Bill Munns on Patterson-Gimlin Film

Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction? Patterson Film Analyzed

Bigfoot researcher, computer animator, and Hollywood costume designer Bill Munns receives access to the original Patterson-Gimlin film to thoroughly exam.

Minnesota Iceman Sold on Ebay?

When this story came out I made a mention about it on this blog. I was told by one of the people that sends out my links "That's old news, we don't want to promote it"

The problem remains, IS this the same as the original Iceman viewed by Sanderson and Heuvelmans? If so I am afraid both men have been very badly discredited. However there are a number of importany inconsistencies. There was the very obvious matter of one eye supposedly shot out of the socket and the other eye bugged out of the other one as a reaction to the shot. There is not any  suggestion of that here. That is an important enough detail that more than one claimant as "The one that made the model" was supposed to have recognised the description from the bugged-out eyeball alone (That s what the Ball family stated).There was also the matter of an extended 'heel' to the hand and the body hairs pigmented in an agouti pattern alleged by Sanderson, details which Napier thought were suspicious and which indicated a hoax: neither one of those things are evident in these photographs.

If any of those details was true than we are not looking at the original but instead we are looking at an extremely well-made replica.

So at this point there are features which match the story that this is the supposed body that Heuvelmans and Sanderson saw and then again, the conradictory statements which continue to be a puzzle. I do not care to make any final decisions on the matter yet myself.

Best Wishes, Dale D.

http://blogs.forteana.org/node/195

Minnesota Ice Man - Sold

February 20, 2013 - 17:40 — Gordon

After a number of blog posts about Fortean property you need something to put in it. Well how about what is claimed to be Frank Hansen's original 1960's Minnesota Ice man sideshow exhibit?

A snip at $20 000 on ebay.
The listing reads
"This is the actual sideshow gaff billed as "The Minnesota Iceman" by
Frank Hansen in the 1960's. This is a one of a kind hoax that was
fabricated by a mid-20th century showman. The Iceman was featured in an
issue of Argosy Magazine (as you can see in the pictures) and spawned
decades of debate as to its authenticity. For around 40 years the
whereabouts of the Iceman were unknown to the cryptozoology community.
The "creature", while under ice, baffled the famed zoologist (and
so-called father of cryptozoology) Bernard Heuvelmans who examined it in
it's heyday. Stories circulated as to the origin of the creature
ranging from "a hunter shot it in the great northwoods", to "it was
killed during wartime in Southeast Asia", and even that it was found
floating in the ocean encased in it's signature block of ice. It is
thought that the "creature" was actually crafted by one of Disney's
early Imagineers. Regardless of who actually did create it, the quality
is flawless, and it has stood up remarkably well to the rigors of time
and repeated freezings. The chest freezer that it is housed in is
unfortunately not operational at this time. It has been looked at by a
licensed refrigeration contractor who determined that the compressor
needs to be replaced. A new custom sheet of glass was added in September
of 2012. The housing is extremely heavy, in upwards of 1000lbs, and is
approxamately 4' x 4' x 8'. This listing includes the rolling freezer
container, the creature, and the original signage. Buyer will need to
either arrange to pick item up in Minnesota, or arrange for shipping.
Follow this link to read the original Argosy Magazine article: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy2.htm
 Any questions, please feel free to email. Serious inquiries only.
 Thank You!"

So is this the real deal? There are other images at ebay to allow you to make up your mind. Was the original Ice Man a fake or genuine? Was it subsequently replaced by a fake and is this a fake that was associated with Hansen or is it a fake of a fake? Or a fake of a real animal? Or a fake of a fake of a real animal? Whatever it is it looks mighty impressive and I am searching down the back of the sofa to see if the Charles Fort Institute has enough money to buy it, but I'm not holding my breath!
For some excellent colour photographs of the beast Hansen showed I can strongly recommend L'Homme de Néanderthal est toujours vivant


And here is a composite photograph by Heuvelmans and two interpretaive drawings

Whoever buys it I hope it goes on display somewhere. Well it's gone. The auction is over, if anyone knows who bought it could they ask them to contact us so we can find out what's going to happen to? It's a shame it didn't end up at somewhere like Loren Coleman's International Cryptozoology Museum

Scott Mardis documents refuting Christian Spurling 'Loch Ness Monster Hoax' Claim

[Unfortunately Scott Mardis' xerox of the text is not reproduceable although I have another copy of the text which I can add later on. However the illustrations here show what Greenwell was driving at: the creatures shown in the famous "Periscope" sightings at both Loch Ness and Lake Champlain are reemarkably similar, although the one at Loch Ness is larger: compared to the reports, neither individual is very large and neither one is likely to be an adult.]

