Wing walkers are not big bulky boots. If you want to see them on television, watch The Bridges of Toko-Ri. The navy men on the aircraft carrier wear them in this film. They are chukkas with a ridged sole and heel for traction while the men are climbing on the aircraft. They are totally different than combat boots.

Were they even Wing Walkers? I’m not sure. Where did that come from?

Were they even Wing Walkers? I’m not sure. Where did that come from?

They got an exact match of the boots via the LB prints.

My point was to speculate how Zodiac’s attire could have made him appear bigger than he actually was. I looked at Howard Davis’ website again and how Eric Zelms described Zodiac to his wife — "Zodiac appeared quite ordinary in size and stature. He was not physically imposing enough to stand out in any way." I would trust Zelms’ observations.

No reason to doubt Zelms. But what we have isn’t Zelm’s description of Z, but his wife’s recollection of said description. That’s hearsay in the second degree, so to speak. Offered as an answer to who-knows-what question, with what slant, from the researcher who interviewed her. This is problematic in itself.

I have no reason to think either Zelms or his wife are/were anything but honest people. That doesn’t mean we can take this particular description (which is ambiguous to begin with, on top of everything else) at face value.

Zelm’s statement was double hearsay, but it is also very imprecise, which is more troubling. What does "not physically imposing enough" mean? It’s not a description at all, it’s an opinion. That said, I do think Z was probably a bigger guy. If you put layers on a skinny guy, he’s still a skinny guy with layers. I think trained observers like Fouke could tell the difference between a heavy guy and an average or skinny guy wearing multiple layers. Also, Mageau said Z was wearing a t-shirt. Mageau probably didn’t get a great look at his face, but there is no reason to think that he couldn’t have discerned his general build.