fbpx
Wikipedia

Patterson–Gimlin film

August 31, 2023

"Roger Patterson" redirects here. For the bassist, see Roger Patterson (bassist).

The Patterson–Gimlin film (also known as the Patterson film or the PGF) is an American short motion picture of an unidentified subject that the filmmakers have said was a Bigfoot. The footage was shot in 1967 in Northern California, and has since been subjected to many attempts to authenticate or debunk it.

Patterson–Gimlin film
Frame 352 of the Patterson-Gimlin film, alleged to depict a female Bigfoot.[1]
FolkloreCryptid
Country
RegionNorth America
The unedited film

The footage was filmed alongside Bluff Creek, a tributary of the Klamath River, about 25 logging-road miles (40 km) northwest of Orleans, California, in Del Norte County on the Six Rivers National Forest. The film site is roughly 38 miles (60 km) south of Oregon and 18 miles (30 km) east of the Pacific Ocean.[2] For decades, the exact location of the site was lost, primarily because of re-growth of foliage in the streambed after the flood of 1964. It was rediscovered in 2011.[3][4][5] It is just south of a north-running segment of the creek informally known as "the bowling alley".

The filmmakers were Roger Patterson (1933–1972) and Robert "Bob" Gimlin (born 1931). Patterson died of cancer in 1972 and "maintained right to the end that the creature on the film was real".[6] Patterson's friend, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a hoax with Patterson. Gimlin mostly avoided publicly discussing the subject from at least the early 1970s until about 2005 (except for three appearances),[7] when he began giving interviews and appearing at Bigfoot conferences.[8][9]

The film is 23.85 feet (7.27 m) long (preceded by 76.15 feet or 23.21 meters of "horseback" footage), has 954 frames,[10] and runs for 59.5 seconds at 16 frames per second. If the film was shot at 18 fps, as Grover Krantz believed,[11] the event lasted 53 seconds. The date was October 20, 1967, according to the filmmakers, although some critics believe it was shot earlier.[12][13][14][15]

Background Edit

Patterson said he became interested in Bigfoot after reading an article about the creature by Ivan T. Sanderson in True magazine in December 1959.[16] In 1961 Sanderson published his encyclopedic Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life, a worldwide survey of accounts of Bigfoot-type creatures, including recent track finds, etc. in the Bluff Creek area, which heightened his interest. Thereafter, Marian Place wrote:

In 1962 he visited Bluff Creek and talked with a whole host of Bigfoot-believers. In 1964[17] he returned and met a timber-cruiser named Pat Graves, who drove him to Laird Meadows.[18] There Patterson saw fresh tracks—for him an almost unbearably exciting, spine-chilling experience. What a tremendous feat it would be—what a scientific breakthrough—if he could obtain unshakable evidence that these tracks were not the work of a prankster, but the actual mark of a hitherto unknown creature! If he succeeded, he would be famous! And rich! Alas, fame and fortune were not gained that year, nor the next, nor the next. Patterson invested thousands of hours and dollars combing Bigfoot and Sasquatch territory. He fought constant ridicule and a shortage of funds. ... he founded ... the Northwest Research Foundation. Through it he solicited funds . ... The response was encouraging and enabled him to lead several expeditions. ... In 1966 he published a paperback book at his own expense. ... He added the income from its sales and his lectures to the search fund. As each wilderness jaunt failed to see or capture the monster, one by one the thrill-seekers dropped out. But Patterson never gave up.[19]

Patterson's book, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?, was self-published in 1966. The book has been characterized as "little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson's circus-poster style prose".[20] The book, however, contains 20 pages of previously unpublished interviews and letters, 17 drawings by Patterson of the encounters described in the text, 5 hand-drawn maps (rare in subsequent Bigfoot books), and almost 20 photos and illustrations from others. It was first reprinted in 1996 by Chris Murphy,[21] and then again re-issued by Murphy[22] in 2005 under the title The Bigfoot Film Controversy, with 81 pages of additional material by Murphy.

In May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend.[23][24] Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes.

Prior to the October 1967 filming, Patterson apparently visited Los Angeles on these occasions:

  • Patterson drove to Hollywood in 1964 and visited rockabilly songwriter and guitarist Jerry Lee Merritt, a Yakima native who was living in Hollywood then.[25][26] He was trying to sell his hoop-toy invention.[27][28]
  • In 1966 he visited Merritt again while he was still trying to sell his hoop-toy invention.[29]

Merritt soon moved back to Yakima and became Patterson's neighbor, and later his collaborator on his Bigfoot documentary.[30]

  • Later in 1966 he and Merritt drove down there for several purposes. Patterson visited cowboy film star Roy Rogers for help.[31] He tried to sell his ponies-and-wagon to Disneyland or Knott's Berry Farm.[32]
  • In the summer of 1967, apparently after getting $700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary, they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie.[33] They copyrighted or trademarked the term "Bigfoot".[34]

Both Patterson[35] and Gimlin had been rodeo riders and amateur boxers—and local champions in their weight classes. Patterson had played high school football.

In October 1967, Patterson and his friend Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in far Northern California. They drove in Gimlin's truck, carrying his provisions and three horses, positioned sideways. Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past, and of their enormous footprints since 1958. (His familiarity with the area and its residents from prior visits may also have been a factor.)

