast. These guys actually seemed like they wanted to know the truth.

Then I voiced my opinion that the PGF was clearly a guy in a suit (the head looks like a furry motorcycle helmet, fer cryin' out loud!) and I got to see the real nature of the board.

Yow.

The rule for discourse over at the BFF, apparently, was "everything is open for scrutiny except Patterson's film." The phrase "sacred cow" isn't strong enough to convey the level of irrational adoration directed towards those sixty seconds of needlessly shaky footage. By stating my opinion that all it showed as a guy walking in a furry suit, I might as well have dropped a nutty steamer in the baptismal fountain of the Church of St. Patterson and the Blessed Gimlin.

Which brings me back to both the PGF, and a few questions that I've never had adequately answered over on the BFF:

1. No Pattyphile has ever adequately explained why Bob Heironimus' gate matches Patty's gate so precisely.

This isn't a matter of opinion or conjecture. All you have to do is watch the side-by-side animated .GIF that Dfoot put together to see what I'm talking about.

This is pretty signifigant. Bob claims he was in the suit, and he walks funny in exactly the same way that the PGF furry walks funny. No need to squint and tilt your head; it's right there on the screen, with nary a blobsquatch or red circle on a fuzzy frame to be found.

To date, responses to this query have been a erudite "Nuh-uh!". Dissatisfied with this useless, if brief, response, I ask it again: How does a proponent explain this match without conceding Mr. H's claim?

That being said...

2. Whatever happened to the recreated footage using Bob H. in a Morris suit?

Though I believe Morris spoke to Patterson before the PGF was shot, I don't buy that the suit on screen was made by his company. Nevertheless, I do recall seeing some stills of this effort. Sure, the suit wasn't that purty, but neither was the Patty suit.

I'm just interested in seeing a much older, much heavier Bob in motion in squatch rags again.

What happened?

3. No Pattyphile has ever adequately explained why they insist that Mr. Heironimus has never passed a polygraph test when he actually has, and that it's part of the public record.

Of course, a certain BF-friendly link that I sadly can't provide (too few posts here) contains a couple of lines of delightful Woo ("...Heironimus is unable to produce the alleged costume...Heironimus footprints do not match those left by the creature in the Patterson Film...") and one outright lie ("...he is unable to duplicate the locomotion of the creature filmed by Roger Patteron in October of 1967..."), but by now I'm used to this kind of fact-spinning.

4. "Muscles" and "bulky build" = "Padding on a costume". Why is this concept so hard to grasp?

5. Why do Pattyphiles not recognize the concept of pareidolia when viewing the squirming goo that is the enormously blown-up mess of any given frame of the PGF?

6. Why is it that the observations of professionals like Chris Wallas, Dfoot, and others in the film and makeup industry are ignored, but a couple of random straight lines drawn by a few guys who know how to use Photoshop is considered compelling evidence?

7. Why is it that the vast majority of eye-witness drawings of the Big Monkey look absolutely nothing like Patty? Additionally, why are Dfoot's matches to an existing mask ignored, despite the obvious similarities?

8. Am I the only one who noticed that the PGF seems to follow the same script as the much earlier William Roe sighting?

Please tell me that I'm not the only one to find this fishy.

9. How, exactly, did the film make it off the mountain, to a developing lab, and onto a projector in record time?

...and the big one...

10. Forty years on, and this is the best film evidence available? Even with video and still cameras on cell phones, trail cams, and encroaching civilization? This is it?

No, the Freeman footage doesn't count. Not only is it poorly acted, not only is it a pretty obvious suit, but the source is a known hoaxer. That "evidence"? Out the window.

Not the Memorial Day Footage, either. My costume-making friend and I roared at the enhancements on the "Legend Meets Science" DVD where you could see the unsewn calves of the gorilla suit flapping as the actor ran, and when the guy lifted off his mask to cool down.

Redwood footage? Nope. Anyone remember the notorious jokester in the bar who got information out of the Hollywood types before they hit the road?

So, we're left with the PGF...which is shaky, blurry, and clearly Bob in a costume. A fact which, oh, yeah, people up in Yakima were aparently already aware of for years.

That's just sad.

Looking forward to responses.

