How Wallace Was Blamed For the Patterson Bigfoot Film
Posted by: Loren Coleman on March 19th, 2007
In 2002, this was labeled as a frame of film showing Elna Wallace reportedly inside this Bigfoot suit, or did a photo editor mixed up the old Ray Wallace footage with the old Ivan Marx fake Bigfoot footage to talk about the Patterson-Gimlin film? Of course, this was not the first time that newspapers confused their Bigfoot films, now was it?
Mark Hall notes in his overview published here today, that in 2002, I brought to the attention of the Bigfoot community the media’s poor unfolding of Ray Wallace’s history. I stated especially newspapers were totally confusing the Wallace family’s claims of Ray hoaxing footprints and the making of his own 1970s’ films with the filming of the Roger Patterson-Bob Gimlin footage in 1967.
Even though I first told the Seattle Times’ Bob Young about Ray Wallace’s death, that Wallace was a trickster, and that Young might wish to talk to the family about Ray’s prank tracks that a few of us had known about for years, the reporter decided to interview and quote others beyond the business of Wallace’s fake footprints.
Here is the media madness chronology I recorded five years ago:
The specific evolution of this new media hoax can be seen clearly in how this leapt from one newspaper to the next.
Bob Young’s Seattle Times article for December 5, 2002, has this segment:
[Mark] Chorvinsky believes the Wallace family’s admission creates profound doubts about leading evidence of Bigfoot’s existence: the so-called Patterson film, the grainy celluloid images of an erect apelike creature striding away from the movie camera of rodeo rider Roger Patterson in 1967. Mr. Wallace said he told Patterson where to go “near Bluff Creek, Calif.” to spot a Bigfoot, Chorvinsky said.
“Ray told me that the Patterson film was a hoax, and he knew who was in the suit,” Chorvinsky said.
Michael Wallace said his father called the Patterson film “a fake” and said he had nothing to do with it. But he said his mother admitted she had been photographed in a Bigfoot suit. “He had several people he used in his movies,” Michael Wallace said.Bob Young, Seattle Times, December 5, 2002
The USA’s Associated Press release for December 6, 2002, included this paragraph:
[Ray] Wallace said he told Patterson where to spot a Bigfoot near Bluff Creek, California, Chorvinsky recalled.
“Ray told me that the Patterson film was a hoax, and he knew who was in the suit.”
Michael Wallace said his father called the Patterson film “a fake” but claimed he’d had nothing to do with it. But he said his mother admitted she had been photographed in a Bigfoot suit, and that his father “had several people he used in his movies.”Associated Press, December 6, 2002
The story was then telescoped in this misleading paragraph in the Scotsman of Sat 7 Dec 2002:
Mr Wallace later persuaded his wife to dress up in a monkey suit for ‘Bigfoot’ photographs, and he told Roger Patterson, a rodeo rider, to set up his camera to film the famous footage, shot in 1967, which supposedly showed the creature walking up the hillside.Scotsman, December 7, 2002
The above and more was misunderstood or misread, and re-written as the following in the Evening Telegram of London, for Sat 7 Dec 2002, in an article, “That’s not Bigfoot, that’s my wife” by Oliver Poole, who was reporting from Los Angeles. The story was then picked up by such news outlets as the Strait Times of Singapore and others. Poole’s article reads, in part:
Mr Wallace continued with the prank for years, producing photographs of Bigfoot eating elk and frogs. These, it emerged yesterday, were, in fact, members of his family – usually his wife Elna – dressed in a hairy ape suit with giant feet stuck to the bottom.
The most famous evidence for Bigfoot’s existence, the so-called Patterson film, a grainy, cinefilm image of an erect ape-like creature, was taken by Roger Patterson, a rodeo rider, in 1967. It was another of Mr Wallace’s fakes, the family said – he told Mr Patterson where to go to spot the creature and knew who had been inside the suit.Oliver Poole, Evening Telegram, December 7, 2002
The story then jumped back across the ocean, to land on Sun 8 Sun 2002, in Vancouver, British Columbia’s The Province, in an article by Stuart Hunter entitled – “‘Fake’ Sasquatch flick won’t halt Bigfoot hunt” as this…
Despite a stunning claim last week that the most compelling film footage of the ape-like creature is a fake, Bigfoot hunters say they won’t stop pursuing their elusive and smelly quarry.
