FRONTIERS OF ZOOLOGY Dale A. Drinnon has been a researcher in the field of Cryptozoology for the past 30+ years and has corresponded with Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson. He has a degree in Anthropology from Indiana University and is a freelance artist and writer. Motto: "I would rather be right and entirely alone than wrong in the company with all the rest of the world"--Ambroise Pare', "the father of modern surgery", in his refutation of fake unicorn horns.
The photo on the left just came to my Facebook page as a feature of the Ohio Bigfoot Conference: I immediately thought to make another demonstration by comparing it to the Patterson film "Patty"
The result is basically there is no comparison. Literally everything about the human being in the costume is wrong and does not remotely resemble the subject of the Patterson film. I sould point out especially the configuration of the head and face is all different, but also the limb and body proportions, the posture, stance and ease of movement are all different. The guy in the suit does not even show any obvious butt.
http://thedavisreport.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/the-davis-report-skin-and-hair/ Jay Cooney sent this link and brought this to my attention: Jay says that along with the subject in the Patterson film having an undersized cranium, she is also seen to open and close her mouth, an effect which would be difficult to achieve in a gorilla mask of the period
The Davis Report-Skin and hair
Here’s a clip with the film subject rotating in the sunlight. This clip shows a definite color to the skin and the “patchy” nature of the body hair. A suit…constructed in such a way would be very difficult, if not impossible to make with the technology of the day. Click on the image to animate
Copyright Patricia Patterson. Film work and stabilization by M.K.Davis
Jay Cooney was in a discussion on facebook concerning the allegation that a costume and a hooded mask could be provided that was a good match for the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin film. A photographic comparison was provided. I came along later and I cut only the heads for direct comparison. I maintain that not only does the hooded head of the human subject come up more obviously vertically to a much lower crown, the braincase indicated in the Patterson female's head could not possibly house a brain of average human dimensions
In these photos, the Patterson film female is in the photos to the right and in sepia tones, the human in a costume is to the left in the photo in the green-toned photos.
Note from Poster of Video:" I have attempted to show the bounce of Patty's breast. Real of fake you can decide for yourself but the breasts do appear to be moving."
At the same time I got this I also found this following video of Bill Munns' analysis. From what I have heard of Munns' studies he makes some excellent points and I concur 100% with everything he has said that I have heard so far, and on several points we have both made the same arguments separately and we have published separately. I think that part is pretty important to realize also.
Bigfoot researcher, computer animator,
and Hollywood costume designer Bill Munns receives access to the original
Patterson-Gimlin film to thoroughly exam.
There have been several claims that a man in costume was filmed in the Patterson-Gimlin Sasquatch footage of 1967. I have criticised the notion before and I just came across some more information on that score. I have some illustrations from Bill Munn's demonstrations on the topic and I noticed something that I don't believe has been remarked upon before.
Above, the subject in the Patterson-Gimlin film
Here is a page of Bill Munns' study which normalises the superimposed skeleton used in the Patterson-Gimlin film analysis into a regular human figure with the skin still on it:
And here are the blowups of the same for clarity.
Anybody get a good close look at what is meant to represent a human being wearing the costume? Here is a comparison with one of the famous serial photographs of a man walking taken by Edward Muybridge in the 1880's. The colour figure is from Study frame 4, Film Frame 352
THAT is certainly not a typical human being, it resembles some sort of vastly enlarged hairless gibbon! The head is undersized, neck too short, torso too long, arms too long, legs too short and especially the legs are too short from the knee down, in comparison to most humans, even very tall ones. Below is a comparison with Leonardo Da Vinci's famous drawing of the so-called Universal Man where the distinctions will be more apparent. My reaction was an almost immediate "WTF??"
AND while this very strange human figure was meant to demonstrate how a human being could wear the suit, it is clearly still not a good fit because the hands of the figure still do not fit into Patty's hands, the shoulders and hips do not fit into Patty's shoulders and hips, the feet stick out beyond the place where Patty's feet are, and the head does not properly fit into the hood or mask of the supposed costume.
To reiterate what I have said on the subject before, "Patty" shows every sign to be identical to the creature leaving the typical Sasquatch tracks and to Grover Krantz's Gigantopithecus, and I reprint a couple of comparisons I have shown on the subject earlier (I believe these also came via the courtesy of Doctor Don Jeff Meldrum and they are both pretty conclusive)
This last comparison definitely shows "Patty" in the process of making the tracks that were later attributed to her on the site where the film was taken.