The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, Bigfoot hunter René Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967.[36] This find was reported to Patterson (via his wife) soon thereafter by Al Hodgson, owner of the Willow Creek Variety Store.[37][38]

Though Gimlin says he doubted the existence of Sasquatch-like creatures, he agreed to Patterson's insistence that they should not attempt to shoot one.[39]

Encounter Edit

As their stories went, in the early afternoon of Friday, October 20, 1967, Patterson and Gimlin were riding generally northeast (upstream) on horseback along the east bank of Bluff Creek. At sometime between 1:15 and 1:40 p.m., they "came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek, almost as high as a room".[40][41]

When they rounded it, "there was a logjam—a 'crow's nest'—left over from the flood of '64," and then they spotted the figure behind it nearly simultaneously. It was either "crouching beside the creek to their left" or "standing" there, on the opposite bank. Gimlin later described himself as in a mild state of shock after first seeing the figure.[42][43]

Patterson initially estimated its height at 6 feet 6 inches (1.98 m) to 7 feet (2.1 m),[44] and later raised his estimate to about 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m). Some later analysts, anthropologist Grover Krantz among them, have suggested Patterson's later estimate was about 1 foot (0.30 m) too tall. Gimlin's estimate was 6 feet (1.8 m).

The film shows what Patterson and Gimlin claimed was a large, hairy, bipedal, apelike figure with short, "silvery brown"[45] or "dark reddish-brown"[46] or "black"[47] hair covering most of its body, including its prominent breasts. The figure in the film generally matches the descriptions of Bigfoot offered by others who claim to have seen one.

Patterson estimated he was about 25 feet (7.6 m) away from the creature at his closest. Patterson said that his horse reared upon sensing the figure, and he spent about 20 seconds extricating himself from the saddle, controlling his horse, getting around to its other side,[48] and getting his camera from a saddlebag before he could run toward the figure while operating his camera. He yelled "Cover me" to Gimlin, "meaning to get the gun out".[49] Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback after Patterson had run well beyond it, riding on a path somewhat to the left of Patterson's and somewhat beyond his position. Patterson estimates he came within 60–90 feet (18–27 m) of "Patty".[49] Then, rifle in hand, he dismounted, but did not point his rifle at the creature.[50]

The figure had walked away from them to a distance of about 120 feet (37 m) before Patterson began to run after it. The resulting film (about 59.5 seconds long at 16 fps) is initially quite shaky until Patterson got about 80 feet (24 m) from the figure. At that point, the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees; on Krantz's map this corresponds to frame 264.[51] To researcher John Green, Patterson would later characterize the creature's expression as one of "contempt and disgust ... you know how it is when the umpire tells you 'one more word and you're out of the game.' That's the way it felt."

Shortly after this point the steady, middle portion of the film begins, containing the famous look-back frame 352. Patterson said, "it turned a total of I think three times,"[52] the other times therefore being before the filming began and/or while he was running with his finger off the trigger. Shortly after glancing over its shoulder on film, the creature disappeared behind a grove of trees for 14 seconds, then reappeared in the film's final 15 seconds after Patterson moved 10 feet (3 m) to a better vantage point, fading into the trees again and being lost to view at a distance of 265 feet (81 m) as the reel of film ran out.[53]

Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback, keeping his distance, until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards (270 m) away. Patterson called him back at that point, feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle, because he feared the creature's mate might approach. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes.

Next, Gimlin and Patterson rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off in the opposite direction, downstream, before the filming began. Patterson got his second roll of film from his saddlebag and filmed the tracks.[54] Then the men tracked "Patty" for either one mile (1.6 km)[51] or three miles (4.8 km),[55] but "lost it in the heavy undergrowth".[56] They went to their campsite three miles (4.8 km) south, picked up plaster, returned to the initial site, measured the creature's step-length, and made two plaster casts, one each of the best-quality right and left prints.

Details Edit

According to Patterson and Gimlin, they were the only witnesses to their brief encounter with what they claimed was a sasquatch. Their statements agree in general, but author Greg Long notes a number of inconsistencies. They offered somewhat different sequences in describing how they and the horses reacted upon seeing the creature. Patterson in particular increased his estimates of the creature's size in subsequent retellings of the encounter.[57] In a different context, Long argues, these discrepancies would probably be considered minor, but given the extraordinary claims made by Patterson and Gimlin, any apparent disagreements in perception or memory are worth noting.

The film's defenders have responded by saying that commercially motivated hoaxers would have "got their stories straight" beforehand so they wouldn't have disagreed immediately upon being interviewed, and on so many points, and so they wouldn't have created a suit and a creature with foreseeably objectionable features and behaviors.[58]

A more serious objection concerns the film's "timeline". This is important because Kodachrome II movie film, as far as is known, could only be developed by a lab containing a $60,000+ machine, and the few West Coast labs known to possess one did not do developing over weekends. Patterson's brother-in-law Al DeAtley claims not to remember where he took the film for development or where he picked it up.[59]

Critics claim that too much happened between the filming (at 1:15 at the earliest) and the filmmakers' arrival in Willow Creek (at 6:30 at the latest). Daegling wrote, "All of the problems with the timeline disappear if the film is shot a few days or hours beforehand. If that is the case, one has to wonder what other details of this story are wrong."[60][61] The film's defenders retort that although the time window was tight, it was do-able.[62]

Chris Murphy wrote, "I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse (which he owned), not his Welsh pony 'Peanuts'. Also, that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of 'Chico' from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use ... Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable (old enough) for the expedition."[63] Heironimus stated that Chico (a middle-aged gelding) "wouldn't jump or buck ..."[64]