The family of Ray Wallace admitted after his recent death from heart failure in California that while the Bigfoot footprints were huge, the hoax was much, much bigger.
That was no man dressed in a gorilla suit in the infamous Patterson-Gimlin grainy black and white film footage from 1967 — that was Wallace’s wife Elna.
Reporter Hunter even then uses an earlier quote from the Seattle Times article that was only about the pranks with the fake footprints, not about the Patterson-Gimlin film, and places it as his next paragraph after the above.
“He did it for the joke and then he was afraid to tell anyone because they’d be so mad at him,” admitted Dale Lee Wallace, the hoaxster’s nephew.Stuart Hunter, The Province, December 8, 2002
Therein you have the makings of a media hoax. From Bob Young’s rather balanced item about Ray Wallace’s death and how the family said he used fake feet, allegedly, in 1958, including opinions and remembered claims of hoaxing. Then it goes to wire service and analytic article creations, and finally to the jump that “the Patterson film is a fake by Ray Wallace with his wife in the suit” – something no one in his family ever said.
Michael Wallace said his father called the Patterson film “a fake” and said he had nothing to do with it.Bob Young, Seattle Times, December 5, 2002
That’s what I had to say in 2002 and at presentations since then, such as the one shown above that I gave in London.
Has the mixed-up media claim that Ray Wallace was behind the Patterson-Gimlin film had an impact? I note it was carried along as fact in newsmagazine articles appearing in 2003, to such an extent that the story on Ray Wallace in the January 20, 2003 issue of Sports Illustrated mentioned Wallace being the one who had faked the “Patterson film.” Today, the “death of Bigfoot” debunking about Wallace and the Patterson-Gimlin footage lives on via the Internet.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
I am finding this discussion about the Wallace fakes rather interesting. He claimed to have told Patterson where to “look” for Bigfoot, and then it assumes he planted someone in a suit. Well, if this be true, I would say that this is rather risky behavior. I suspect that Patterson or Gimlin or both were handy with a rifle — then we might have had a homicide with Mrs. Wallace or whoever it was that allegedly wore the alleged suit.
A couple of years ago I talked a bit with Phillip Morris, a leading costume maker in Charlotte, NC who alleged that it was his shop that made the original costume for the Patterson film. I know Phil would like the publicity that it was his creation, but I have never seen another alleged Bigfoot photo or film clip that shows anything approaching the unique qualities (appearance of the hair of the Patterson creature, etc.) of the Patterson creature. All the costumes look like what they are — costumes. Patterson’s creature is decidedly different in appearance.
This then begs the obvious question: if the Bigfoot filmed by Patterson in the 1960s is a man in a costume, then how is it that most subsequent films and photos of Bigfoot have the appearance of being fakes and fraud from the first glance at them — ie, they look like gorilla suits with phony hair, etc.? I would have thought that the costume makers with the advancements in technology would have been able to duplicate the appearance of the Patterson creature with a greater quality and expertise. I just don’t see it.
As I have mentioned before, Ray Wallace was interviewed by Patterson during Roger’s “research phase” of Bigfooting. Of course, full of stories as Wallace always was about Bigfoot guarding gold mines, Wallace would have mentioned Bluff Creek (where it all “began”). But that means nothing.
Nevertheless, Chorvinsky took things to an extreme because he believed the Patterson-Gimlin footage was a hoax and felt Wallace was responsible, in some way.
Chorvinsky was more than willing to make his comments, then the media linked the two inappropriately, not apparently understanding the differences in the histories detailed or merely via sloppy journalism.
Personally speaking when I hear the name ‘Ray Wallace’ in any conversation concerning Bigfoot I instantly regard the information as falsified (which is unfortunate in a way since Wallace may, at one point, have actually had some valid experiences/information). In fact, were Wallace to tell me that the sky was blue I’d politely nod my head…and then glance out the window, just to check.
It’s important to document the Wallace connection to all of this while the memories are still relatively fresh. It’s too bad that both Wallace and Chorvinsky have passed away; it would have been quite valuable to re-interview the both of them (Chorvinsky more than Wallace) as part of the effort to clear the air.
One of the nice things about debunking the debunkers of the Patterson film is that YOU now get to play skeptic, and not even leave your seat.
Just say: I’ll be right here when you bring me the evidence.
Then don’t wait, ’cause you won’t get any.
