One point made in an earlier post that I would like to echo is that just because someone can show how a film/photo/etc MIGHT have been hoaxed, that does not in and of itself invalidate the film/photo etc in question.
I think one of the hurdles faced by those claiming the Patterson footage to be a hoax is the need to identify a source for such a high quality suit, the lasting silence of what must have been a number of co-conspirators, etc. From what I have read, almost everyone agrees that if this IS a hoax, it is a great one, not some simple Halloween costume hastily thrown on a person who runs across a clearing. Given that, someone would have had to invest a considerable amount of time, effort, and probably money, to create the "creature"... and all of that presents a lot of opportunities for exposure. I believe there was a stir some years back when a Hollywood makeup man WAS alleged to have "confessed", but I believe this was discredited.
Obviously, the "burden of proof", if one is interested in such things, rests with those claiming the film is authentic.... but I am not inclined to so easily give a pass to those who seem to feel that because one MIGHT be able to duplicate the Patterson film, that proves the film to be a fraud.
Incidentally, for me, part of the fun of the Patterson film ARE the "odd" touches... the touches that, on a level that has nothing to do with "hard proof", tempts you to either think the footage is real...or to admire the genuine cleverness of the hoaxers...
For example, the much-discussed moment when the "Bigfoot" turns towards the camera... so intriguing...so interesting.. the nonchalance, the easy grace of the move..the tantalizing glimpse, out of good focus, of the creature's face... just beautiful. Whether you take that as proof of fraud or not, you have to grin at the ambiguous beauty of that moment. Similarly, the inclusion of breasts...lets face it, if you were the run of the mill Bigfoot hoaxer, you would play it safe and NEVER go that route (which might tempt you to give the film more credence)..on the other hand, a truly inspired, clever, devilish hoaxer might come up with something that novel...

... so you can't be sure.
For me? I don't know. I just don't. And I doubt I ever will, after all this time. But I still recall the thrill from the first time I saw the footage, and I cannot help but grin to this day when I see it. One way or the other, it is just beautiful....
Shadow
PS - If I absolutely HAD to bet... HAD to...I might..might..lean a bit towards the film being authentic... mainly because of what I touched on above. There are exceptions, of course - and I am sure many of you could cite a number of them! - but good secrets are hard to keep. Still..who knows?
PPS - For all the talk that this is "just a man in an ape suit", has anyone made a really good "fake" of the Patterson film, at the Bluff Creek site, showing how easily it could be done? If so... how much $ was involved, etc? I may certainly have missed it, but I don't recall ever seeing such footage...