Background distortions in the Patterson-Gimlin film

I recently posted a drawing on facebook depicting a frontal facial view of the Patterson figure. Whether it has any merit as a representation of this creature or not is a matter of opinion. It looks too human for some people's taste.  Nevertheless, I would like to give a brief explanation why I did it.




As Patty moves across the scene she she passes in front of background clutter that affects the shape of her outline. A dark area moving in front of a shaded patch in the background will seem to stretch out into the shaded area, The gets worse as more copies are made. Also in some still frames, the dark background shadows seem to be part of the image, but are not. This is more pronounced in darker images. The only way to ascertain this fact is to examine the background on another frame. I have done this , I have concluded that Patty's head is not pointed. Even though the cranium seems small with a high crown, there is no evidence that there is a  bony crest on her skull. It should be noted that the skull does not grow in proportion to body growth. Artists depict a person's head smaller if they intend to give an impression of height. According to Bill Munns, Patty is 7' 6,5 " tall.
 The ears as seen in other frames are closer to the human position, further indicating that she does not have the type of jaw that requires a sagittal crest. What appears to be ears in the frontal facing frame is background shading.There is no way this creature fits Krantz's model of Gigantopithecus.
William Mayes