The Patterson figure, if it’s a fake, is the greatest hoax in history – exceeding by light years any other special-effects gimmick of the sixties; held up by many in the field today as impossible to produce; and not debunked, despite repeated efforts, in 40 years.
“Phillip Morris, a leading costume maker in Charlotte, NC” did NOT fake the Patterson film. DID NOT. (See how easy this is? I didn’t even leave my seat to do it.) Do I know him? No. Have I ever heard of him? No. Could he have been with Patterson and Gimlin, or in league with them? Heck, he could have been in the Texas School Book Depository with Lee Harvey Oswald, for all I know of him.
Did he fake P/G? No. That’s a fact.
How do I know? (See how easy this is?)
If “Phillip Morris, a leading costume maker in Charlotte, NC” had faked P/G, he would long since have shown us how he did it, and we’d ALL know his name, ’cause he’d be a Hollywood legend to make Chambers himself look like, well, “Phillip Morris, a leading costume maker in Charlotte, NC.”
Did he ever produce the evidence? No.
Could it only be in his interest, and that of his business, to do so? Yes.
Logical presumption: he didn’t do it.
But he SAYS he did, because…well look! Now you’ve HEARD of him! You’ve also heard of Bob Hieronymous, who couldn’t provide two details that held together relative to his claim that he’d been the guy in the Patterson suit. And you’d never have heard of him if he hadn’t made the claim.
So. It’s either produce the evidence…or line up with everybody ELSE wanting 15 minutes of fame for nothing they did.
See how easy this is?
And see how gullible skeptics can be?
Well it looks like I am going to be the odd bird out in this thread. As much as I’d love to see one real footage of the “big guy” it hasn’t happened yet. I don’t need Wallace to tell me Patterson’s famous film clip is a fake. Experts talk about so called fluid motions and this and that. What I saw was a human in a monkey suit walking stiffly and awkward.
I am still waiting to see the real thing. I believe Sasquatch does exist. But whether we can actually catch one on film remains the question.
treeclaw: yep, I’d say you’re odd! 😀
You’re seeing, I think, either what you want to see or what someone’s told you that you should see. (Or you’re using reverse psychology. If I can convince myself it’s a fake, then I’ll be less disappointed when someone proves it is.) Because I see what the experts talk about. I’d love to see a guy in an ape suit walk that river bar. Anyone who’s been on terrain even that easy can tell you you don’t walk it without ever looking down at your feet – as this critter never does.
Precisely the thing that separates this clip from every ape-suit shot you saw in the sixties is how easy and effortless – and NON put-on – it looks.
And it stretches rationality to its limit to expect that the guy that pulled this off would stay totally silent, watching all this discussion for all this time, and say nothing. It’s conceivable. But to accept it as a prime explanation is, well, it’s irrational. Truth is, there’s much more evidence that the animal in that film is real than there is that it’s a fake (none). I’ve come to recognize that it’s nothing but a totally irrational belief – coming out of I have no idea what – that this isn’t a real animal. Like the Easter Bunny, the P/G fake is something you have to believe in. Because there’s NO evidence to back it up.
One of the main reasons I come closer to accepting this film as unequivocally real every day is that last sentence. When it comes to zoology, I don’t “believe in” ANYTHING.
Until somebody can prove it was faked, there’s yer ape, on film.
This is an interesting link. I cite the same series of articles in another thread, running both “ahead of” and “behind” this particular link.
http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/living4.html
An excerpt is particularly interesting with regard to this thread:
———————————–
Several opinions have been expressed about the film. While some authorities have said it is an outright fake, others have said they think it provides good evidence in favor of the reality of the Sasquatch. Mixed opinions have also been put forward. Dr. D. W. Grieve, an anatomist specializing in human walking, studied the film and had this to say: “My subjective impressions have oscillated between total acceptance of the Sasquatch on the grounds that the film would be difficult to fake, to one of irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists. This seems worth stating because others have reacted similarly to the film. The possibility of a very clever fake cannot be ruled out on the evidence of the film. A man could have sufficient height and suitable proportions to mimic the longitudinal dimensions of the Sasquatch. The shoulder breadth however would be difficult to achieve without giving an unnatural appearance to the arm swing and shoulder contours” (Napier 1973, p. 220).