Some of these majorly insightful posts should be in a reference type thread.
I like number 7 myself. And anything to do with Bob Heronimus and Bob Gimlin.

 

[William Parcher]

That's excellent, Avindair. We've chewed on many of those questions here on JREF. Your postings on BFF are some of the best. I guess I've read nearly every thread there on PGF over the past couple years. I liked Coltane's stuff too, but they killed him off. There are other classic skeptical posters there, but most of those wandered off or got kilt.

MOTS, you make a huge thread bigger by creating an unneccesary quotation. You posted right after Avindair and you just could have wrote your bit only.

 

[manofthesea]

That's excellent, Avindair. We've chewed on many of those questions here on JREF. Your postings on BFF are some of the best. I guess I've read nearly every thread there on PGF over the past couple years. I liked Coltane's stuff too, but they killed him off. There are other classic skeptical posters there, but most of those wandered off or got kilt.

MOTS, you make a huge thread bigger by creating an unneccesary quotation. You posted right after Avindair and you just could have wrote your bit only.

Sorry about that. I didn't want to distract from his message, but I agreed (and stated so here) to some of his points.
My recent question regarding Bob Heronimus notwithstanding (if he had costume wearing experience), I think any information regarding the surviving principals should be examined further.

But like I said, this post and others containing valuable and unresolved points should be readily available in a reference thread. This subject obviously merits that. It's apparent that there are some crafty minds willing to discuss this subject, but they don't know where to start.

 

[William Parcher]

What we need is for the two Bobs to get together and discuss this in a public forum. I'd even spring for pay-per-view.

 

[Linda777NJ]

This is the first time I have ever even encountered a serious discussion of any kind on Bigfoot. So I watched the video and looked at the rest of the stills posted on the thread. IMO It's a no brainer.

You can clearly see where the top of the costume meets the bottom half. The top doesn't move at all when the guy is turning and you can even clearly see exactly the suit top meets bottom.
At the end of the arms you can also see a dividing line between the edge of the sleeve and the gloves worn under it.
You can even see where the seams would be for the extra butt cushion. The feet are just super lame.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hello Avindairr !!

You were one of the rational voices at BFF ..

I remember when you left ..

I was posting over there as ' Skeptical Greg ' ..

I know this thread is a monster, but try to skim through it when you have the time..
There is a gem or two as well as some names you will find familiar ..

Another thread you might want to take a look at

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70782

Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Was started by DesertYeti ( Dr. Anton Wroblewski ) ..

It did a great deal to show how useless foot impressions are..

If you haven't picked up on it yet, ' SweatyYeti ' is our old friend ' CoolFoot ', from BFF..

I have to give him credit for hanging in there..

He had a bit of support for a while from Lal and to a lesser extent DTK ..

Huntster managed to get banned, and even Roger Knights dropped in for a couple of posts..

He seemed to have been put of by the slightly different standard of evidence called for here..

 

[tube]

 

[historian]

This is the first time I have ever even encountered a serious discussion of any kind on Bigfoot. So I watched the video and looked at the rest of the stills posted on the thread. IMO It's a no brainer. You can clearly see where the top of the costume meets the bottom half. The top doesn't move at all when the guy is turning and you can even clearly see* exactly the suit top meets bottom. At the end of the arms you can also see a dividing line between the edge of the sleeve and the gloves worn under it. You can even see where the seams would be for the extra butt cushion. The feet are just super lame.

From your litany of Sherlock Holmes type observations, it sounds like you are describing our favorite BLOKE IN A SUIT.And here is a candid shot of your SPIRITUAL LEADER.* Would you date this guy, your hero?* Would you drink a glass of kool-aid that he may have offered you?* Would you trust this man any further than you can throw him, which is not likely very far? Would you even buy a used car from him?
And this is what Heironimus thinks is a good Bigfoot suit.* If anybody knows, it should be him.* Right?

 

[historian]

1. No Pattyphile has ever adequately explained why Bob Heironimus' gate matches Patty's gate so precisely.
This isn't a matter of opinion ........ No need to squint and tilt your head; it's right there on the screen, with nary a blobsquatch or red circle on a fuzzy frame to be found.
To date, responses to this query have been a erudite "Nuh-uh!". Dissatisfied with this useless, if brief, response, I ask it again: How does a proponent explain this match without conceding Mr. H's claim?