Scott Mardis' illustration which is similar also to one that I had published before.

Scott Mardis pdfs: A Timeline of Plesiosur Research

This is not everything and the bulk og the earlier research has been left off. Nonetheless with just this much we can see opinions about Plesiosaurs have been controversial for a long time and opinions are regularly intriooduced which flatly contradict all earlier trends in thinkingh. There is lttle agreement over diet, manner of swimming, use of limbs, method of hunting, diving ability and what depth of water was frequented, speed, neck flexibility and even flexibility in the trunk region and the currently prevailing trends in thought are all too often only briefly held by many scientists. With this sort of perspective, it is hard to see why some modern experts will continually make dogmatic statements as if they are quoting the majority opinion about Plersiosaurs. Basically there is not a consensus of opinion nor has there been a good consensus for some time now-DD.

Lake Champlain Sightings Profiles

 

Some different views of "Champ" from different sources. The video still above ios the same as the  first one on the diagram below, the head seems to change shape. It seems to be a swimming quadruped with only a modest length of neck and it is assumed to be a deer with antlers that present a different aspect from different angles. Its resolution is too poor to make it out any better.

 

There are a couple of different phenomena at Lake Champlain that have fed into the Legend of Champ. Of far more interest to us are the sightings which allege it has a Plesiosaurian shape, with or without humps on the back. Below is an assortment of creatures depicted in different sightings in profile, as variations on the Plesiosaurian category.

 

Drawing of a recent sighting of "Champ" from a Kayak

As produced by Facebook Friend Thomas Finley as part of a package promoting a fielld trip to Lake Champlain (Via Scott Mardis, who also hopes to go). it is a good match for the second-from-the-last profile on the chart above, but that one is a different sighting taken from a different source.

                   Video purporting to show "Champ": could be a swimming beaver.
                   More distinctive Plesiosaur type sighting below:

Purported "Champ" looking very much like Peter O'Conner's 1960 photo of "Nessie"

(By way of Scott Mardis)

 

Here is my earlier attempt to characterise the Champ sightings as done for a CFZ article. The impression I had was that several of the witnesses used the old Sinclair Oil Dinosaur as a point of reference and so I simply cut a section off of the Sinclair Dinosaur and added the dimensions (The shape of the head was wrong on this reconstruction but nobody knew about that part until more recently) The comparison of Lake Monsters to the Sinclair Dinosaur has also been stated in Lake Superior and in the state of Michigan, but I am rather more dubious of those claims.

 

http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2010/01/dale-drinnon-champ-sightings-mock-up.html

http://www.njan.org/draw.php

Champ Sightings List

Please give the files time to open some of the pdfs have many pages
and it may take a few seconds for them to appear. [Joe Zarzynski 1988] [Gary Mangiacopra 2007Pt.1] [Gary Mangiacopra 2007 Pt.2]

"Living Pterosaurs" of Hollywood

Jonathan David Whitcomb states on Facebook: " The sighting near Griffith Park this past Monday (May 13, 2013) now seems to have high honesty-credibility. It was in daylight, flying over a freeway without any wing flapping. The lack of feathers and the head crest impressed the eyewitness. The size was not extraordinary, just bigger than most birds in the area. (This is only the latest in a series of such reports in the area)"

This sounds like possibly another series of sightings of an outsized woodpecker similar to the Ivory-billed woodpecker, already suspected from "Pteranodon" sightings from further North in California and in Oregon. There is a larger species related to the Ivory-Billed woodpecker native to Mexico but it is thought to be extinct.The creature which is reported as a pterosaur perches upright, which no kind of a pterosaur could do. I have written on this matter on this blog before.