Igor Burtsev recently posted a new album on his Facebook wall:
Patterson-Gimlin Film Studied in Russia in 1970s till now
Updated on Sunday [September 30]
This album dedicated to 45th Anniversary of Patterson-Gimlin film of October 20, 1967
[Reprinted with Permission]
Rene Dahinden while in Moscow on Dec 1971/ Me [Igor] sitting. Bayanov, Koffman, Rene standing
To the frame at the top, Igor added the note "This frame first had attracted our attention, nobody in America noticed it that time" and I then said "Well *I* for one noticed it" and I went on to explain:
"What I always refer to in this frame is the fact that the cranium is far too small to fit a normal human head into, which would have been the case of a man wearing a suit. A man in a suit cannot have a smaller head inside the suit than when he has it off (Be careful of the green/brown color break on the back profile, too: the size of the head is even less than it seems at first)"
And then this one: "This is real frame from the film, not photoshopped (there was not at that time), just made with more light in photo-enlarger. You can see here the face features"
[Part of the darkened area behind the neck and shoulders is due to the shadow of a log in the background and this is clearly discerned in the coloured original frame-DD]
"First sculpture created by me" [Not all sculptures shown from this series]
"Back view of my statue"[All the statues ARE very good even if I did not include them all]
"For positions in consecutive order on the single background"
"Comparing Patty with an actor in suit (left) and S. Williams"
[Patty's proportions are NOTHING like the actor in a suit]
"Face in the film close up (MK Davis)" ARTIST'S CONCEPTION
The portrait painted by Lidia Burtseva with oil colours 70x70 cm size — with Lidiya Burtseva.
Now please allow me to present some of my own extractions on the matter:
Here is the direct comparison. The fancier version invents a whole range of features which simply are not indicated in the original. The crown of the head is especially larger and fuller, these two versions are matched to the same size and position of the face. And there is no reason to assume a projecting nose or well-formed lips in the original.
P/G, the Colour Breaks. Directly from the film frame with no other modifications.
When Patty turns her head her head is also very short back-to-front. The cranium is VERY small compared to the face, well below the norm for humans. Which is actually a point in the film's
favour, since an ordinary human skull will not fit into the space allotted
Cross section of the "Bleached" still, skull in sagittal section is indicated:
The peak of the head is directly above the rear corrner of the mandible or jaw bone, and the jaw as indicated is a fair match for Gigantopithecus. The zygomatic arch (Cheekbone) is HUGE and the jaws proportionately much larger than in the human norm. Correspondingly also the cranial capacity is very low and I would estimate it as being in the vicinity of the Homo erectus cranial capacity at most. It is an exceedingly small cranium (The size and shape are clearly indicated) and much flatter than any human skull should be above the eyes. The horizontal bar at right angles to the vertical bar indicates the normal back-to-front axis of the skull. the top sides of the skull are also indicated as steeply sloped apart near the peak.
Most Gorillas knuckle-walk, using both their legs and their long arms, putting pressure on their knuckles, with the fingers rolled into the hand. Many have seen this type of gait. On the other hand, gorillas rarely walk using only their legs, though it is not unknown. However, the fact that Ambam, a silverback western lowland gorilla at The Aspinall Foundation's Port Lympne Wild Animal Park in Kent, southeast England, walks upright, like a person, has been captured on video and spread to YouTube has made both the park and Ambam a gorilla. Still, as the zoo notes, it's not all that unusual.
In a press release, gorilla keep Phil Ridges said, "All gorillas can do it to some extent. But we haven't got any who do it like Ambam, and he is quite a celebrity at the park." Ambam is 21. Ridges adds that Ambam's father also exhibited the same behavior. "Ambam's father Bitam used to display the same behaviour if he had handfuls of food to carry. Ambam also has a full sister, Tamba, and a half sister at Howletts, who also sometimes stand and walk in the same way. " Ambam hasn't decided to emulate any more lyrics from the Frankie Valli & The Four Seasons song. One of the other lines is "Talk like a man." Silverback western lowland gorillas are endangered, as you might expect, and the park is asking those who might appreciate Ambam's newly publicized gait to help them, and adopt one. Such adoptions can be made at this link.
This unusual behaviour for a gorilla does afford us one important feature in a Cryptozoological sense: we can compare how Ambam looks walking upright to the longer-legged Sasquatch filmed by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in 1967, "Patty"
Many viewers note that "Patty's" top part looks overall like a gorilla and often skeptics use this to say that Patty's anatomy is impossible since Gorillas are not capable of walking upright, their center off gravty is too low (Napier says this famously in his book, Bigfoot) Skeptics say that Patty must be a man wearing a gorilla suit. I don't think so because Patty's top part has more anatomical resemblances to an actual gorilla than to any gorilla suit ever made.
