Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[RayG]

...god help me, this thread is so thin on amusement these days, I'm arguing over what particular form of logical fallacy a profoundly obvious joke about were-feet might be, with someone apparently determined not to let a joke be funny.

In conclusion, were-feet = pure comedy gold.

Don'tcha mean 'Ed help me'?

Ah... I see now... a joke... comedy!! Of course, silly me. And I had come here an argument...

RayG

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, RayG, call it a slippery slope, perhaps.

Simply taking the logic being used by most footers to it's extreme end, to show the ridiculous nature of it.

The entire realm of BF evidence relies heavily on ad hoc reasoning. We are far beyond the point of any reasonable debate here, precisely because most of those on the pro BF side are beyond all reason.

When logic, reason, and science are tossed out the window, ignored when convenient, and twisted around in loops to justify preconcieved notions, I'm sorry, but I feel no compulsion or obligation to respond logically.

Besides, there's nothing wrong with a bit of a comedic break. Now, you want in on this paper? I can offer you Cornflower, or I recently found a Lavender under the couch.

ETA: I don't think the idea of BF is ridiculous, by the way. While I think it unbelievably unlikely, I don't think it impossible. I think the outrageous defense of the flimsiest amounts of highly questionable evidence, however, is ridiculous. I also think the detailed descriptions of BF social structure, behavior, birth weight, child bearing and rearing practices, ad hoc reasonings to explain away very different and unlikely morphological features, and defense of known frauds are ridiculous. And for some reason, footers seem to think that 100 pieces of evidence, each with about 1% realistic, add up to a 100% truth. I was just "playing along". Mocking? Yes, but not the idea of bigfoot, only the method of bigfoot believers.

 

[tube]

I have no idea if Marlon Davis is still reading this thread or not. But it occurred to me recently that his claims are indeed testable. This protocol is so simple I'm actually embarrassed to admit I didn't think of this myself. Recently Chris Murphy posted on his Bigfoot blog a test he did with photographing a blow-up of "Patty's" head with a Canadian 2 dollar coin attached at 100 feet to asses how much detail was visible in the resulting photograph. Murphy used a 35 mm still camera.

Well obviously this protocol can be used to judge whether boils, scars, buckshot wounds, dilated pupils, and eye infections are visible or not: simply film a man or a man in a suit at 100 feet or so with a 16mm movie camera and then examine the result. Frankly, though I suspect Mr. Davis' interpretations are fanciful, I don't KNOW they are fanciful, and so such a test could resolve the issue.

Testing Beckjord's claim that there is a tampon string coming out of "Patty" could prove to be somewhat more problematic, at least if you wanted to be anatomically correct about it...

Marlon, your "you-go-first" style of argumentation is the stuff of grade school playgrounds. Nevertheless I'm certainly willing to advise everyone on this board about your friend Don Monroe. Facts are facts, and I know what the facts are in this case. I suggest that when the facts are known about Don Monroe and your promotion of his "evidence" you may regret bringing this up...

By the way, if you are tossing claims of unethical behavior around, would you be willing to comment on Rick Noll's claim of how you came by the images that you have posted on the Internet?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12656&st=0&p=261517&#entry261517

 

[Ausmerican]

Just as an aside, I beleive it was Huntster who earlier said that by reports male Bigfeet ranged from 6 to 9 feet tall and then there was a report of a 12 footer. Anyone know of any other primate with a 6 foot height variable in the species?
Also Huntster while Hollywood may never have made a suit as 'good' as Patty (cos they never had a reason to) a quick look at the ape suits made by Rick Baker for 'Greystoke' and 'Gorillas in the Mist' would quickly disabuse anyone of the notion they were unable to do so.

 

[LTC8K6]

Heironimus may have worn a suit for Patterson in a trial run of a sasquatch film.

Looking at this from the position that it is a hoax, it is highly unlikley that only one attempt was made, or that the first attempt was good enough.

Patty could just be the final version.

Heironimus could be telling the truth, and be unaware that his performance was discarded.

