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.

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.

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.

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.