skeptic: well, that’s an appropriately skeptical attitude. Every serious analysis I have seen points to not-human. But most of us admit at least some discomfort with this thing having gone unconfirmed by the society for this long. Sometimes mysteries really are.

And kudos for using Occam the right way. Most using it on the skeptical side of this question use it to certify their incredulity. One is indeed postulating many pluralities to put a guy in that suit, and that suit in front of P and G.

To believe it is a man in the suit requires a huge conspiracy theory and possibly time travel. Occam’s razor suggests it’s an animal. But what animal?

1) this analysis;

2) the 21-degree differential between Patty’s leg lift and just about any human’s… including alleged hoaxers “duplicating” their performance;

3) and the hard-to-conceive chain of events that would have had to conspire to get a hoaxer – in a suit almost impossible to conceive of at that time – into that known, and remote, location, and gone, without trace, for over 45 years;

…and, well, the reason that skeptics are still, after all this time, looking for the first piece of evidence of Pattyfake starts to make sense.

That is:

Patty isn’t fake.

This act of sheer True Belief makes the woo-woo proponents look sane. Except that it’s standard-issue human incredulity, which can be incredible sometimes.

Green was right.