 

[UrsulaV]

Just as an aside, I beleive it was Huntster who earlier said that by reports male Bigfeet ranged from 6 to 9 feet tall and then there was a report of a 12 footer. Anyone know of any other primate with a 6 foot height variable in the species?

Well, humans do manage a pretty broad spread--a quick Google turns up the tallest known human at 8'11", and the shortest of P.T. Barnum's circus stars were down in the vicinity of 2 feet. But that's the very tips of the bell curve, and those individuals tend to suffer a lot of corresponding health problems.

I'd say it'd be far more likely that the report of a 12 footer was akin to my report of an elk I once nearly stepped on. An average Roosevelt elk is smaller than a horse, 1000 lbs being absolutely huge for a male, with most of 'em a lot smaller. And yet, when the elk leaped up practically at my feat and it screamed and I screamed and we both took off running, I would have been willing to swear up down and sideways that that elk had been the size of an elephant, and I assume the elk told all its friends that I had been about fifteen feet tall and breathed fire. Things that startle you in the woods are always huge and scary.

But of course, if we're going to go doubting the veracity of eyewitness anecdotes, the whole system might fall apart...!

 

[Correa Neto]

Heironimus may have worn a suit for Patterson in a trial run of a sasquatch film.

Looking at this from the position that it is a hoax, it is highly unlikley that only one attempt was made, or that the first attempt was good enough.

Patty could just be the final version.

Heironimus could be telling the truth, and be unaware that his performance was discarded.

I always suspected that the missing rolls of film may contain footage of the bloke in the suit that were not considered good enough to fool most people.

 

[LAL]

LAL -- Guess you'd better re-read what I said.

I said it was Patty Patterson's brother (who lives in the house next to Gimlin between Gimlin and Heironimus) who stated that Roger Patterson told him about his method for faking footprints and he also stated that Heironimus did, in fact, wear the suit.

So you did. Of course, Al DeAtley is Patty Patterson's brother, is he not?


"There seems to be some strange hold that this gorilla suit has on people. With Patterson dead and Gimlin backed into a corner and vouching for it people can write their own conclusions - no matter how wrong they may be. Patty Patterson's own brother says Heironimus wore the suit. Patterson's partner in crime, DeAtley, says he participated in a hoax and regrets it. Patty Patterson has already been found lying in an attempt to get out of paying Vilma Radford for the loan to Roger. And then there is the problem of the suit looking like a suit and nothing else."[/QUOTE]

I couldn't find the post earlier or I would have reread it. Is Long your source on Patty's brother? I don't remember that in the book. I skimmed over some of it before returning it to the library.

Would the "nothing else" be a real animal? If it looked like a suit to everyone you wouldn't have to waste any time trying to build one.

About DeAtley: I said that he admitted he had regrets about participating in a hoax.

DeAtley said he regreted not being a better father, but I don't recall him saying anything about regretting anything about the "hoax" except that he didn't make more money, in so many words. He said he always suspected it was a hoax but offered nothing but opinion, as I recall, and despite Long's efforts to get more out of him, that's all he said.

Wasn't there a storekeeper who claimed Roger told him how he slammed fake feet into the ground to make tracks? Possibly he did to demonstrate cast making for the documentary, and possibly he had a suit for purposes of reecreating a story for the documentary, but it's really a reach to say the results are what we see in the film and Laverty's photos and Titmus' casts.

Patty Patterson's brother said BH wore the suit for what purpose? A reenactment? Heironimus didn't know where the site was.

Wasn't there an earlier trip to California? I remember a discussion on BFF about the color of the leaves.

And what about all the other activity in that area? Did RP and BH fake all that too? With or without Wallace and his family?

"Pioneer Bigfoot Investigation Panel - Moderated Rudy Breuning
Bob Gimlin, Jim McClarin, Al Hodgson, Ed Schillinger and John Green were there in the late 1950s and 1960s capturing film, casting tracks, and investigating the bigfoot evidence of the times. They discussed their activities and answered questions about their involvement in bigfoot investigations.

There was a lot said during this panel discussion, so I will summarise as best I can.

Al Hodgson - "I just happened to be there in '58, '59, and '60... I thought it was a hoax, even after Bob Titmus cast prints." Hodgson said he began to believe when he found footprints on his own.


