Mangler, thanks for the clip. Worked OK for me.
Now, back to the "Best Evidence" comments...
I feel the quote mining and cherry picking skills of some footers will be used regarding the comments about Patty's walk. The experts interviewed stated it was not moving like a human would, or something like that. This will be enough for them. Expect "Look, even the skpetics concede Patty does not walk like a man!" statements.
Of course that's a half-truth at best, since the actor duplicated Patty's walk. This small detail will be conveniently left behind. When reminded of this, PGF defenders will probably use the "rodeo cowboy" line of reasoning. "How could Patterson (Why its always Patterson? What about Gimlim?) possibly know about compliant gait"?
Well, as I wrote a couple of times before, a possible explanation is the Patterson and Gimlim used the standard popular renderings of apemen and cavemen available back in the 60's. Lets seem some of them.
First, Neanderthals. This is how they were seen untill some time ago.
The above pic is from the XIX century. Look at the left! Its a female! And the male, to the right, is not unlike an upright gorilla. Nitpick- check the shape of her feet. That's the sort of toes an ape with mid-tarsal breaks should have, a neraly opposing big toe.
This one, roughly from the same time of the above, with the bent knees, long arms extending below the knees, and chest inclined forwards, seems also like a very good template for Patty's body and walk. Note the position of the head and compare with Mangler's movie frames 329, 347 and 358.
The painting is from the mid XX century. The male at the left is a classic bigfoot. Check the absense of neck. But focus on the female to the left. OK, her position may be due to the burden she's carrying, but she looks quite like Patty. Notice leg position.
"A timeless classic".
Check legs and arms position of the first and second fellows from the left and compare with Patty's leg movments; notice also forwards inclined torsos and heads position. Very similar if not identical to Patty's position. Put a bloke in a
gorilla bigfoot suit making the same movment and you have the Patty walk.
Here's a mid XX century rendering of
Pitecanthropus erectus AKA java man. Look at the female at the left, on the first plane (MDF anyone
?); check also the position of the male at the centre.
Now, the above images are (circunstantial) evidence that:
i. Back in the 60's Patty's walk was a common conception of how "apemen" walked; check old movies with "cavemen" and "apemen" for more examples.
ii. It really does not matter if BH wlaks or not like Patty, all the hoaxers would need is to ask the bloke in the
gorilla bigfoot suit to walk like an apemen or cavemen.
iii. There were renderings of apewomen and cavewomen that could easilly have ben a source of inspiration. The "why making a female bigfoot if its a hoax?" and similar reasonings went down the drain.
I think the producers of the show should have shed some more light on this issue.
Anyway, if this line of reasoning ever shows up somewhere else, remember, you saw it first here, at JREF!
