This is a summary of my own mathematical analysis of the Heironimus-Morris recreation and my conclusion that it is not a valid recreation of the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Some frames of the Heironimus-Morris recreation were posted to this forum last month, in the thread called "New Article by Kal K Korff". I decided that a quantitative analysis of the recreation would be useful.

To that end, I used one of the frames of the Heironimus-Morris recreation to perform some calculations for the body segment dimensions. Given Heironimus' height of 72.25 in. (Long 2004), I proceeded to calculate the length of the legs of the recreated film subject: 39.7 in.

The leg length to height ratio for the recreated film subject, then, is 0.548H. This is only 0.77 standard deviations from the human mean (0.530H), which is the 55.9 percentile, present in one out of every 2.27 people. Note that this is well within the range of a human being.

In contrast, the ratio of leg length to height in the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin film is 0.460H (Glickman 1998). The difference in the ratios indicates that the subject of the Patterson-Gilmin film and the recreated film subject in the Heironimus-Morris recreation are not the same entity.

Thus we can conclude that the Heironimus-Morris recreation is not a satisfactory recreation of the Patterson-Gimlin film. The inability of Heironimus and Morris to successfully recreate the Patterson-Gimlin film with the a costume and materials similar to what they allegedly used to hoax the original film strongly suggests that Heironimus and Morris are not being truthful.

References:

Glickman, J. Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon. North American Science Institute, 1998.

Long, Greg and Kal Korff. The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story. Prometheus Books, 2004.

Yep, 100% correct. I don't think a great amount of mathematics is needed to prove your point though. I can clearly see with my own eyes that the body proportions between Heironimus and 'Patty' are obviously out of line.

I concure, for what that's worth! That proportional difference was glaringly obvious to me when I saw stills of the recreation attempt.

i like your style blight



welcome to the bff
gael

Great work, but Glickman's figures are in question. (Poor guy. He put three years into it, as I recall, and Daegling accuses him of sneaking off "like a hired gun".)
Here's Fahrenbach:

http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/FahrenbachArticle.htm

Seems to me the exact height doesn't really matter. The proportions are the same whether the animal is 10' or 2'.