The appearance of "Oily Black Skin" impresses witnesses as "Featherless" when actually the appearance is caused by the way the feathers lay down and create a sort of a sheen.

http://www.livingpterosaurs.com/blog/?cat=3

Dragons of Los Angeles

North America, PterosaursNo Responses »

Mar 11 2013

Do you believe in flying dragons? Have you ever seen a large long-tailed featherless flying creature? If so, you’re not alone.
For several days, I questioned the eyewitness by emails, and I interviewed her by phone three days after the sighting. She admitted to me that she did not have time to determine if the three “dragons” had no feathers, for they fly over her car while she was driving on a freeway. Her first impression was that they were large and not birds, assuming it was some kind of stunt, perhaps with kites. She realized they were not kites when she saw their tails move.
She was driving north on the Interstate 5, just east of a golf course on the east side of Griffith Park, in Los Angeles, on Sunday, March 3, 2013. The flying creatures flew almost exactly over her car in the opposite direction. It was just minutes before sunrise, so the sky was no longer dark and she could see the undersides of the “dragons.” They were light colored and had a peculiar shape.
She admitted that she had no confidence in estimating how high they were flying or how large they were. She mentioned nothing to me about the nearby Los Angeles River, but I was struck by its proximity. It’s common for a sighting in Southern California to be near a storm channel or river bed (see “San Fernando Valley Sighting” below). In this case, the creatures were only 150 feet away from the Los Angeles River, a major storm drainage channel, flying parallel to it.

Question: “Did you see any neck on any of them?”
Answer: “Yes, that was another thing that tipped me off that they were not birds. They each had a distinct neck between body and head, that was more narrow and clearly visible.”
Question: “Did you see any feet on any of them?”
Answer: “I did not notice their feet.”
Question: “Is it possible that what appeared to have been tails were actually their feet held behind them?”
Answer: “I suppose it’s possible but they looked a lot like tails to me. Long and thin with a bigger point at the tip.”

.

Approximate location of sighting near Colorado Street overpass

Top arrow: direction of “dragon” flight — bottom arrow: direction of car — blue: banks of L. A. River
 

Griffith Park Dragons?
 

This past Monday morning I read an email I received from a woman who encountered three “dragons” flying over the I-5 freeway, just northeast of downtown Los Angeles, on Sunday morning, March 3rd. (I will call this anonymous eyewitness “CGP”)

This morning at about 6 am [later clarified to be within five minutes of 6:10 a.m.] I saw three “dragons” flying over the 5-North freeway between Griffith Park and Glendale. They appeared to be several feet long, with a head:body:tail ratio that was certainly not that of a bird. Their wings were long, angular and pointed and their tails had triangular points. . . . I definitely saw them, but was driving so I could not stop and watch where they went.

[Actually the witness thought they were not birds because there was even a recognisable neck. This is odd because many birds have distinct necks, of whatever length desired, short to long.that a bird's tail feathers can come to triangular points at the ends is also possible. if the "Sordes" silhouette is read upside down and tail-for-head, the flight profile does indeed resemble several known birds].

Sightings of Pterosaurs
A few years ago, a psychologist, Brian Hennessy, was interviewed concerning a reported sighting of a large "prehistoric" creature seen on Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea. The psychologist was not analyzing the mental health of the eyewitness; that psychologist, Brian Hennessy, was himself the eyewitness.

Pterosaur Sighting in South Carolina
The huge featherless creature swooped down over the highway, maybe only "twenty feet" high and only "twenty five" feet in front of the car.

Are bats Food for Pterodactyls in Los Angeles?
During my teenaged years in Pasadena, when I enjoyed watching small bats at night, my younger sister had a friend, Dianne. She told my sister about the big "pterodactyl" she had seen flying around the mountains north of Pasadena.
[There is no evidence for or even any allegation that pterosaurs are eating bats there]

San Fernando Valley Sighting

Only a little over a mile north of the Los Angeles River
A couple was walking their dog at about 10:30 p.m., near the corner of Burbank Blvd and Woodman in the city of Sherman Oaks, California, when they saw a "very large, winged creature" gliding about 300 feet overhead. The woman described glowing or reflective portions of the wings; she described them to me in a way that suggested they were much dimmer than the bright flashes of ropens. [That the winges were merely reflective rather than self-luminous is much more likely]

Posted by Jonathan Whitcomb at 7:18 am

Further down the page I found this discussion which I feel I must address:

Flying Pterosaur, not a Leaping Ray

Pterosaurs, Southwest PacificNo Responses »