Immediate aftermath Edit

At approximately 6:30 p.m.,[65] Patterson and Gimlin met up with Al Hodgson at his variety store in Willow Creek, approximately 54.3 miles (87.4 km) south by road, about 28.8 miles (46.3 km) by Bluff Creek Road from their camp to the 1967 roadhead by Bluff Creek, and 25.5 miles (41 km) down California State Route 96 to Willow Creek. Patterson intended to drive on to Eureka to ship his film. Either at that time, or when he arrived in the Eureka/Arcata area, he called Al DeAtley (his brother-in-law in Yakima) and told him to expect the film he was shipping. He requested Hodgson to call Donald Abbott,[66] whom Grover Krantz described as "the only scientist of any stature to have demonstrated any serious interest in the [Bigfoot] subject," hoping he would help them search for the creature by bringing a tracking dog.[67] Hodgson called, but Abbott declined. Krantz argued that this call the same day of the encounter is evidence against a hoax, at least on Patterson's part.[68]

After shipping the film, they headed back toward their camp, where they had left their horses. On their way they "stopped at the Lower Trinity Ranger Station, as planned, arriving about 9:00 p.m. Here they met with Syl McCoy [another friend] and Al Hodgson."[69] At this point Patterson called the daily Times-Standard newspaper in Eureka and related his story.[70] They arrived back at their campsite at about midnight. At either 5[71] or 5:30[72] the next morning, after it started to rain heavily, Gimlin returned to the filmsite from the camp and covered the other prints with bark to protect them. The cardboard boxes he had been given by Al Hodgson for this purpose and had left outside were so soggy they were useless, so he left them.[69][73]

When he returned to the camp he and Patterson aborted their plan to remain looking for more evidence and departed for home, fearing the rain would wash out their exit. After attempting to go out along "the low road"—Bluff Creek Road—and finding it blocked by a mudslide,[74] they went instead up the steep Onion Mountain Road, off whose shoulder their truck slipped; extracting it required the (unauthorized) borrowing of a nearby front-end loader. The drive home from their campsite covered about 580 miles (930 km), the initial 28.8 miles (46.3 km) on a low-speed logging road, and then about 110 miles (180 km) on twisty Route 96. Driving a truck with three horses, and allowing for occasional stops, it would have taken 13 hours to get home Saturday evening, at an average speed of 45 mph (72 km/h); it would have taken 14.5 hours at a 40 mph (64 km/h) average speed.

US Forest Service "Timber Management Assistant"[75] Lyle Laverty said, "I [and his team of three, in a Jeep] passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th"[76] and noticed no tracks. After reading the news of Patterson's encounter on their weekend break, Laverty and his team returned to the site on Monday, the 23rd, and made six photos of the tracks. (Laverty later served as an Assistant Secretary of the Interior under George W. Bush.) Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his sister and brother-in-law nine days later.[77] Titmus made plaster casts of ten successive prints[78] of the creature and, as best he could, plotted Patterson's and the creature's movements on a map.[79]

Long-term aftermath Edit

Film-related Edit

 
The "Bigfoot Museum" in Willow Creek, California

Grover Krantz writes that "Patterson had the film developed as soon as possible. At first he thought he had brought in proof of Bigfoot's existence and really expected the scientists to accept it. But only a few scientists were willing to even look at the film,"[80] usually at showings at scientific organizations. These were usually arranged at the behest of zoologist, author, and media figure Ivan Sanderson, a supporter of Patterson's film.[9] Seven showings occurred, in Vancouver, Manhattan,[81] The Bronx, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and Washington, D.C. again (all by the end of 1968); then, later, in Beaverton, Oregon. Of those who were quoted, most expressed various reservations, although some were willing to say they were intrigued by it.[82][83][84][85][86]

Christopher Murphy wrote, "Dahinden traveled to Europe [with the film] in 1971. He visited England, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Russia. Although scientists in these countries were somewhat more open-minded than those in North America, their findings were basically the same . ... A real glimmer of hope, however, emerged [in Russia, where he met Bayanov, Bourtsev, and their associates]."[87][88][89][90]

Though there was little scientific interest in the film, Patterson was still able to capitalize on it. He made a deal with the BBC, allowing the use of his footage in a docudrama made in return for letting him tour with their docudrama, into which he melded material from his own documentary and additional material he and Al DeAtley filmed.[91] This film was shown in local movie houses around the Pacific Northwest and Midwest.[92][93] A technique commonly used for nature films called "four-walling" was employed, involving heavy local advertising, mostly on TV, of a few days of showings.[94] It was a modest financial success. Al DeAtley estimated that his 50% of the film's profits amounted to $75,000.[95][96]

The film generated a fair amount of national publicity. Patterson appeared on a few popular TV talk shows to promote the film and belief in Bigfoot by showing excerpts from it: for instance, on the Joe Pyne Show in Los Angeles, in 1967, which covered most of the western US;[97] on Merv Griffin's program, with Krantz offering his analysis of the film; on Joey Bishop's talk show,[98] and also on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show.[99] Articles on the film appeared in Argosy,[100] National Wildlife Magazine,[101] and Reader's Digest.[102]

One radio interview, with Gimlin, by Vancouver-based Jack Webster in November 1967, was partly recorded by John Green and reprinted in Loren Coleman's Bigfoot![103] Patterson also appeared on broadcast interviews on local stations near where his film would be shown during his four-walling tour in 1968.[104]

Patterson subsequently sold overlapping distribution rights for the film to several parties, which resulted in costly legal entanglements.[105][106][107][108]

After Patterson's death, Michael McLeod wrote, "With the consent of Al DeAtley and Patricia Patterson, the film distributor Ron Olson took over the operation of Northwest Research ... and changed its name to the North American Wildlife Research Association. ... He worked full-time compiling reports, soliciting volunteers to join the hunt, and organizing several small expeditions. A Bigfoot trap Olson and his crew built still survives. ... Olson ... continued to lobby the company [American National Enterprises] to produce a Bigfoot film. ... In 1974 ... ANE finally agreed. ... [It was released in 1975,] titled Bigfoot: Man or Beast. [H]e devised a storyline involving members of a Bigfoot research party. Olson spent several years exhibiting the film around the country. He planned to make millions with the film, but says it lost money."[109][110][111][112] Olson is profiled in Barbara Wasson's Sasquatch Apparitions.[111]