You young lady, took the words right out of my mouth. I could not stated it more eloquently than "Nuh-uh"!

2. Whatever happened to the recreated footage using Bob H. in a Morris suit?

Yakima Herald owns it. But they tossed it because of the lack of resemblance between Bob H. in the suit and the real MaCoy.

3. No Pattyphile has ever adequately explained why they insist that Mr. Heironimus has never passed a polygraph test when he actually has, and that it's part of the public record.

Son of Sam could pass a lie detector test, if his own attorney hired the technician. It is a simple matter of economics my Dear. Not truthfulness.

......but by now I'm used to this kind of fact-spinning.

Apparently more than you realize, my Dear.

5. Why do Pattyphiles not recognize the concept of pareidolia when viewing the squirming goo that is the enormously blown-up mess of any given frame of the PGF?

Since arthwollipot used that term for perhaps the first time on JREF only yesturday and you are using it today, why don't you double check in the mirror and verify that you are not arthwollipot's SOCKPUPPET! Or say hello to him, in the lunch room!

6. Why is it that the observations of professionals like Chris Wallas, Dfoot, and others in the film and makeup industry are ignored, but a couple of random straight lines drawn by a few guys who know how to use Photoshop is considered compelling evidence?

Dfoot is a nobody here. He has no name, no creditials and no credibility. Why would you have information that he is in the film and makeup industry, unless you are working with him as well?

8. Am I the only one who noticed that the PGF seems to follow the same script as the much earlier William Roe sighting?

Uuhh. Like yaaaa! The pics don't match. Roe had no horses. Roe was alone. Different species of Bigfoot. Roe's Bigfoot laughed at him. Roe observed the Bigfoot for quite some time. Like, NOTHING MATCHED.

Please tell me that I'm not the only one to find this fishy.

Nope! You're the only one, I am sorry to say.

9. How, exactly, did the film make it off the mountain, to a developing lab, and onto a projector in record time?

Jet powered helicopter, my Dear. Since Dfoot is allowed to bring modern technology 40 years back into the past, so can the Bigfoot diehards.

10. Forty years on, and this is the best film evidence available? Even with video and still cameras on cell phones, trail cams, and encroaching civilization? This is it?

No, the Freeman footage doesn't count. Not only is it poorly acted, not only is it a pretty obvious suit, but the source is a known hoaxer. That "evidence"? Out the window.

Actually, the Freeman footage does count. So how are things at the National Security Agency today? Did they give you an office with a window seat, in addition to your own internet connection? Did they prepare this script for you? Come on. Help us out on this one. We can recognize a P-L-A-N-T, as well as the next yahoo. WHO IS PAYING YOU?

So, we're left with the PGF...which is shaky, blurry, and clearly Bob in a costume. A fact which, oh, yeah, people up in Yakima were aparently already aware of for years.

That's just sad.

More than you know, my dear.

Looking forward to responses.

Oooh! You just contradicted yourself young lady. You just impeached yourself, I am sorry to say. You used "Blurry" and "Clearly" in the same sentence to describe the same film. Boy, you sure had us all going there for a minute. And to think that I had bought your story, hook, line and sinker. Up until you contradicted yourself. I thought that you needed a Law Degree to work for the NSA, or was that the FBI. You should save your post and repost it on April Fools. It will be much more appropriate then.

 

[bobbieshort]

Where is the ear?

The headpiece may have been made without ears. It's all fur where the ears are supposed to be. If this is a real Bigfoot, we can say that their ears can be completely hidden by fur. Good for keeping the dirt out, eh?

Dfoot, if your headpiece has ears you better hide them if you want to replicate Patty. You are certain that Patty's head was made in Hollywood. Would you now say that they went ahead without the ears showing (maybe no ears at all)?

==============

How many years does one have to be on JREF before the moderators remove my handcuffs?

WP...there is no way I can rebut or carry on an intelligent defense to my statements without the ability to post photos or links to same...the moderators kept me from posting photos last year and now this year as well......this sucks!!!

