Editing Patterson–Gimlin film (section)

===Scientific studies===

====Bernard Heuvelmans====
[[Bernard Heuvelmans]]—a [[zoology|zoologist]] and the so-called "father of [[cryptozoology]]"—thought the creature in the Patterson film was a suited human.<ref>Sanderson, 78–79</ref><ref name="Strange 1997">{{cite news|last1=Chorvinsky|first1=Mark|author-link=Mark Chorvinsky|title=Some Thoughts About the Patterson Bigfoot Film on its 30th Anniversary|url=http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html|access-date=May 20, 2015|work=Strange Magazine|date=October 1997}}</ref><ref>Krantz, 301–04</ref> He objected to the film subject's hair-flow pattern as being too uniform; to the hair on the breasts as not being like a primate; to its buttocks as being insufficiently separated; and to its too-calm retreat from the pursuing men.

====John Napier====
Prominent primate expert [[John R. Napier|John Napier]] (one-time director of the [[Smithsonian]]'s Primate Biology Program) was one of the few mainstream scientists not only to critique the Patterson–Gimlin film but also to study then-available Bigfoot evidence in a generally sympathetic manner, in his 1973 book, ''Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality''.

Napier conceded the likelihood of Bigfoot as a real creature, stating, "I am convinced that Sasquatch exists."<ref>Napier, 205 – 2nd printing</ref> But he argued against the film being genuine: "There is little doubt that the scientific evidence taken collectively points to a hoax of some kind. The creature shown in the film does not stand up well to functional analysis."<ref name="Napier, 95">Napier, 95</ref> Napier gives several reasons for his and others' [[Scientific skepticism|skepticism]]<ref>Napier, 90–94</ref> that are commonly raised, but apparently his main reasons are original with him. First, the length of "the footprints are totally at variance with its calculated height".<ref>Napier, 94</ref> Second, the footprints are of the "hourglass" type, which he is suspicious of.<ref>Napier, 126</ref> (In response, Barbara Wasson criticized Napier's logic at length.)<ref>Wasson, 72–76, 78–79</ref>

He adds, "I could not see the zipper; and I still can't. There I think we must leave the matter. Perhaps it was a man dressed up in a monkey-skin; if so it was a brilliantly executed hoax and the unknown perpetrator will take his place with the great hoaxers of the world. Perhaps it was the first film of a new type of hominid, quite unknown to science, in which case Roger Patterson deserves to rank with [[Eugène Dubois|Dubois]], the discoverer of ''[[Java Man|Pithecanthropus erectus]]'', or [[Raymond Dart]] of Johannesburg, the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor, ''[[Australopithecus africanus]]''."<ref name="Napier, 95"/>

The skeptical views of Grieve and Napier are summarized favorably by Kenneth Wylie (and those of Bayanov and Donskoy negatively) in Appendix A of his 1980 book, ''Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon''.<ref>Wylie, ''Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon'', 237–42.</ref>

====Esteban Sarmiento====
[[Esteban Sarmiento]] is a specialist in physical anthropology at the [[American Museum of Natural History]]. He has 25 years of experience with great apes in the wild. He writes,<ref>"Conclusions Reached by Dr. Esteban Sarmiento ... (affiliations follow)," in Murphy (2009), pp. 94–99</ref> "I did find some inconsistencies in appearance and behavior that might suggest a fake ... but nothing that conclusively shows that this is the case."<ref>Murphy (2009), 94</ref> His most original criticism is this: "The plantar surface of the feet is decidedly pale, but the palm of the hand seems to be dark. There is no mammal I know of in which the plantar sole differs so drastically in color from the palm."<ref>Murphy (2009), 95</ref> His most controversial statements are these: "The gluteals, although large, fail to show a humanlike cleft (or crack)."<ref>Murphy (2009), 96</ref> "Body proportions: ... In all of the above relative values, bigfoot is well within the human range and differs markedly from any living ape and from the 'australopithecine' fossils."<ref>Murphy (2009), 97</ref> (E.g., the IM index is in the normal human range.) And: "I estimate bigfoot's weight to be between 190 and 240 lbs{{nbsp}}[{{convert|190|and|240|lbs|kg|round=5|abbr=on|disp=out}}]."<ref>Murphy (2009), 98–99</ref>