On November 25, 1974, CBS broadcast Monsters! Mystery or Myth, a documentary about the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot. (It was co-produced by the Smithsonian Institution, which cancelled their contract with the producer the next year). The show attracted fifty million viewers. In 1975, Sunn Classic Pictures released "Bigfoot: The Mysterious Monster" aka "The Mysterious Monsters", which remixed parts of "Monsters! Mystery or Myth" another documentary called "Land Of The Yeti", and also included footage from the Patterson–Gimlin film.[113]

Filmmaker-related Edit

Patterson's expensive ($369)[114] 16 mm camera had been rented on May 13 from photographer Harold Mattson[115] at Sheppard's Camera Shop in Yakima, but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on October 17;[116] he was arrested within weeks of his return from Bluff Creek.[117] After Patterson returned the camera in working order, this charge was dismissed, in 1969.[118]

While Patterson sought publicity, Gimlin was conspicuous by his absence. He only briefly helped to promote the film[119] and avoided discussing his Bigfoot encounter publicly for many subsequent years; he turned down requests for interviews.[120] He later reported that he had avoided publicity after Patterson and promoter Al DeAtley had broken their agreement to pay him a one-third share of any profits generated by the film.[121] Another factor was that his wife objected to publicity.

Daegling wrote, "Bigfoot advocates emphasize that Patterson remained an active Bigfoot hunter up until his death."[122][123][124][125] For instance, in 1969, he hired a pair of brothers to travel around in a truck chasing down leads to Bigfoot witnesses and interviewing them.[126] Later, in December of that year, he was one of those present in Bossburg, Washington, in the aftermath of the cripplefoot tracks found there.[127][128][129] Krantz reports that "[a] few years after the film was made, Patterson received a letter from a man ["a US airman stationed in Thailand"[130]] who assured him a Sasquatch was being held in a Buddhist monastery. Patterson spent most of his remaining money preparing an expedition to retrieve this creature"[131] only to learn it was a hoax. He learned this only after having sent Dennis Jenson fruitlessly to Thailand (where he concluded that the airman was "mentally unbalanced") and then, after receiving a second untrue letter from the man, going himself to Thailand with Jenson.[132][133]

To obtain money to travel to Thailand, "Patterson called Ron, who had returned to ANE, and sold the company the theatrical rights to the clip for what Olson described as a pretty good sum of money."[133]

Patterson died of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1972.[134] According to Michael McLeod,[135] Greg Long,[136] and Bill Munns,[137] "A few days before Roger died, he told [Bigfoot-book author Peter] Byrne that in retrospect, ... he [wished he] would have shot the thing and brought out a body instead of a reel of film." According to Grover Krantz[43] and Robert Pyle,[138] years later, Patterson and Gimlin both agreed they should have tried to shoot the creature, both for financial gain and to silence naysayers.

In 1995,[139] almost three decades after the Patterson–Gimlin filming, Greg Long,[115] a technical writer for a technology firm who had a hobby of investigating and writing about Northwest mysteries, started years of interviewing people who knew Patterson, some of whom described him as a liar and a conman.

  • "Marvin" (pseudonym),[140] Jerry Lee Merritt,[141] Pat Mason,[142] Glen Koelling,[143] and Bob Swanson[144] suffered financially from their dealings with him, as well as 21 small local creditors who sued Patterson via a collection agency.[145]
  • Vilma Radford[146] claimed Patterson never repaid a loan made to him for a Bigfoot movie Roger was planning. Radford had corroborative evidence: a $700 promissory note "for expenses in connection with filming of 'Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman.'"[147] Patterson had agreed to repay her $850, plus 5 percent of any profits from the movie.
  • In 1974, Bob Gimlin, with René Dahinden's financial assistance, sued DeAtley and Patterson's widow, Patricia, claiming he had not received his one-third share of the film's proceeds. He won his case in 1976.[148][149]

Legal status Edit

Greg Long reports that a 1978 legal "settlement gave Dahinden controlling rights—51 percent of the film footage, 51 percent of video cassette rights, and 100 percent of all 952 frames of the footage. Patty Patterson had 100 percent of all TV rights and 49 percent rights in the film footage. Dahinden had ... bought out Gimlin, who himself had received nothing from Patterson; and Mason and Radford, promised part of the profits by Patterson, had nothing to show for their investment or efforts."[150] The film is in the public domain in the United States, as it was published without a copyright notice; between 1964 and 1977 all works in the United States required such a notice or they would enter the public domain.[151]

Ownership of the physical films Edit

First reel Edit

The whereabouts of the original is unknown, although there are several speculations as to what happened to it.