The photos above (links removed so I could even post simple text) have artistic license added, they are hardly a representative of the real image of Patty. There are much better examples.....but I am kept from from making my point by Randi rules I don't understand.......

my frustration with JREF runneth over....
Bobbie Short

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

While looking through the pictures posted by Bill Munns over at the BFF, I noticed that the hands of his Gigantopithecus statue looked quite similar to the "reconstruction" of a Bigfoot hand based on supposed "Bigfoot hand casts" that were supposedly found by Ivan Marx and Paul Freeman. This brought several questions to mind:

1. Can we see Patty's thumbs in the P/G footage and, if so, do they match up with the "Bigfoot hand casts?" If not, which piece of evidence would get dumped as being a hoax by proponents?

2. When did Munns make that statue?

3. What could've inspired the look of the hand casts if it wasn't the statue?

Lacking satisfactory access (at least in my opinion) to large-sized stills from the film showing all the frames in which hands are visible, I'll leave question one up to the other forum-goers.

Trying to answer question two led me to this article noting the statue, which this website claims was written in 1991.

Since Marx's casts were "discovered" in 1970 and Freeman's were "found" in 1986, that rules out the possibility that one of them based them on the Munns statue. However, the 2001 and 2002 prints noted on the site that gave the date for the Freeman casts could've been based on the statue's hands (or based on Freeman and/or Marx's casts). It also makes this interesting note:

Adductor pollicis. This muscle appears to be absent in the sasquatch hand. Human genetic abnormalities related to the absence of thumb muscles are associated with mental retardation, spinal curvature, aphasia (diminished ability to communicate by any means) and a shuffling gait.

So this absence either indicates retarded creatures managing to elude discovery for decades or hoaxer who goofed on anatomy? I think I'll opt for hoaxer option.

This begs the question, where could Marx have gotten his inspiration from (Since Freeman could've based his work on Marx's casts, I'll concern myself more with how the first such casts could've been hoaxed).

One possibility was that he simply mixed elements of an ape's hand with a human hand (and a little imagination) to create the hand of a giant ape-man. The Bigfoot hand "recreation" shows some structural similarities to the hands of apes, such as this orangutan hand cast. If this site is correct, tube's hand makes a cameo apperance in that picture!

Or perhaps they were based on costume gloves or a scaled-up version of a toy or model? The hand/base in this "Glo-Head" model kit had me intrigued, but the 1975 date given for it rules it out as an inspiration for Marx.

Then while watching a clip on Youtube, it hit me (6:06 into it): pictures of Gigantopithecus blackii! After finding a large version of the picture in the video, I noticed that its hands bore a resemblence to the so-called Bigfoot hands (and the hands of Munns' statue). Further searching revealed that the picture appeared in an issue of Scientific America in 1970. It would be interesting to see if that was when the picture was first published and if it was published prior to Marx's "discovery."

As people involved in Bigfoot research, both Marx and Freeman should've been aware of that theory. Freeman definitely was in contact with Gigantopithecus theory supporter Dr. Krantz, but I'm not sure about Ivan Marx. When did the "Bigfoot = Giganto" idea first spring into being? If it predates Marx's discovery, my little theory becomes quite possible.

Here's another old Gigantopithecus picture that's linked to Bigfoot. I'm not sure when it was published, nor do I know the date of publication for this image. Any of those (or other Gigantopithecus artwork) could've inspired those casts.

Was Bill Munns a Bigfoot proponent when he made the statue? If so, that could've influenced his work. If he was not, this could provide confirmation that independent sources could produce similar fake hands. I've seen a post on the BFF implying that Munns attended some Bigfoot conference prior to his recent posts on the P/G film, but I don't know if he was a proponent prior to the creation of that statue. However, this implies that the hand was based on a mix of features from the hand of humans and of another extinct ape. Then again, he also could've based the hands on old drawings of Gigantopithecus.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

How many years does one have to be on JREF before the moderators remove my handcuffs?

It's not the years that matter, it's the number of posts that you make. I think you have to make around 15 posts to get link and picture posting abilities.