Bob Gimlin
Bob Gimlin - "I was a non-believer." He met Roger Patterson and got involved with riding around the country simply because he enjoyed riding. Gimlin said Hodgson was the only one, outside of the Patterson and Gimlin families, that knew of the Bluff Creek footage in the beginning. Patterson phoned Hodgson when they returned to Willow Creek, and said "Al, I’ve got a photo of the son-of-a-buck.”

Ed Schillinger - was a doctor in the area and heard of a number of encounters from his patients, including a few that came to him with cuts and bruises having run out of the forests having seen a bigfoot.

Mickey McCarty - in 1972, she had only read of bigfoot when her 12-year-old son ran into her room, saying he'd heard pigs out of their pen. He'd thrown open the drapes from the window and found himself just inches away from a bigfoot.

Three days later, her kids were sleeping in a tent, in the front yard, when a bigfoot came up to the tent. The kids shined a flashlight on the bigfoot, which ran away, leaving a stench, "which lasted for over a month."

She saw a small bigfoot from about 150 feet. She observed the sasquatch eating berries. When it became aware it was being watched, it "shot me a disgusted look and walked up a pathway up the hill."


Jim McClarin
Jim McClarin - Bigfoot researcher from the age of 17-26. McClarin is famous for carving the first bigfoot statue (located at the corner of Hwy's 96 & 299). He corresponded with Ivan T. Sanderson, Roger Patterson, John Green, and Rene Dahinden.

For him, the "fluidity of movement of the muscles, as well as the light reflecting off the hair" convinced him of the authenticity of the P/G footage. He and two others went to Bluff Creek to view the film site shortly after the film was shot and he was able to see tracks (in poor condition.) A comparison movie of McClarin, was shot walking along the track of 'Patty.'

Ed Patrick - lived in Hoopa, CA, in 1959. After Ray Wallace reported prints on Bluff Creek Road, Patrick and Bob Titmus went up and looked at prints "17-inches long and 7-inches wide." Patrick said he couldn't make a track on the sandbar - the large tracks were about a half-inch deep and five inches across at the heel.

Tom Slick, the Texas millionaire, became involved with a large-scale expedition (the PNWE), along with John Green and Ivan Marx. They noticed that bigfoot seemed to go down Bluff Creek around the 1st of November of each year. They set up cameras the next year. You guessed it, no bigfoot.

They observed, based on the tracks, bigfoot would crawl under logs rather than hop over them. A helicopter was hired and left gasoline on Oldfield Mountain. Patrick and Marx took a jeep to get the gas and got stuck in the snow. They saw tracks in the snow, coming down the hill, down the road, then turn off the road, and continue down the hill, disappearing out of the snow.

John Green - saw a picture of Jerry Crew holding a cast. Green went down to Willow Creek, with his wife. He saw prints and was very impressed. Bob Titmus mailed Green, who came back to Willow Creek and saw more tracks (covered with leaves). Saw more in '59 and in '63 saw tracks near Hyampom, CA. In 1967, Bud Ryerson called Green, saying, "What you're looking for is here!" over 600 tracks in a row. Green flew down, with a tracking dog and handler. The dog smelled the first track, "and it was an electric shock, the dog's hair, on his back stood straight up!" The dog refused to follow the tracks or scent. The tracks were in deep dry dust. Then it rained over night leaving a thin layer of dried-mud on the top. A Forest Service worker drove up to them and said, "I've never seen any bigfoot tracks in these woods."

"What about these?", Green asked.

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html

Bruce Mondor (Patty's brother) has no stake in this at all. He could care less. He's simply telling it like it is.

Al DeAtley seems to recall every dime they made, how they made it, what the editor of the film smelled like, etc... yet he has no recall about how he actually developed this important film.

But he remembered how much a charter would have cost and how long it would have taken. Didn't Byrne solve this "mystery"?

DeAtley recalls very well going to New York to promote the flick - yet he says he knows nothing about Gimlin dressing up as an "Indian Tracker" complete with long-haired wig during this event. That is an odd thing since the publicist who set up the event (who also says Patterson was a hoaxer) vividly recalls DeAtley standing right next to Gimlin who was in his full-on 'Indian Tracker Companion' get-up*.