  • Patterson had ceded ownership of the original to American National Enterprises, which went bankrupt a few years after his death in 1972. Thereafter, Greg Long writes, "Peregrine Entertainment bought the company. Then Peregrine was bought by Century Group of Los Angeles. When Century Group went bankrupt in 1996, Byrne rushed to Deerfield Beach, Florida, where an accountant was auctioning off the company's assets to pay creditors. The company's films were in storage in Los Angeles, but a search failed to turn up the Patterson footage."[136]
  • In 2008, Chris Murphy thought a Florida lawyer might have the film, not realizing until later that the lawyer had contacted the Los Angeles storage company that held it, and that it had responded that the film was not in the location the lawyer's records indicated.[152]
  • Bill Munns writes that it was "last seen by researchers René Dahinden and Bruce Bonney in 1980, when René convinced the film vault [in Southern California] holding it to release it to him". He made Cibachrome images from it. Sometime between then and 1996, the film went missing from its numbered location in the vault.[153]

At least seven copies were made of the original film.[154][155]

Bill Munns listed four other missing reels of derivative works that would be helpful to film analysts.[156]

Second reel Edit

The second reel, showing Patterson and Gimlin making and displaying plaster casts of some footprints, was not shown in conjunction with the first reel at Al DeAtley's house,[157] according to those who were there. Chris Murphy wrote, "I believe the screening of this roll at the University of British Columbia on October 26, 1967, was the first and last major screening."[158] It has subsequently been lost. John Green suspects that Al DeAtley has it.[159]

A ten-foot strip from that reel, or from a copy of that reel, from which still images were taken by Chris Murphy, still exists, but it, too, has gone missing.[160]

Filming speed Edit

One factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial at 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, but no click-stops, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. Grover Krantz wrote, "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps). ... "[161][162] It has been suggested[by whom?] that Patterson simply misread "16" as "18".[citation needed]

  • "Dr. D.W. Grieve, an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics ... evaluated the various possibilities" regarding film speed and did not come to a conclusion between them. He "confessed to being perplexed and unsettled" by "the tangible possibility that it [the film subject] was real".[163]
  • John Napier, a primatologist, claimed that "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait."[164] Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz,[165] contended it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."[164][166]
  • Krantz argued, on the basis of an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson's height is known (5 ft 2 in or 5 ft 3 in [157 or 160 cm]), a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. On the basis of this analysis, Krantz argued that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[we] may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."[167]
  • René Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s."[168] And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6 s], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."[168]
  • Bill Munns wrote, "One researcher, Bill Miller, found technical data from a Kodak technician that stated the K-100 cameras were tweaked so even when the dial is set to 16 fps, the camera actually runs at 18 fps. ... I have nine K-100 cameras now. ... I tried it on one camera, and got 18 fps, but the rest still need testing [and all with "film running through the camera"]."[169]

Analysis Edit

The Patterson–Gimlin film has seen relatively little interest from mainstream scientists. Statements of scientists who viewed the film at a screening, or who conducted a study, are reprinted in Chris Murphy's Bigfoot Film Journal.[170] Typical objections include: Neither humans nor chimpanzees have hairy breasts as does the figure in the film, and Napier has noted that a sagittal crest is "only very occasionally seen, to an insignificant extent, in chimpanzees [sic] females".[171] Critics have argued these features are evidence against authenticity. Krantz countered the latter point, saying "a sagittal crest ... is a consequence of absolute size alone."[172]

As anthropologist David Daegling writes, "[t]he skeptics have not felt compelled to offer much of a detailed argument against the film; the burden of proof, rightly enough, should lie with the advocates." Yet, without a detailed argument against authenticity, Daegling notes that "the film has not gone away."[173] Similarly, Krantz argues that of the many opinions offered about the Patterson film, "[o]nly a few of these opinions are based on technical expertise and careful study of the film itself."[174]

Regarding the quality of the film, second-generation copies or copies from TV and DVD productions are inferior to first-generation copies. Many early frames are blurry due to camera shake, and the quality of subsequent frames varies for the same reason. Stabilization of the film (e.g., by M. K. Davis) to counter the effect of camera shake has improved viewers' ability to analyze it. Regarding "graininess," Bill Munns writes, "Based on transparencies taken off the camera original, ... the PGF original is as fine grain as any color 16mm film can achieve." He adds that graininess increases as images are magnified.[175]

Scientific studies Edit

Bernard Heuvelmans Edit

Bernard Heuvelmans—a zoologist and the so-called "father of cryptozoology"—thought the creature in the Patterson film was a suited human.[176][177][178] 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 Edit

Prominent primate expert 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."[179] 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."[180] Napier gives several reasons for his and others' skepticism[181] 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".[182] Second, the footprints are of the "hourglass" type, which he is suspicious of.[183] (In response, Barbara Wasson criticized Napier's logic at length.)[184]

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 Dubois, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus, or Raymond Dart of Johannesburg, the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor, Australopithecus africanus."[180]

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.[185]

Esteban Sarmiento Edit

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,[186] "I did find some inconsistencies in appearance and behavior that might suggest a fake ... but nothing that conclusively shows that this is the case."[187] 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."[188] His most controversial statements are these: "The gluteals, although large, fail to show a humanlike cleft (or crack)."[189] "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."[190] (E.g., the IM index is in the normal human range.) And: "I estimate bigfoot's weight to be between 190 and 240 lbs [85 and 110 kg]."[191]

David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt Edit

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 if 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."[192]

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"]."[193]

Daegling notes that in 1967, movie and television special effects 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."[194]

Jessica Rose and James Gamble Edit

Jessica Rose and James Gamble are authors of "the definitive text on human gait",[195] 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.[196]

Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy Edit

A computerized visual analysis of the video conducted by Cliff Crook, who once devoted rooms to sasquatch memorabilia in his home in Bothell, Washington,[197] 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.[197] Zooming in on four magnified frames of the 16 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.[197] Since both Crook and Murphy were previously staunch supporters of the video's authenticity,[197] Associated Press journalist John W. Humbell noted "Longtime enthusiasts smell a deserter."[197]

Other analysts Edit

Nike researcher Gordon Valient Edit

Krantz also showed the film to Gordon Valient, a researcher for Nike shoes, who he says "made some rather useful observations about some rather unhuman movements he could see".[198]