From his study of the film, Grieve estimated the length of the Sasquatch’ s foot to be 13.3 inches, which is consistent with the length of 14 inches reported for the footprints. John R. Napier (1973), however, believed that a 14-inch foot length was not consistent with the estimated body height of 6 feet 5 inches. In his computations, Napier, a respected British anatomist, used the ratio of foot length to body height in modern humans. He did not, however, explain why the physical proportions of the Sasquatch must be the same as those of modern humans.
Anthropologist Myra Shackley of the University of Leicester observed (1983, p. 43) that the majority view seems to be “that the film could be a hoax, but if so an incredibly clever one.” Reacting similarly, Napier (1973, p. 95) stated: “Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin; if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world.” But then he added: “Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science” (Napier 1973, p. 95). Concerning the charge of incredibly clever hearing, this explanation could be used to dismiss almost any kind of scientific evidence whatsoever. All one has to do is posit a sufficiently expert hoaxer. Therefore the hoax hypothesis should be applied only when there is actual evidence of hoaxing, as at Piltdown, for example. Ideally, one should be able to produce the hoaxer. Furthermore, even a demonstrated case of hearing cannot be used to dismiss entire categories of similar evidence.
——————————–
I think, although I didn’t change it, that “hearing” as it appears twice in the excerpt is probably “hoaxing.” And he makes a great point about that: it’s an irrational charge, without evidence that it was done.
DWA: First let me tell you I do enjoy reading your enthusiastic, pro-bigfoot posts. Hey I am on your side and all for proof of Sasquatch existance. We both know they are real.
Now I can tell you I know next to nothing about bigfoot tracks. Couldn’t tell if any were fake are real. Here I just keep quiet and learn all I can from forensic experts and other’s like yourself.
Who knows maybe you are right I am wrong. I’d love to be wrong on this argument 🙂 But there’s no way I am biting Patterson’s bait.
treeclaw: the way I look at it is I can’t believe anything without evidence.
For me, the evidence for the Patterson film isn’t nearly as convincing as the total absence of a credible fake scenario for 40 years. Which is, to me, strong evidence that no fakery went on.
Because fakes have happened, we have to keep our minds open to the possibility that it was all faked. But I see that a pretty tall order to fill; and I can tell you as someone who’s seen lots of bears that not only are the sighting reports not describing bears, but I find no way conceivable that you could see bear and think bigfoot. I’ve never even seen a bear stand up on its hind legs, not in the wild at any rate. And most people who are seeing these had no idea you could see one in their part of the country, although they’re quite familiar with bears.
OK, off soapbox. 😀
The pro evidence isn’t enough to have me saying yea yet. But no one’s given me a plausible read on how it’s not real, which, yep, they have to do.
So let’s keep our fingers crossed. I still count Patterson in the plus column, and see it as one of the truly regrettable things about squatchery that people who think it’s real are sort of abandoning it rather than doing what they should be doing. Which is not arguing for it one more time, but pointing to the extreme problems that would have been involved in faking it – and for once, putting their feet up on the chaise and playing skeptic.
If the PG footage is faked, then in my opinion it is one of the most spectacularly well done fakes of all time. I am generally quite critical of any purported Bigfoot footage, but this one has always had me stumped. The fact is, it has stood up to meticulous, stringent examination by various experts who proclaimed it to be something unknown to science. Now, maybe they were fooled, that could be true. I am always looking at the skeptical side of the argument. But if that is what anyone thinks, then just remember that these experts were fooled by some cowboys without heavy financing working in the 60s. Even with today’s technology and know-how, the closest anyone has come to reinacting the footage has left much to be desired and it has been nowhere near able to fool any sort of examining scientific eyes or indeed any eyes the way the PG footage has done. The attempts to imitate the footage look just plain bad.
There are loads of skeptical theories out there about this footage but most of them just don’t hold water to me. Forget “Planet of the Apes” costumes. Have you seen those movies? They are most definately fake looking and nowhere near as natural as the subject of the PG footage appears to be. Water bags? Can that be feasibly done today, let alone in the 60s with no financing and no promise of any financial gain? This piece of footage has enthralled who knows how many veiwers for many years. It has stood the test of time and I think this is very compelling. This has all been gone over time and time again, so I won’t rehash too much here, but I find most of these theories debunking the footage to be in many ways more far fetched than what is claimed to be shown in it. It seems that so many people are so quick to jump to believe anything that debunks the footage without any real evidence to that effect. Say it is a sasquatch and everybody debunks it, but say it is a fake and people buy that unquestioningly. I suppose in this subject, everyone is a critic and debunking is the easy road, but I feel even skeptical theories need their evidence just as much as anyone else. I’ll make it clear that I am not a true believer and I have no vested interest in whether the PG footage is real or not. I think that belief has nothing to do with it. For me, it is all about looking at it from all angles in a scientific way. I am willing to accept it as fake when I have seen good reason to believe it is. I have no problem being wrong about this footage. For now, however, I am looking at what there is to see and I am impressed.