Nov 072012

I’ve written about this Manta ray fish story many times already, but we need to now concentrate on the reasons why Dale Drinnon has repeatedly brought up this leaping-fish conjecture. But before getting into his reasoning, let’s review his conjecture. He believes that “many” sightings of reported pterosaurs (the extant living creatures, not fossils) come from people who see a large Manta ray that jumps up out of the water.
Mr. Drinnon insists that any extant pterosaur on this planet must resemble pterosaurs known from fossils that have been discovered and that any deviation in appearance means the creature observed cannot be that type of flying creature. He does not explain why he has taken that stand, but he dogmatically holds onto that position. [This is simply the statement I have made that living pterosaurs should bear some resemblance to what is known from fossils: Mr Whitcomb does not furnish us with any reports which correspond to any real known pterosaurs at all. Two common features in the reports are that the head is reported as much smaller than a pterosaur head and the shape of the wing membrane is wrong, being wide and including the legs and feet when the fossils show long and narrow wings where the wing membrane did not continue on anywhere near the feet. And the Rhamphorhynchids were generally of smaller sizes and certainly up into the range of 20 foot wingspans]

Hypothetical Encounter at a Zoo
Let’s apply that position to fossils in general and to modern creatures in general (why should pterosaurs get special treatment?). How would we react if a paleontologist marched up to the administration office of a zoo and insisted that a particular animal enclosure be labeled “Animatronic – not a real animal?” Everybody else knows that those animals are biological and not fake. Why is that paleontologist mistaken in his dogmatism? He knows that no fossil yet discovered is exactly like what we all see in that zoo enclosure, so he insists that the animals in question cannot be biological. Why is he wrong? (Of course that paleontologist is imaginary.)
Biological Diversity
Almost every adult human in Western society understands biological diversity, whether those adult humans are Biblical Creationists or strict Darwinist Evolutionists. Chihuahuas and Saint Bernards are the same species, regardless of outward differences. Why should pterosaurs drastically differ from the general rule?
Paleontologists know from pterosaur fossils that varieties existed in the past, great diversity in those flying creatures. Why should we be shocked that a modern pterosaur would have one or two or even three details of appearance that differ, in some degree, from already-discovered fossils of pterosaurs? In fact, new varieties of pterosaurs are still being discovered in fossil form. The shock is in discovering that not all their species are extinct, after generations of indoctrination into the universal-extinction dogma.[The argument is irrelevant and spurious. It has nothing to do with the issue which is that none of the witneseses are actually reporting anything like what is known of pterosaurs, especially in cases of birdlike creatures that perch upright on branches or wires, Pterosaurs could not perch.]

Ray Resemblance
Mr. Drinnon emphasizes anything that seems to relate to a Manta ray fish (with sighting reports of pterosaurs) especially the general shape of the body of the Manta ray. But he mentions almost no details, no particular sighting, in most of his writings; what sighting report has a description of a ray shape and was over a large body of water? Two creatures flying together, high over a city in the Philippines could not have been a leaping Manta ray, although Drinnon still wants to hold onto the possibility that it was that fish (because that city is near water). [In this situation the city was on the shoreline and the sightings were on the shoreline, two facts which are easily determined after only a little reseach. That two rays might leap together is common and unremarkable. Mr Drinnon does not feel that endless repetitions of the exact same descriptions makes for interesting reading to his readers. In this case the shape like a manta ray was referred to in the original posting as being similar to the shape of a ropen. That shape has now become a stereotype.]

Rhamphorhynchoid Pterosaur Resemblance
In the second ropen expedition of 2004 (I led the first one), Garth Guessman and David Woetzel interviewed a few native eyewitnesses, in Papua New Guinea, by using a page of silhouettes. Those images (unlabeled except for numbers) were of dozens of known birds, bats, and pterosaurs. Only two natives had a good-enough view of the flying creature (that they called “ropen”) to make a valid evaluate of shape, comparing the images with what they remembered observing on Umboi Island. I have photocopies of the detailed reports of those interviews.
The two natives who had good views of the ropen both chose the image of the Sordes Pilosus, a Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaur: [In point of fact no pterosaur has a wing membrane profile anything like this, and Rhamphorhynchid pterosaurs are notable for having thin, narrow wings]