(*For a glimpse of what this image might have looked like simply take a gander of the carefully posed cover shot of Patterson and Gimlin on horseback for their article in ARGOSY describing how they "tracked and filmed the creature".)

At least we have motion picture film and this photo of Gimlin and Heironimus together as they participated in Roger's "documentary" in the summer of '67. Supposedly they were chasing a Bigfoot in this film using dogs. Now THAT would have made for more interesting footage than simply walking down the logging road; Bob Heironimus trying to run in the suit from dogs... priceless footage.

- Dfoot

Yeah, too bad you don't have that. The vine maple hadn't turned in summer, had it?

Maybe someone could Photoshop in some dog gifs in the real BH in a real Morris suit I posted no one seems to be commenting on. I agree that's a "bloke in a suit".

 

[LAL]

Well, humans do manage a pretty broad spread--a quick Google turns up the tallest known human at 8'11", and the shortest of P.T. Barnum's circus stars were down in the vicinity of 2 feet. But that's the very tips of the bell curve, and those individuals tend to suffer a lot of corresponding health problems.

I'd say it'd be far more likely that the report of a 12 footer was akin to my report of an elk I once nearly stepped on. An average Roosevelt elk is smaller than a horse, 1000 lbs being absolutely huge for a male, with most of 'em a lot smaller. And yet, when the elk leaped up practically at my feat and it screamed and I screamed and we both took off running, I would have been willing to swear up down and sideways that that elk had been the size of an elephant, and I assume the elk told all its friends that I had been about fifteen feet tall and breathed fire. Things that startle you in the woods are always huge and scary.

But of course, if we're going to go doubting the veracity of eyewitness anecdotes, the whole system might fall apart...!

Steenburg had several reports of exceptionally tall individuals, all from one area in Canada. They stopped abruptly in the mid '80s. He thought they were exaggerations due to fear, but also entertained the possiblity that there were a few very tall creatures that died. In our own species, we have everything from Pygmies to Masai, and a few cases of Acromegaly thrown in. Maybe a closely related species could have a pituitary disorder too.

Murphy has another method of measuring the height of the creature in the Patterson film:

http://forum.hancockhouse.com/article.php/20051012203849801

Any takers?.

 

[Hitch]

Steenburg had several reports of exceptionally tall individuals, all from one area in Canada. They stopped abruptly in the mid '80s. He thought they were exaggerations due to fear, but also entertained the possiblity that there were a few very tall creatures that died. In our own species, we have everything from Pygmies to Masai, and a few cases of Acromegaly thrown in. Maybe a closely related species could have a pituitary disorder too.

Murphy has another method of measuring the height of the creature in the Patterson film:

http://forum.hancockhouse.com/article.php/20051012203849801

Any takers?.

Here's a stick that was laying on the ground five years after the film was made. It looks similar to one seen in the film an uncertain distance from the figure in question. Now determine the height of the figure based on this stick.

Are they serious?

 

[Jono]

Life truly has an omnipotent sense of irony .*thinking of the claimed BigFoot-sighting place of Bluff Creek*

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The height is pretty clear within a couple of inches..

This pretty much proves it..

What is supposed to be the big deal about the height anyway ?

 

[Ausmerican]

Possibly he did to demonstrate cast making for the documentary, and possibly he had a suit for purposes of reecreating a story for the documentary, but it's really a reach to say the results are what we see in the film and Laverty's photos and Titmus' casts.

More of a reach than saying possibly he made fake tracks and possibly he had a suit but those were real tracks and a real creature he filmed?

Mickey McCarty - in 1972, she had only read of bigfoot when her 12-year-old son ran into her room, saying he'd heard pigs out of their pen. He'd thrown open the drapes from the window and found himself just inches away from a bigfoot.

Three days later, her kids were sleeping in a tent, in the front yard, when a bigfoot came up to the tent. The kids shined a flashlight on the bigfoot, which ran away, leaving a stench, "which lasted for over a month."

