However, I think the Patty image has been out there for a long time, and really gotten more press than Harry overall.

Good points above…I was going to ask Kittenz what it was that made her doubt the Patty footage, but she answered before I had to ask–thanks! The Patty footage is still one of the best conversatoin starters when it comes to BF and cryptozoology in general, and I find it interesting that since that footage, we still have not come up with anything as comparable (ironic and too bad:).

So, on that note, I think it is time to come up with another vid/pic/etc. that will start out this century with more to talk about…assuming we don’t get to the bottom of this in the near future.

However (do I love that word, or what?), this century has also ushered in a new era on images, videos, etc. with the computer age, and I am not sure just how trusting we can be of any images that come our way…sure Photoshopping can be found out, but it keeps getting harder and harder to pick out the frauds from the real images–look how much time we have to spend here sifting through all of the You-Tube garbage, not to mention the good hoaxes.

The ultimate answer, is that I think it’s time we offered BF a three movie deal with merchandising rights…BF action figures with rock throwing action…could he/she honestly turn that down…

“Patty”: Patterson’s film is THE iconic concept of sasquatch among bigfoot advocates and other crypto enthusiasts. To me, however, the Patterson image looks more like popular conceptions (circa 1950’s) of the yeti, rather than the bigfoot of earlier eyewitness accounts.

“Harry”: Perhaps “Harry” is the first idea some people have of bigfoot in the same way that popular notions of Frankenstein’s creature are based on Karloff’s monster. Why did the film makers create this particular image of bigfoot rather than some other image? I suggest this answer: when the make up artists did their research, they may have consulted Sanderson’s “Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life”. Sanderson included in the photos section of his book a remarkable photo of an orangutan, remarkable for it’s human like face. My first impression of “Harry” was: Hey, it’s Sanderson’s orangutan!

But it’s certainly a good time to point out again – as others already have – that all animals have at least one feature that makes them unique. As kittenz pointed out, humans are alone among members of the ape clade in having color phases (actually, at least one species of gibbon – I believe the siamang – has markedly different coloration between male and female). That Patty’s breasts are as hairy as they are is something I would expect of – or at least not find unusual in – an animal that (a) had breasts that big and (b) had to keep them warm in temperate-zone winters and (c) hadn’t developed fire or clothing to take care of that.

That they might not be breasts at all, at least not as we think of them functionally, is an interesting idea. But so many sightings don’t note them at all that my suspicion is they are what most of us humans think they are when we see them.

I know there can be differences between individuals of the same species, and the possibility of different species or even subspecies that may have developed along the way, but since there are supposed to be so few that is a lot of variation.

Then again, there is so little we do know we can only make a lot of assumptions since we have never actually studied them in detail.

I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you regarding the ‘Harry’ image as being the type the general public has in mind.

I still believe the Patty image is the one most people who consider bigfoot really think of, or at least something along those lines. Something dark and quite menacing. Those that have seen Harry and The Hendersons know full well that it’s a comedic caricature representation and if they were to hear of a bigfoot sighting it wouldn’t be the ‘Harry’ image that would spring to mind.

From asking around I get the impression that most people think bigfoot is something to be worried/scared of if they were to encounter one. That isn’t ‘Harry’. The Patty image is still widely known both in still version and the moving footage version. It’s only my opinion but I don’t think most people think of a light haired grey bearded smiling ape man when the name bigfoot comes up.

The people who openly dismiss bigfoot probably don’t have any set rigid image either way when the name is mentioned to them as they think it’s all a load of old nonsense.

Of course I could be wrong but I’m just going by my own experiences of talking to other people. Bigfoot is scary to them. Patty is scary looking. Harry isn’t.

My young nephew always used to hate me mentioning bigfoot, even though he saw the Harry film. Harry isn’t what stuck in his mind. That would be the Patty image.