====David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt====
When anthropologists David J. Daegling of the [[University of Florida]] and Daniel O. Schmitt examined the film, they concluded it was impossible to conclusively determine whether the subject in the film is nonhuman, and additionally argued that flaws in the studies by Krantz and others invalidated their claims. Daegling and Schmitt noted problems of uncertainties in the subject and camera positions, camera movement, poor image quality, and artifacts of the subject. They concluded: "Based on our analysis of gait and problems inherent in estimating subject dimensions, it is our opinion that it is not possible to evaluate the identity of the film subject with any confidence."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Daegling|first1=David J.|last2=Schmitt|first2=Daniel O.|title=Bigfoot's screen test|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|date=May–June 1999|volume=23|issue=3|page=20|url=http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/SI_99_daegling.htm|access-date=June 20, 2015}}</ref>

Daegling has asserted that the creature's odd walk could be replicated: "Supposed peculiarities of subject speed, stride length, and posture are all reproducible by a human being employing this type of locomotion [a "compliant gait"]."<ref>Daegling, 127</ref>

Daegling notes that in 1967, movie and television [[special effect]]s were primitive compared to the more sophisticated effects in later decades, and allows that if the Patterson film depicts a man in a suit that "it is not unreasonable to suggest that it is better than some of the tackier monster outfits that got thrown together for television at that time."<ref name="Daegling, 112">Daegling, 112</ref>

====Jessica Rose and James Gamble====
Jessica Rose and James Gamble are authors of "the definitive text on human gait",<ref>publisher's blurb on Amazon</ref> ''Human Walking''. They operate the Motion and Gait Analysis Lab at [[Stanford University]]. They conducted a high-tech human-replication attempt of "Patty's" gait, in cooperation with Jeff Meldrum. Rose was certain their subject had matched Patty's gait, while Gamble was not quite as sure. Meldrum was impressed and acknowledged that "some aspects" of the creature's walk had been replicated, but not all. The narrator said, "even the experts can see the gait test could not replicate all parameters of the gait." It was shown in an episode of the [[Discovery Channel]]'s ''[[Best Evidence]]'' series.<ref>{{cite episode |title=Bigfoot |series=Best Evidence |series-link=Best Evidence |network=[[Discovery Channel]] |number=2}}</ref>

====Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy====
A computerized visual analysis of the video conducted by Cliff Crook, who once devoted rooms to sasquatch memorabilia in his home in Bothell, Washington,<ref name=jan111999 /> and Chris Murphy, a Canadian Bigfoot buff from Vancouver, British Columbia, was released in January 1999 and exposed an object which appeared to be the suit's zip-fastener.<ref name=jan111999 /> Zooming in on four magnified frames of the 16&nbsp;mm footage video exposed what appeared to be tracings of a bell-shaped fastener on the creature's waist area, presumably used to hold a person's suit together.<ref name=jan111999>{{Cite web |url=http://amarillo.com/stories/011199/usn_fake.shtml#.WeU8_oXnu48 |title=What? Bigfoot's a big fake? &#124; Amarillo.com &#124; Amarillo Globe-News |access-date=October 16, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171017093515/http://amarillo.com/stories/011199/usn_fake.shtml#.WeU8_oXnu48 |archive-date=October 17, 2017 |url-status=dead  }}</ref> Since both Crook and Murphy were previously staunch supporters of the video's authenticity,<ref name=jan111999 /> Associated Press journalist John W. Humbell noted "Longtime enthusiasts smell a deserter."<ref name=jan111999 />