So three days after finding himself inches away from a bigfoot that was in his yard the kid is camping in the yard in a tent? And his mother allowed it? Mother of the year award contender there. Either that, or she didn't believe him herself.

 

[Dfoot]

So you did. Of course, Al DeAtley is Patty Patterson's brother, is he not?

No. DeAtley married Patterson's sister. He said he couldn't say more because of his wife's feelings for her little brother. His wife is the entire reason he got involved with Patterson in the first place.

Would the "nothing else" be a real animal? If it looked like a suit to everyone you wouldn't have to waste any time trying to build one.

It looks like a suit to all those who know how suits work. Yet even to those who have never seen a creature suit up close they figure out this is not a real animal. There are a few who cannot figure this one out on their own. It's for their benefit that I would attempt to make a suit (even though I have no experience in this area).

DeAtley said he regreted not being a better father, but I don't recall him saying anything about regretting anything about the "hoax" except that he didn't make more money, in so many words. He said he always suspected it was a hoax but offered nothing but opinion, as I recall, and despite Long's efforts to get more out of him, that's all he said.

QUOTE FROM AL DEATLEY: "Did I get involved (after it was shot) and perpetuate what I believe was a hoax? Yes. Did I try to make monetary gains out of it? Yes, I did. I'm not proud of it."

DeAtley financed Roger, spent $3600 ($21,000 in today's money) editing Roger's flick after he'd gotten the head of the local college to allow himself and Roger to be filmed in an office there which they pretended was their "headquarters". DeAtley invested $75,000 ($427,000 in today's money) in the company he formed with Roger. He got more than a decent return on his investment. According to DeAtley they pulled in $84,000 ($473,000 in today's money) during one weekend alone.

Did multi-millionaire DeAtley do all this just to make his wife happy? Not according to him. He says he did it for the money. I believe that's true. He also claims that he can't recall anything about developing the film or recall having anything to do with it prior to its being shot. This I don't buy. Evidence points to his involvement in the scam.

Wasn't there a storekeeper who claimed Roger told him how he slammed fake feet into the ground to make tracks? Possibly he did to demonstrate cast making for the documentary, and possibly he had a suit for purposes of recreating a story for the documentary, but it's really a reach to say the results are what we see in the film and Laverty's photos and Titmus' casts.

Harvey Anderson ran a camera shop and Roger rented his first film camera from him in order to shoot a suit he'd rented from Los Angeles in 1961. It was Harvey who helped Roger improve his fake tracks. This was not for any "recreation" or "documentary" motive. Patterson requested that Anderson not tell a soul because he planned on attempting a fake film.

Patty Patterson's brother said BH wore the suit for what purpose? A reenactment? Heironimus didn't know where the site was.

Heiroinimus had only been to California that one time in 1967. He explained it as best he could. Bruce Mondor (Patty's brother) says Heironimus wore the suit in the 1967 film Roger made with Bob Gimlin in order to scam people for money and to get more interest in his Bigfoot projects.

Wasn't there an earlier trip to California? I remember a discussion on BFF about the color of the leaves.

Roger made trips to fake tracks down there. He'd then write about it and sometimes make casts after they were found. The Pat Graves finding in 1964 is one of these.

And what about all the other activity in that area? Did RP and BH fake all that too? With or without Wallace and his family?

Wallace originally faked prints in '57 and '58. At first he wanted to play a joke on some guys who were sneaking around his equipment. Once it got such a reaction and once Crew made the prints in '58 he got the idea that this could be a long term game. He and his pals then pranked as often as they could.


Al Hodgson - "I just happened to be there in '58, '59, and '60... I thought it was a hoax, even after Bob Titmus cast prints." Hodgson said he began to believe when he found footprints on his own.

Gimlin's friend Hodgson says he found a single print on a sand bar. I looked at it. It looked like a bear track. He's found Bigfoot to be big business for the town and himself since.


Bob Gimlin
Bob Gimlin - "I was a non-believer." He met Roger Patterson and got involved with riding around the country simply because he enjoyed riding. Gimlin said Hodgson was the only one, outside of the Patterson and Gimlin families, that knew of the Bluff Creek footage in the beginning. Patterson phoned Hodgson when they returned to Willow Creek, and said "Al, I’ve got a photo of the son-of-a-buck.”