That silhouette does bear a slight resemblance to the shape of a Manta ray (if we cut off the Rhamphorhynchoid tail vane and the head). [Mr Whitcom has just stated the obvious fact that everything about the image are resembles a manta ray except for the presumed head and tail ends, which could easily be misremembered or misobserved, and that area which does resemble a manta ray is by far more substantial than either the small head or tail areas] But both Jonathan Ragu and Jonah Jim (in two seperate sightings) saw a flying creature that was glowing, not a Manta ray that jumped out of the sea and fell back. In fact, Jonah Jim was miles from the coast, far from any major body of water.[BUT he was reporting the same tradition of the same shape which has now become the standard for accepting any such sightings by Mr Whitcomb and his researchers. And the glowing reports are not realistic but are supernatural. There is no evidence for glowing pterosaurs whatsoever, but sea creatures can be covered by bioluminescent organisms that live in the sea and which cause the glowing effect seen at sea] Ragu witnessed, with his daughter, the glowing ropen flying at or near the northwest coast of Umboi Island. Take the case that the man and his daughter had merely seen a jumping Manta ray, as unlikely as that appears to have been. Why would he have chosen the same silhouette as Jonah Jim would later choose? [because it resembles a manta ray] And why would Ragu report the same strange phenomenon: a glow? [because it is the prevalent superstition conected to such reports: indirect lighting also causes the effect]Those factors practically eliminate the jumping Manta ray misidentification as a reasonable conjecture for these two sightings. [not at all] Ragu and Jonah Jim had surely seen the same flying creature, regardless of how shocking a modern giant Sordes Pilosus may be to Westerners.[There is no reason to identify it with Sordes pilosus, the most famous feature of which is that it was furry]
Mr. Drinnon is mistaken on two major points: The critical sightings that my associates and I have analyzed could not have been misidentified leaping rays, and modern pterosaurs need not be precisely similar, in all details, to those paleontologists know from fossils.[Mr Whitcomb is wrong on two key points: that such reports cannot be based upon the shape of leaping rays when the resemblance to leaping rays is greater than it is to pterosaurs, and in that a creature which does not resemble a pterosaur should be a pteroaur. Think about the glaring internal contradiction that weas just made in that sentence!]
Pterosaur, not Manta Ray

The Four Key Sightings in the Southwest Pacific

[In all of these cases the reports came years later and were possibly misremembered. I had also previously mentioned to Mr Whitcomb that some of the sightings could refer to another alleged cryptid, a giant hornbill, also said to be seen in the area; He has conveniently forgotten the alternative explanation]

Ropen, not Misidentified Frigate Bird

Misidentified sea birds [Frigate bird] are a far cry from how serious living-pterosaur investigations really began.

[Although I do not advocate misidentifications of frigate birds for sightings, others have said so and I have mentioned the fact that others have said so]

Leaping Fish or Pterosaur

No Manta rays would appear to fly through the air together and change directions in the air . . .

[Once again we are talking about sightings and not documentary videotapes or films. They can certainly seem to fly and change directions, and the wtnesses can be misremembering details.]

Nagas, Plesiosaurs and Rainbow Serpents

 

Nagas are the South Asian (Indian and Indonesian) equivalents of Dragons, and the name "Naga" simply means "Snake", In Indonesia the Nagas tend to be a very peculiar sort of snake with a distinct neck; shoulders with forefins, wings or legs; a short thick torso tapering down into what looks like a distinct tail also. In more elaborate depictions they are shown with several loops in the water following the head and neck in typical "Sea-Serpent" style. The range of size in depicted Nagas is very great, from less than human size (three feet?) to a very great size, perhaps over fifty feet long.

 

 

 

 I had seen a similar pattern to this Suma Islands textile [below] before from the Phillipines before but I did not have a photo for it. It occurred to me that the creature on the other textile had a body plan like a Plesiosaur. One of the styles of depiction on the other cloth had an enlarged "Snake Head" and this one has "Devil Heads" instead. at any rate, the heads are mostly symbolic, the important thing is that the depictions are not showing ordinary crocodiles but something different.

(The lizards shown in the center are possibly very large and unclassified monitor lizards)

 

Cast of a Plesiosaur fossil, to show the similar body plan.

 

The two Batak carved wooden panels below show something like the local version of the Tao-tieh (Taotie) Chinese dragon head and once again it seems that the spiral design behind the eyes represents the Euryapsid skull openings that Plesiosaurs have (but that snakes do not have) The pineal 'eye' may also be intended by thesmall diamond shape above the eyes but situated medially: the boxed-off area in front of the eyes may indicate the area where the nostrils are located.

It turns out that in Northern Australia the Rainbow Snake (also known in Southern India) is a local variation on the Naga design. I am borrowing the logo of the Aboriginal Northern Land Council (This is not meant in any way to be disrespectful, I just needed to illustrate the design). Compare to the body plan of the first Indonesian Naga at the top of this article. An earlier blog noted the comparison of the Rainbow Serpent's teeth to PLesiosaur teeth: I did not make the comparison myself but it is also a good argument.