 

[devnull]

Actually, the Freeman footage does count. So how are things at the National Security Agency today? Did they give you an office with a window seat, in addition to your own internet connection? Did they prepare this script for you? Come on. Help us out on this one. We can recognize a P-L-A-N-T, as well as the next yahoo. WHO IS PAYING YOU?

Im sorry, but Ive had a gut-full of this sort of deranged paranoia. This is obviously the end result of mental illness, I for one do not find it at all funny or amusing.

Sorry Historian, but I now will put you on ignore. I fully support your right for free speech, and wish you the best of luck in your BF search - but I can no longer stomach watching you put your illness on display here for everyone to snigger at.

 

[Óðinn]

Are you lost Sweaty ?

This isn't the MABRC, where you can draw arbitrary lines wherever you want, and say

" There ! See how it fits (......... or doesn't ) ? "

... and have everyone go ga ga ...

But you know that ..

I understand though, how a 5' 7" Patty solves a lot of problems for you, since BH is over 6' ...

The skeleton isn't 5' 7"

foot = 66 pixels = 14.5"
height = 452 pixels = ?
452 / 66 * 14.5 = 8' 3"

Which is equally preposterous. The skeleton's foot is obviously under-sized, but if the foot is 14.5" then the skeleton is over 8', not 5' 7".

 

[Óðinn]

ATTENTION: Looking for short legged man to play huge gorilla. Must have legs shorter than body. Also, enormous girth an advantage.

Small heads only please.[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7766477d29718c045.gif[/qimg]

Interesting. I was wondering how the actor bends his knees without giving away the illusion of short legs?

 

[tsig]

You young lady, took the words right out of my mouth. I could not stated it more eloquently than "Nuh-uh"!

Yakima Herald owns it. But they tossed it because of the lack of resemblance between Bob H. in the suit and the real MaCoy.

Son of Sam could pass a lie detector test, if his own attorney hired the technician. It is a simple matter of economics my Dear. Not truthfulness.


Apparently more than you realize, my Dear.

Since arthwollipot used that term for perhaps the first time on JREF only yesturday and you are using it today, why don't you double check in the mirror and verify that you are not arthwollipot's SOCKPUPPET! Or say hello to him, in the lunch room!

Dfoot is a nobody here. He has no name, no creditials and no credibility. Why would you have information that he is in the film and makeup industry, unless you are working with him as well?


Uuhh. Like yaaaa! The pics don't match. Roe had no horses. Roe was alone. Different species of Bigfoot. Roe's Bigfoot laughed at him. Roe observed the Bigfoot for quite some time. Like, NOTHING MATCHED.
Nope! You're the only one, I am sorry to say.
Jet powered helicopter, my Dear. Since Dfoot is allowed to bring modern technology 40 years back into the past, so can the Bigfoot diehards.

Actually, the Freeman footage does count. So how are things at the National Security Agency today? Did they give you an office with a window seat, in addition to your own internet connection? Did they prepare this script for you? Come on. Help us out on this one. We can recognize a P-L-A-N-T, as well as the next yahoo. WHO IS PAYING YOU?

More than you know, my dear.
Oooh! You just contradicted yourself young lady. You just impeached yourself, I am sorry to say. You used "Blurry" and "Clearly" in the same sentence to describe the same film. Boy, you sure had us all going there for a minute. And to think that I had bought your story, hook, line and sinker. Up until you contradicted yourself. I thought that you needed a Law Degree to work for the NSA, or was that the FBI. You should save your post and repost it on April Fools. It will be much more appropriate then.

You and reality get out much together?

 

[RayG]

Since arthwollipot used that term for perhaps the first time on JREF only yesturday and you are using it today, why don't you double check in the mirror and verify that you are not arthwollipot's SOCKPUPPET! Or say hello to him, in the lunch room!

Jeebus man, do you ever research anything? That 'pareidolia' term has been used 300 times here on the JREF, and a number of those have been in bigfoot related threads.

Did they give you an office with a window seat, in addition to your own internet connection?

Any NSA-related work I did was in rooms with no windows.

RayG

 

[Cuddles]

Different species of Bigfoot.

Wait a second, not only is there an entirely unknown species of giant ape roaming the US, you're now telling us that there are several?

 

[Correa Neto]

According to Coleman it could be something between 9 and 12... Aquatic apes included.