Bob Gimlin has already been shown to be a liar about his court record and he is lying about the film. He's in it deep. He was awarded a retro-active settlement from DeAtley and Patty Patterson. Today he gets to play "American Legend" just as he played "Indian Tracker" in Patterson's film originally.

Ed Schillinger - was a doctor in the area and heard of a number of encounters from his patients, including a few that came to him with cuts and bruises having run out of the forests having seen a bigfoot.

Which may have nothing to do with Patterson and Wallace faking tracks and films.

Mickey McCarty - in 1972, she had only read of bigfoot when her 12-year-old son ran into her room, saying he'd heard pigs out of their pen. He'd thrown open the drapes from the window and found himself just inches away from a bigfoot.

You seem to keep equating Patterson's hoaxes with your belief in Sasquatch. Don't. They are not connected. Patterson used the growing excitement over the possibility of Sasquatch existing for his own benefit.


She saw a small bigfoot from about 150 feet. She observed the sasquatch eating berries. When it became aware it was being watched, it "shot me a disgusted look and walked up a pathway up the hill."

Whether or not people actually see a Sasquatch or not has nothing to do with Patterson. They may be telling the truth. They may be mistaken. Either way... Patterson created a hoax film and tracks.


Jim McClarin
Jim McClarin - Bigfoot researcher from the age of 17-26. McClarin is famous for carving the first bigfoot statue (located at the corner of Hwy's 96 & 299). He corresponded with Ivan T. Sanderson, Roger Patterson, John Green, and Rene Dahinden.

For him, the "fluidity of movement of the muscles, as well as the light reflecting off the hair" convinced him of the authenticity of the P/G footage. He and two others went to Bluff Creek to view the film site shortly after the film was shot and he was able to see tracks (in poor condition.) A comparison movie of McClarin, was shot walking along the track of 'Patty.'

Nice guy. Good wood carver. Tall man. Knows nothing about how creature suits work.

Ed Patrick - lived in Hoopa, CA, in 1959. After Ray Wallace reported prints on Bluff Creek Road, Patrick and Bob Titmus went up and looked at prints "17-inches long and 7-inches wide." Patrick said he couldn't make a track on the sandbar - the large tracks were about a half-inch deep and five inches across at the heel.

I also made such tracks. Yet I am not a Sasquatch.

Tom Slick, the Texas millionaire, became involved with a large-scale expedition (the PNWE), along with John Green and Ivan Marx. They noticed that bigfoot seemed to go down Bluff Creek around the 1st of November of each year. They set up cameras the next year. You guessed it, no bigfoot.

They observed, based on the tracks, bigfoot would crawl under logs rather than hop over them. A helicopter was hired and left gasoline on Oldfield Mountain. Patrick and Marx took a jeep to get the gas and got stuck in the snow. They saw tracks in the snow, coming down the hill, down the road, then turn off the road, and continue down the hill, disappearing out of the snow.

Marx is one of the worst hoaxers in Bigfoot history. He's not even halfway convincing.

John Green - saw a picture of Jerry Crew holding a cast. Green went down to Willow Creek, with his wife. He saw prints and was very impressed. Bob Titmus mailed Green, who came back to Willow Creek and saw more tracks (covered with leaves). Saw more in '59 and in '63 saw tracks near Hyampom, CA. In 1967, Bud Ryerson called Green, saying, "What you're looking for is here!" over 600 tracks in a row. Green flew down, with a tracking dog and handler. The dog smelled the first track, "and it was an electric shock, the dog's hair, on his back stood straight up!" The dog refused to follow the tracks or scent. The tracks were in deep dry dust. Then it rained over night leaving a thin layer of dried-mud on the top. A Forest Service worker drove up to them and said, "I've never seen any bigfoot tracks in these woods."

"What about these?", Green asked.

Bud Ryerson worked with Ray Wallace. John Green was wrong on so many things - including these tracks. Only now he talks about what a fraud Wallace always was. Too bad he didn't tell us sooner. Too bad he didn't realize what Wallace was up to. Those photos of Green show him standing next to Wallace-made footprints.