One of the features that Patty shares with Ambam is the way that they both can swing their arms while walking. Patty's legs ARE much longer than Ambam and she obviously has a better adaptation for walking on them and a smoother gait. However now it cannot be said that Patty's build is too top-heavy for prolonged upright walking.
Patty's anatomy is also different in that she has developed prominent buttocks behind. Yet even there, it can be seen that the way her mid-back and upper pelvis are made arre much like the gorilla. In particular, this is the reason why she has the priominent crease at her middle and the "Baggy Pants" look under that: Ambam actually shows both of the same features, although his gluteus maximus muscles are located in a different position and aimed down when he is standing up.
Following is a series of parallel photo pasteups to show Ambam and Patty compared together while walking.
and slightly larger:
Here is a series of comparisons from the Amazing Randi discussion boards: pasteups which started off in an attempt to make it look like the Patterson film showed a man inside a suit but have been through the mill a few rounds by this point. point out here that somebody went to a lot of pains originally to paste a very nice illustration of a human skeleton over the "Patty" image from the film in a deliberately deceptive manner. While I was working with these photos, I noticed that the original artist had deleted half of the poor man on the right's cranial capacity in order to make his head seem to fit into the costume. HE LOOKED LIKE A PINHEAD. This was a deliberate misrepresentation and I have restored the man's forehead at left.
The pasteup redone by a second party has done an admirable job of pointing out (quite correctly) that "Patty" has a longer spine at a different angle than the man does, and the arms are longer and legs shorter when both are reduced to the same size.
Here is one of the original artist's attempts at doing the skeleton overlay. I do not know who is responsible, but the person made too large of a head at top (NOT aligned with the actual head depicted in the film), and has made the hands fall far short of the hands depicted in the film (which can be seen to flex and are NOT empty gloves), and pushjed the skeleyon's feet through the bottom of the assumed "Costume's" feet for a distance of several inches. Like I said, an obvious and quite unprofessional attempt to deceive the onlookers.
Below Left, a second artist demonstrates that the human skeleton is a mismatch for the proportions of the supposed costum going by the much shorter length of shin shown, and at right a public-domain illustration comparing a human skeleton to that of a gorilla. "Patty's upper body shows several features more reminiscent of a gorilla's skeleton and the joints move consistently within that framework.
John Green did say at one point that Sasquatch was basically like a gorilla with longer legs. See my older CFZ blog http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2009/12/dale-drinnon-on-identity-of-east-asian.html
This version has my attempt to morph the skeleton into a better representation of what the action of the body shows while walking. It is not a typical human skeleton but has several features like a gorilla: and on the whole it does resemble a larger version of a robust Australopithecine. Gigantopithecus and the Robust Australopithecines came from the same Sivapithecine ancestors and could very easily have parallel-evolved the same anatomy for walking upright.
Below are more comparisons from the Amazing Randi Educational Boards to show that Patti is built MUCH more broadly than a conventional human being, something like half again broader. The argument goes that you can make a suit that is that much broader than a human being but then you cannot have the human skeleton's shoulder and hip joints appear to move natually in the indicated places. What you need then is a basic skeleton that is half again broader than a normal human skeleton. And included is John Green's drawing from his book Sasquatch estimating the girths (circumferences) of Patty at different points.
A film for comparison was made after Patterson shot the original "Patty" sequence and using 6'6" Jim McLaren as a subject to show the scale. When he was at the same spot, the two sequences were cut together for this comparison. "Patty" is unquestionably much taller and bulkier than the man.
Below is a Pre-Film drawing of a female Sasquatch after Ostman's account compared to the film Patty. Patty is like the traditional Sasquatch of the older reports, only now we have a more precise view of what those reports were describing.
Nearly ALL of the arguments made above were previously made in GroverKrantz's book on Sasquatch and ALL exceptions to Krantz's statements are simply gainsaying the plain facts of the matter. And with this much to go on, any statements about Roger Patterson's dealings, financial affairs, trustworthiness or untrustworthiness, are all beside the point.
My statement has always been that I defer to Krantz and nobody has ever shown any reason to say otherwise on the subject. And that means especially ANY non-experts in human and primate anatomy. [At this point I am unable to examine the statements made by David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt, but it would seem they were quite in error if they said the anatomical features I spoke of were NOT evident in the film. They were so evident, and Patty is NOT a man in a suit. I am also putting this blog entry under the category of "Frauds and Hoaxes" as well, because IMHO, the skeptics who are trying to say that Patty could be a man in a suit and who produce such illustrations as the ones supposedly showing how a human skeleton would fit in there, which include such features as too large of a cranium going outside the outlines of the head or feet protruding below the level of the feet of the creature in the film, are knowingly being fraudulent in their misrepresentation and are collectively guilty of promulgating an actual HOAX.]