I can give you one good piece of evidence that it was not a fake. The creature in the P-G film is a female with large breasts. How many gorilla costumes have you ever seen that were made to be a female? I have never seen one that wasn’t male. Just something to think about.
Clearly, if the Patterson film is ever actually proven to be a fake, we’ll still have to hail it as the best choreographed, most superb hoax in history; if you forget about the “suit”, and focus on Patterson’s camera work–the way he pulled the “shaky camera” routine at the beginning, for example–it really was brilliant and very well done… it looks real. On the other hand—maybe it is real, and maybe Patterson really was startled, even panicked. (Or at least maybe his horse really was). If it’s ever proven to be a fake, somebody ought to make a movie about Patterson and how he did it. The guy deserves some serious recognition. He should be made into a pop culture hero.
But there’s always that sticky issue already alluded to here. I’ve never seen as convincing a fake from anyone else. I’ve never even seen somebody try to recreate Patterson’s footage convincingly. Also, Patterson went to his grave claiming the film was not a hoax. Gimlin also continues to claim the film was not hoaxed. (Last I knew Gimlin was still alive… hope I don’t have that wrong). Okay, maybe deathbed confessionals don’t always happen. Gimlin presumably still has time to come clean… but if he doesn’t or didn’t…. well, it may not prove anything. But it’ll add some weight to the story, I’d think.
Good point, titantim. This is the only guy who thought of that? Why would that have been consdered an important thing to do anyway? Why would a guy in 1967 want to add an extra degree of difficulty to a costume that many in the field today consider impossible to do now? Does anyone really think the debate over P/G would have been significantly changed if the animal had been male?
It’s just one of many, many things that simply make a hoax so unlikely that anyone proposing it was one has to show, not how one piece of it could have been done, but how all of it WAS.
Or at very least, how all of it was plausible enough that now a hoax looks, instead of an extremely unreasonable explanation, at least a reasonably likely one.
mystery_man: among other things in a very good post (even skeptics have to blink when they see P/G 😉 ) is your mention of “Planet of the Apes.”
Those were nice MASKS. (The ’60s/70s flicks, anyway.) That’s where they stopped; I seem to remember (been a while) that below the neck those were human dimensions. Which is of course what I’ve seen in the best of today’s sas costumes; the proportions are human, all of them: arms to legs, arms and legs to torso, etc. They have to be for – and this is funny – the person inside to give a realistic impression! You have to be able to move the limbs. When the Patterson debunkers start talking about prostheses and water bags, I need to open a window. Ain’t no prostheses on that ape. And NO bags. Not until the guy that did it comes forward with the blueprints, and I’m not holding my breath.
“Apes” would have made this guy RICH. So he sits on it? For a few years, I can see. “I Faked Patty” would have been one of the coolest documentaries ever. And still no one’s done it? When he was obviously good enough?
It’s been said that some of the dimensions that such as Grover Krantz deemed “impossible” for a human are, indeed possible. The girth, for example. Fine. One dimension. (Grover overstepped in a couple of his statements about P/G. That’s not an indictment of the film; it’s an indictment of overstepping. Although his frustration with the establishment is understandable.) Problem is, every SINGLE measurement for this guy, sorry, gal, girth included, is at the limits, at least, of the human curve. Find that person, you found a freak. A statistical one, even more than a physical one. One of the arm-length ratios – can’t remember which – might have been found in five or six people in the US in 1967. And that’s only one measure. Hoaxers today don’t sift like that. With so much less info on the sas being available in 1967, why would one with so much else to get right have been sifting like that then? When there was, really, almost nothing to sift but footprints?
And yes, consider all the evidence that’s been found since ’67. And all the sightings. This figure still fits neatly into the distribution. The odds that somebody would slot a costume – and the person to fit it – that well? Back then?
Again, it’s the position that this was a fake that is, at the moment, a belief, with no evidence to back it.
