|Bob Heironimus claims to have been the Bigfoot depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film|
Furthermore, there is the film analysis of Bill Munns and National Geographic showing the subject's proportions do not match that of any known human. This is coupled with his experimental work trying to build A Bigfoot costume to match the look of the 1967 film, resulting in his co-authorship of a peer-reviewed paper with Meldrum showing that the film subject is consistent with real anatomy and not a Bigfoot suit. Munns studied film and worked for 35 years making monsters for films, museums, and wildlife exhibits, thus is also highly-qualified for the study have done. Their conclusions cannot be dismissed.
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film - Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Cracking the Bigfoot Code (ThinkerThunker)
How to tell a Bigfoot from a man in a monkey-suit, finally! (No, I'm not kidding)
***I misspoke when I said "look how long Patty's arm is compared to Bob's." It's not longer, it's just that her shoulder placement is SO MUCH lower than ours, it makes her arms look longer. That and her catcher's mitt-sized hands. So the fact that her arms (scaled down to our size) are the same length as ours makes arm extensions even more ridiculous.
Also; some believe that the suit is worn lower to make the legs look shorter. Which is also ridiculous! That would throw her "thigh-to-shin" ratio off, making her thigh look way too short compared to her shin. Give up - ratios win :)
Bottom line: suits can ADD bulk or length, but they can't subtract. And looking at Patty, scaled down to Bob's size, her shoulders appear to be much, much lower on her frame than his. Suits can't do that.
Here we explore the difference between our walk and whomever or whatever it was walking in the Patterson Bigfoot Film.