But he remembered how much a charter would have cost and how long it would have taken. Didn't Byrne solve this "mystery"?

DeAtley knew how much everything cost - especially how much it cost him to fly equipment out to road crews (which is what he normally used the planes for).

There was no need for him to charter a plane on Oct. 20th since the film had already been shot and developed prior to that date. Besides, if you check the local airports you'll find that on Oct. 20th 1967 the pilot logs say the weather was too bad to fly. (Quite unlike the sunny photos of Roger making tracks and Patty walking the walk - which was shot earlier).


Yeah, too bad you don't have that. The vine maple hadn't turned in summer, had it?

The film was shot most likely in the first week in October. It was sunny and the vines had turned. (It was not raining as it was on Oct. 20th however).

Maybe someone could Photoshop in some dog gifs in the real BH in a real Morris suit I posted no one seems to be commenting on. I agree that's a "bloke in a suit".

This is due to the fact that the Morris attempt has no relationship to the suit worn in 1967. I've already shown you over a BFF how it was made and who most likely made it.

Below are plaster casts made by a child of his own footprints. Very hourglass looking. They have the excellent big toe useful for rock climbing. One might think they came from a juvenile Sasquatch.

Problem is that there are millions of barefoot humans who make tracks like this and we do see them. I'm going out on a limb and make the assumption that these might have been laid down by an 800 lb little person with a special toe.

- Dfoot

 

[LAL]

The height is pretty clear within a couple of inches..

This pretty much proves it..

What is supposed to be the big deal about the height anyway ?

If she were walking totaly erect, her head would be as close to the bulge on the tree as McClarin's is. Her head is bowed forward in the shot. In Jim Miller's overlay, her thigh is as big as McClarin's waist.

The big deal about the height (and bulk) is that sceptics somehow have to show her proportions are within normal human range to justify the idea it's a "bloke in a suit".

 

[LTC8K6]

She's not walking totally erect in order to hide the fact that she's a bloke in a suit. That's as good a reason as any for Patty to continually look for dropped coins on her stroll into stardom.

 

[UrsulaV]

In Jim Miller's overlay, her thigh is as big as McClarin's waist.

So? When I was a teenager and svelte, my waist was 18 inches around. Now that I'm post-post-adolescent and plump, my thigh, measured five minutes ago, is 24 inches around. While this proves I'm dreadfully out of shape, I'm pretty sure it doesn't prove that I became a Bigfoot in the last decade, and yet, there it is, a thigh thicker than my own prior waist! (And not a little thicker. Six significant inches. Jesus, I need to join a gym.)

Human variability, as you mentioned yourself in a post above, has quite a range between individuals--hell, as I just showed, it has a fair range within ONE individual! That a man wearing a bulky suit would have a thigh thicker than the waist of a reasonably slim man NOT wearing a suit is not only possible but likely. A minor difference in build and the extra puffing of a lhairy suit would more than account for someone having a thigh thicker than someone else's waist.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The big deal about the height (and bulk) is that sceptics somehow have to show her proportions are within normal human range to justify the idea it's a "bloke in a suit".

I guess some do..

But mostly it is the believers trying to show that the proportions prove it is not a bloke in a suit... When they do nothing of the sort...

Dfoot has cleary shown ( and a quick google for people in costumes will support ) that proportions can be easily distorted, and effective illusions created when dealing with blokes in suits...

Alll the posturing and calculations are red herrings...

 

[LTC8K6]

Patty is also turned more sideways than McClarin.

 

[Correa Neto]

She's not walking totally erect in order to hide the fact that she's a bloke in a suit. That's as good a reason as any for Patty to continually look for dropped coins on her stroll into stardom.

Not to mention that back in the 60's, common renderings of "cavemen" (and "cavewomen" also) showed curved postures. Check any old representation of what was by then called a caveman -Homo neanderthalensis- and you'll see what I mean.

I think it's quite possible that the "compliant gait" is nothing but an attempt to replicate these sorts of (nowdays dated) renderings.