If someone is orchestrating a hoax, one of the best ways to convince people that it is believable is to throw in a detail that people would not expect to find in a hoax – such as female breasts on a “giant ape”.
The breasts don’t make “Patty” fake, but neither are they proof that she is not.
Kittenz:
Just as the breasts sure aren’t proof (now who ever said anything about proof? 😉 ) of a fake, neither is “one of the best ways to convince people that it is believable” one of the things a hoaxer ever does.
Many people familiar with how suits behave, and how animals do, have talked about the natural movement of skin, muscle and hair in concert displayed in this film. Not only does that weigh heavily against a hoax; it doesn’t seem likely that the hoaxer would toss in yet another complication. (Many commentators talk about the natural movement of the breasts too.) Too complicated and it’s too hard to pull off. This was remote backcountry, not necessarily the place to mess too much with One More Thing To Go Wrong.
Proof, no. But there’s an impressive array of evidence that this isn’t a hoax.
And I meant opening the post above “just as the breasts sure aren’t proof of a real animal….” Sorry.
No, the breasts aren’t proof one way or the other, but every time that film comes up, someone pops up with a comment like “why would a hoaxer put breasts on an ape?”. Well, WHY NOT? Make the big ape a female? It’s the kind of thing a great con artist would think of – a red herring, something completely unexpected. THE last shred of “evidence” that is needed to convince skeptics that the film is legit.
The hoaxer or hoaxers would spend the rest of their lives chuckling to themselves about how well they “got over”.
I know that a lot of people think the P/G film is the best evidence that exists for Bigfoot. I’m not an expert on film nor am I an expert on primates, but the animal in that film just does not look real to me. No amount of analyzing it has convinced me that it’s genuine; if anything, the more times I see it, the more convinced I am that it is not real.
I’ll probably get barbequed 😀 for saying that, but it’s my honest opinion.
Kittenz- Of course you are entitled to your opinion like everyone else is and I don’t think you are going to barbecued for saying what you think. Not be me anyway! 🙂
Not barbecued, kittenz. We don’t do bushmeat here.
But we might have to confiscate your Official Biscardi Secret Press Release Decoder Ring. I know it cost you $1586.95, but roolz is roolz.
Those who think the Patterson film doesn’t look real might want to consider one possible reason Bigfoot doesn’t look real to a lot of people: he – OK, he/she – walks bipedally, and the walk looks a lot like ours.
When I first saw P/G I involuntarily giggled. I couldn’t help it. The stills had me wondering what the heck is that? then I see this guy in an ape suit! It took me time to realize why it looked like a man.
I think we – scientists included, because they aren’t “science,” they’re people – Just Can’t Believe some stuff. We were The Bipedal Mammal, just about the only unique distinction other than culture and technology we still had. Then this guy shows up. Yeah, you can talk about the subtle differences all you want. Bigfoot walks just like us.
That can be very hard, and not intellectually, to get around. I started seeing it as an animal when I started looking at it as one.
I don’t have a problem believing that other mammals can be bipedal. I just don’t think that “Patty” looks like a real animal. “She” looks like a made-up human to me. Not necessarily the “man-in-a-suit”, in the sense that it’s a costume with a zipper, but a man made up, nonetheless.
kittenz: given some of the things I see in P/G – like, for example, the jaw being located on a line below the shoulders, as in the apes, rather than above them, as in humans – I think it would be pretty hard to accomplish the effects you see without a suit. (I mean, look at the feet. That’s a BIGfoot.)
I would love to see a guy that tall with proportions like that. Actually, I would have. He wouldn’t have been wasting his time faking sasquatch, but making millions as the greatest center in NBA history. He might very well still be playing with a body like that.
Oh, and for those who may not know this, although there’s still quite a bit of discussion about how tall the figure is, much can be gleaned from the site itself. Patterson found prints which were cast along Patty’s path of travel. That site has been analyzed, not on film, but by researchers on the ground, as much as the Zapruder film. The estimates I’ve seen involving both analysis of the animal and analysis of the site come up with a height of approximately 7’ 3” to 7’ 4”.
Yep, greatest ever. If the guy could jump….wow. If he couldn’t, no big.
DWA- As for Patty’s physique, I wasn’t thinking basketball player so much as a linebacker. 🙂
Basketball players and linebackers are both humans … well most of em are anyway 😀
Nice one, kittenz! 🙂