MonsterQuest Edit

A first-season episode of MonsterQuest focuses on the Bigfoot phenomenon. One pair of scientists, Jurgen Konczak (Director, Human Sensorimotor Control Laboratory, University of Minnesota) and Esteban Sarmiento, attempts and fails to get a mime outfitted with LEDs on his joints to mimic the Patterson Bigfoot's gait. A second pair, Daris Swindler and Owen Caddy, employs digital enhancement and observes facial movements, such as moving eyelids, lips that compress like an upset chimp's, and a mouth that is lower than it appears, due to a false-lip anomaly like that of a chimp's. The episode concludes, "the new findings are intriguing but inconclusive, until a body is found."[199]

Film industry personnel Edit

Movie production companies' executives Edit

  • Dale Sheets and Universal Studios. Patterson, Gimlin, and DeAtley[200] screened the film for Dale Sheets, head of the Documentary Film Department, and unnamed technicians[132] "in the special effects department at Universal Studios in Hollywood ... Their conclusion was: 'We could try (faking it), but we would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find an actor who could be trained to walk like that. It might be done, but we would have to say that it would be almost impossible.'"[201] A more moderate version of their opinion was, "if it is [a man in an ape suit], it's a very good one—a job that would take a lot of time and money to produce."[202]
  • Disney executive Ken Peterson. Krantz reports that in 1969, John Green (who owned a first-generation copy of the original Patterson film)[203] interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson, who, after viewing the Patterson film, asserted "that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film".[132][198][204] Krantz argues that if Disney personnel were unable to duplicate the film, there is little likelihood that Patterson could have done so. Greg Long writes, "Byrne cited his trip to Walt Disney studios in 1972, where Disney's chief of animation and four assistants viewed Patterson's footage and praised it as a beautiful piece of work although, they said, it must have been shot in a studio. When Byrne told them it had been shot in the woods of Northern California, 'They shook their heads and walked away.'"[136][205]

Bill Munns Edit

Bill Munns, retired, was a special effects and make-up artist,[206] cameraman, and film editor.[207] He argues that Universal and Disney were not the most knowledgeable studios to consult with. He says that Fox, MGM, and special effects artist Stuart Freeborn in England, "who had just completed his groundbreaking ape suits for 2001: A Space Odyssey", would have been preferable.[208]

Munns started posting his online analysis of the film in 2009 and summarizing it in the online Munns Report.[209] In 2013 he and Jeff Meldrum co-authored three papers in Meldrum's online magazine, Relict Hominoid Inquiry.[210] In 2014, Munns self-published When Roger Met Patty, a 488-page book incorporating material from those articles that analyses the film and film subject from various perspectives.

He argues the film depicts a non-human animal, not a man in a fur suit. He proposes a new diagnostic test of authenticity, at the armpit: natural concave skin fold vs. artificial vertical crease.[211] Munns' analysis has been featured in an episode of the History Channel series MonsterQuest.[212]

Other special effects artists Edit

  • Rick Baker. Famed Hollywood creator of Harry (from the movie, Harry and the Hendersons), Rick Baker, told Geraldo Rivera's Now It Can Be Told show (in 1992) that "it looked like cheap, fake fur," after seeing the subject in Patterson's filmstrip.[213] Baker said that John Chambers had "a crappy walkaround suit," that he sold as "a gag to be played on the guy that shot it [the film]".[214] Later on, Baker's studio stated in a fax, "He no longer believes this [that Chambers made the suit] is true."[215]
  • Ellis Burman. The Guenettes (Robert & Frances) wrote of him, "I also spoke to Ellis Burman of Burman Studios in Hollywood, creators of all kinds of strange creatures, including a fake Bigfoot for a traveling 'pickled punk' carnival exhibit. Burman denied his company created the Patterson Bigfoot, but did say he could duplicate it—but for more than $10,000 in total costs."[216]
  • John Chambers. Academy Award–winning monster-maker John Chambers is most famous for his innovative flexible masks in Planet of the Apes (1968). In a 1997 interview in a nursing home with Bigfooter Bobbie Short in her nurse's uniform, he denied rumors that he had created a costume for the Patterson subject, saying "I'm good, but not that good."[217][218][219][220]
Some time before 1976 the Guenettes reported that, in answer to their questions, "He concluded that if the creature is a man in a suit, then it is no ordinary gorilla suit. It is not something they bought or rented in a store; it would have to be something tailor made. He also felt like it might have been made out of real animal fur."[216]
  • Janos Prohaska. After viewing the Patterson–Gimlin film with John Green,[132] costume designer and ape-suit mime Janos Prohaska (noted for his work in the late-1960s television programs Star Trek and Lost in Space) concluded the film's subject looked real to him. When asked if he thought the film was faked, Prohaska replied, "I don't think so ... to me it looks very, very real." If the film was hoaxed, Prohaska thought, it was remarkably realistic and sophisticated, and the best costume he had ever seen, and the only plausible explanation was that someone might have glued false hair "directly to the actor's skin".[221]
However, film critic David Daegling speculates that the same effect could be had by gluing the hair to a set of tight but expandable, waffle-design long johns.[222]
  • Chris Walas. Academy Award-winning "makeup artist Chris [Walas] in the BigfootForums [site] (in 2004) presented a theory that the arching hip line represents the overlap line between a fur costume leggings section and the torso section. ... "[223]
  • Stan Winston. Academy Award-winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a bad hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day".[224]
  • "Barry Keith" (pen name), "an experienced make-up and costume artist," accused "the Hollywood costume industry" of making "bravado claims of how easy such an event would be to fake". He said that their "cheats and shortcuts" are not detectable in "Patty".[225]