And finally it seems that the Nagas of Indonesia carry over intio New Guinea and Melanesia, where some of the native names sound as if they are variations of "Naga" and "Naga Raja" (King-of-Serpents) in the sield below, the Naga is shown in an ambiguous way, either as the top half done X-ray style with the throat indicated from the mouth down and then a schematic herart (The curlicues at the ends of the jaws is a design also known from Indonesia) and then as the top half, showing the twi foreflippers in the same manner as the Rotomahana sighting off New Zealand in the 1800s: and it is also a stlyised profile with both head and tail ends up, and indicating both fore and rear flippers.

 The catline face at the top of the shield is also interesting and I wonder if there are local reports of "Phantom panthers" to go along with the catfaced design?

Here is a comparison of a Plesiosaur reconstruction by National Geographic

to compare to the "Winged Foreflippers" top-part sighting design.

 Such sightings are infrequent but have been recorded in the Baltic sea, in the North

Atlantic, near New Zealand, off the US East Coast, off the US West Coast and near Japan.

Portrait of the Congo Dragon

I came across this in my photo searches on Google. It appears to be a representation of the Congo Dragon as a large unknown monitor lizard. I have seen comparale representations from the Central Congo area and in Sudan.sometimes a horn is added to the snout, I believe by confusion wuith the "Water Rhino". This is an unusually straightforeward and naturalistic representation. -- DD.

Carved Wooden Seat
 IVORY COAST
Price Realized $7,500
Estimate
$3,000 – $4,000
Sale Information
Sale 2661
Arts of Africa, Oceania and the Americas including Property from the Estate of Ernst Beyeler
10 May 2012
New York, Rockefeller Plaza
TRADITIONAL SCULPTURE FROM UPPER VOLTA
An Exhibition of objects from New-York museums and private collectors
Exhibition Catalog, October 24, 1978 & March 24, 1979
New York, The African-American Institute
1978
Lot Description
BAULE ZOOMORPHIC SEAT, ULIMBI BIA, IVORY COAST
Length: 44½ in. (113 cm.)

Algonquin Park Ape on Bizzare Zoology

 

A recent posting by Jay Cooney at Bizzare Zoology compared the screen capture of an Algonquin Park drive-by video purporting to show a kind of ape. Jay said it was a Bigfoot and that he thought the head matched the skull of a Paranthropus (Robust Australopithecine) I disagrred and said it was something more apelike (If it is indeed a live creature and not a mock-up of some sort)

 

Here is the panoramic view of the shot where the apelike figure appears, and below a cropping of it

 

My comment was that the image was much too blurry to be certain of anything, and we needed a face-on view to be comparable whereas we would need a profile shot of establish if it was a Paranthropus or not. A Paranthropus has a more vertical profile where a common ape has a protruding muzzle and prominent canines. And as a counter-proposal, I did the comparison with an ordinary ape, an orangutan, the lower one with a direct superimposition of the skull on the photo (The skull is still not quite at the proper size and it is a mite too large for the direct comparson)

 

Here is a reconstruction of a Miocene Sivapithecine together with a reconstruction

 of the fossil skull (which was partial) Below is the Canadian "ape face" again 

                 

Although it is difficult to make out I think I the lower face definitely has

 a more elongated muzzle than a Paranthropus would have. 

 

Jay also suggested that it was the samne as the Western Sasquatch

 such as is shown in the Patterson-Gimlin film   

 

A direct comparison shows that this Wood Ape from Canada has a smaller head

more pinched-in shoulders and much longer arms than 'Patty' has;

 

While by the same token, Patty is  bigger and more heavily built than the Paranthropus, but once again a smaller head and longer arms, and is intermediate to the regular ape proportions in that.

 

In comparison to the Paranthropus , the Algonquin Park Wood Ape shows these

 same features in an even more exaggerated sense. Head much smaller and arms longer still.

 

And so I did a series of comparisons to more mundane apes.

First a chimpanzee:

 

Then a comparison to a gorilla:

 (The head seems closest here)

 

And then to the orangutan.

All in all I think the orangutan wins out because the overall

 appearance is most similar, and especially the limb proportions are most similar.

Here is the source, from the Time-Life Nature Library book Evolution (the appendix)

And a comparison of the apes in general. I noted when I included this Harry Wilson Deviant Art illustration earlier that the Ufiti is in the Bili Ape size range and that the West African Bonobo is still an "Unknown animal"-classification of apes into species is still uncertain and cointroversial.

Here is the source video from YouTube. I believe Jay got his information about this from Bigfoot Evidence.