Hoax allegations Edit

Patterson and/or Gimlin Edit

  • Patterson and Gimlin both denied that they had perpetrated a hoax, but in a 1999 telephone interview with television producer Chris Packham for the BBC's The X Creatures, Gimlin said that for some time, "I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I'm an older man now ... and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."[226]
  • Author Greg Long uncovered circumstantial evidence, of varying strength, of footprint hoaxing, and possibly even sighting and photo hoaxing, in the Yakima vicinity by Patterson.[227] Long argues that this means that he faked the film, too.
(One possible motive for the Yakima fakery would have been to make Bigfoot seem more real to local millionaire Floyd Paxton, with whom he was acquainted and from whom he hoped to obtain funding for an expedition.[228])
The film's proponents' position is that what is seen in the film is unfakable—especially not by a costume beginner like Patterson. For instance, most of Bill Munns' book makes detailed examinations of film features that he argues could not have been created with 1967 special effects technology. He filmed recreation attempts of his own that failed. Daniel Perez, writing in 1992, asserted "If the film is in fact a fake, a costumed man or a machine, surely science could duplicate the film with ease. Twenty-five years later, no one has come close."[168] He later asserted, "It has never been convincingly replicated. To any thinking person, that should speak volumes."[229]
Greg Long's response was, "The film they have just isn't going to do it. I'm sorry. That's not evidence."[230]
  • David Daegling, anthropologist, writes that the "more cynical skeptics" see Patterson's luck as "more than a little suspicious: He sets out to make a Bigfoot documentary, then almost literally stumbles across a Bigfoot." Daegling, however, offers the benefit of the doubt, noting that Patterson's reasoning is sound: In seeking something elusive, he went to where it had been reported.[231] Bluff Creek had also been the site of well-known Bigfoot hoaxer Ray Wallace's activities in 1958. In Patterson's book, he mentions meeting with Wallace once.[232] Later, Daegling cites certain features in the film and the storyline as suspicious.[233]
  • Krantz thought Patterson might have perpetrated such a hoax, given the opportunity and resources. (Roger was an accomplished 2-D artist whose drawings and painting of horses and other wildlife showed a detailed understanding of musculature and anatomy.) But he also argued that Patterson had "nowhere near the knowledge or facilities to do so—nor for that matter, did anyone else ... When I talked about some of the more technical details of biomechanics, he (Patterson) showed the familiar blank look of a student who had lost the drift of the explanation, but was still trying hard to pay attention. Yet he must have known all these details to create a hoax. For instance, he could see the anterior position of the front of the shin, but how that related to foot leverage was quite beyond him."[131]
  • Peter Byrne, who interviewed Patterson and Gimlin many times, wrote, "both men lacked, primarily, the intellectual capacity essential to the production of a hoax ... termed a masterpiece."[234] Similarly, Daegling writes that "Most acquaintances of Patterson volunteered that neither he nor Gimlin were clever enough to put something that detailed together."[194]

Philip Morris Edit

In 2002, Philip Morris, owner of Morris Costumes (a North Carolina-based company offering costumes, props and stage products) claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film. Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax "at costume conventions, lectures, [and] magician conventions"[235] in the 1980s, but first addressed the public at large on August 16, 2002, on Charlotte, North Carolina, radio station WBT.[236] His story was also printed in The Charlotte Observer.[237] Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business: giving away a performer's secrets, he said, would be widely regarded as disreputable.[238]

Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank".[239] (Ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular sideshow routine that depicted an attractive woman, supposedly from some far-flung corner of the globe, being altered by a sorcerer or scientist into a gorilla or otherwise apelike monster.) After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive"[240] and the "arms longer".[241] Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear football shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit.

As for the creature's walk, Morris said:

The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film. Oh, yes they can! When you're wearing long clown's feet, you can't place the ball of your foot down first. You have to put your foot down flat. Otherwise, you'll stumble. Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you've got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That's why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body.[242]

Morris' wife and business partner Amy had vouched for her husband and claims to have helped frame the suit.[242] Morris offered no evidence apart from his own testimony to support his account, the most conspicuous shortcoming being the absence of a gorilla suit or documentation that would match the detail evidenced in the film and could have been produced in 1967.

A re-creation of the PGF was undertaken on October 6, 2004, at "Cow Camp," near Rimrock Lake, a location 41 miles (66 km) west of Yakima.[243] This was six months after the publication of Long's book and 11 months after Long had first contacted Morris.[244] Bigfooter Daniel Perez wrote, "National Geographic's [producer] Noel Dockster ... noted the suit used in the re-creation ... was in no way similar to what was depicted in the P–G film."[245]

Morris would not consent to release the video to National Geographic, the re-creation's sponsor, claiming he had not had adequate time to prepare and that the month was in the middle of his busy season.[citation needed]

Bob Heironimus Edit

Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film.[246] Heironimus says he had not previously publicly discussed his role in the hoax because he hoped to be paid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed. After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax, he could not be held accountable.

A month after watching the December 28, 1998, Fox-television special World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed?, he went public, via a January 30 press release by his lawyer, Barry Woodard, in a Yakima newspaper story.[247] He stated, "I'm telling the truth. I'm tired after thirty-seven years."[242] Five days later, a second newspaper story reported that his "lawyer's office has been inundated with calls from media outlets. ... 'We're just sort of waiting for the dust to settle,' he said, explaining he and his client are evaluating offers." He also said, "We anticipate that we will be telling the full story to somebody rather quickly."[248]

Heironimus's name was first publicly revealed, and his allegations first publicly detailed, five years later, in Greg Long's book, The Making of Bigfoot, which includes testimony that corroborates Heironimus' claims:

  • Heironimus's relatives (his mother Opal and nephew John Miller) claim to have seen an ape suit in Heironimus' car. Opal said she saw the suit two days after the film was shot.[249]
  • Russ Bohannon, a longtime friend, says that Heironimus revealed the hoax privately in 1968 or 1969.[250]
  • Bernard Hammermeister, another longtime friend, said he was shown an ape suit in Heironimus' car. No date was given by Long for Hammermeister's observation, but it apparently came well after the relatives' observation, as implied by the word "still" in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence: "There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing, and he didn't have it."[251]

Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film. However, Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing different ape suits in many respects. Among the notable differences are:

  • Suit Material: Horsehide vs. Dynel. Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson claimed he manufactured the suit from horsehide.[252] When Long asked how heavy the suit was, Bob replied, "It weighed maybe twenty, twenty-five pounds [9, 11 kg]. ... Horsehide would be heavy."[252] Bob added, "It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead, red horse."
But Morris reports that the suit was made of Dynel, a lighter-weight synthetic material with little or no odor. Morris said that it was his "standard suit that we sold to all our customers"[239] that cost $435[241] (cheaper than the competition).[253]
Another contrast is that Howard reported that the horsehide was a "real dark brown" and Long writes that Morris "was using brown Dynel in 1967".[254] But Morris wouldn't have wanted a "real dark" brown color, as he chose brown to contrast against the black background of the girl-to-gorilla illusion.[254]
  • Suit: Top-and-Trousers vs. a Back-Zipped Onesie. Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper "torso part" that he donned "like putting on a T-shirt".[255] At Bluff Creek he put on "the top".[256] Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring.
But Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back.[254] Presumably one stepped into it first, then wiggled in one's arms; in any event, donning it like a T-shirt would be impossible.
  • Hands and Feet: Suit-Attached vs. Separate. Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs.
But Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit, but offers no evidence to support this idea. If Patterson had done so, he must have done it before Heironimus did his test fitting and walk (because Heironimus describes a three-piece suit—head, torso, and legs, omitting separate hands and feet)—i.e., without adjusting their location to his dimensions. And Heironimus never described being measured beforehand.

Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume, but only by attaching Morris's loose hands and feet to the costume,[257] and by replacing Morris's mask.[258] However, there's nothing he wrote on suit modification. There's no evidence or testimony that Patterson changed the Morris suit to horsehide, or dyed it a darker color, or cut it in half at the waist to agree with Heironimus's description.

Some film proponents[259][260][261] say that Heironimus' arms are too short to match that of a Bigfoot and that he was a few inches shorter than the creature on the film (up to 14 inches or 36 cm shorter).[262]

But Heironimus said that he wore football shoulder pads,[240] which might explain why the shoulders and arms appear to be out of proportion to the rest of the body. However, Heironimus disclaimed the use of arm-extending sticks in his costume[263] and said that he wore "gloves, a little bit longer than my actual hands were . ... "[264]

It has also been said that Heironimus was not as bulky as the creature, but film critics claim that a suit could correct for that[265] (and for height).[266] However, Heironimus did not mention there being padding in the torso, either when questioned by Long about the suit[267] or when specifically asked about padding by Rob McConnell in his 2nd XZone radio interview, on August 6, 2007.[268]

Polygraph tests regarding their claims have been passed by both Heironimus[269] and Patterson.[270]

Ray Wallace Edit

After the death of Ray Wallace in 2002, following a request by Loren Coleman to The Seattle Times reporter Bob Young to investigate, the family of Wallace went public with claims that he had started the Bigfoot phenomenon with fake footprints (made from a wooden foot-shaped cutout) left in Californian sites in 1958.[271]

  • Mark Chorvinsky, editor of Strange magazine, promoted Wallace's claim that he tipped off Patterson exactly where to look for a Bigfoot.[272] Chorvinsky wrote, "'Roger Patterson came [over] dozens of times pumping me on this Bigfoot,' Ray Wallace explained to researcher Dennis Pilchis in 1982. 'I felt sorry for Roger Patterson. He told me he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try to get something where he could have a little income. Well, he went down there exactly where I told him. I told him, 'You go down there and hang around on that bank. Stay up there and watch that spot.'"[177][273] David Daegling summarized Chorvinsky's argument and concluded that Wallace "had a degree of involvement" with the Patterson–Gimlin film, and that this gave grounds for suspicion of it.[274]
  • Loren Coleman has written that Patterson was an early Bigfoot investigator, and that it was only natural that he sought out and interviewed older Bigfoot-event principals, which included Wallace, because of the 1958 Bluff Creek track incidents. Coleman has asserted that Wallace had nothing to do with Patterson's footage in 1967, and has argued in an analysis of the media treatment of the death of Wallace that the international media inappropriately confused the Wallace films of the 1970s with the Patterson–Gimlin 1967 film.[275]
  • Meldrum has written extensively about Wallace, his allegations (continued by his family after his death), and the significant problems with them in his book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.[276]

Books on the subject Edit

The major hoax allegations are summarized and criticized in:

  • Two of Christopher Murphy's books.[277][278]
  • Loren Coleman's Bigfoot!: The True Story of Apes in America.[279]
  • David Daegling's Bigfoot Exposed.[280]

References Edit

  1. ^ "DNA tests to help crack mystery of Bigfoot or Yeti existence". The Australian. Associated Press. May 24, 2012. Retrieved May 21, 2014.
  2. ^ Murphy (2008), 32
  3. ^ "BIGFOOT'S bLOG," January 21, 2013, at http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/gps-coordinates-for-bluff-creek-pgf.html July 14, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  4. ^ Bigfoot Times newsletter, August 2012
  5. ^ "BIGFOOT'S bLOG," at http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/corrections-and-clarifications-to-peter.html July 14, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ McLeod, 128–29, 140
  7. ^ In Toronto for Dahinden's book launch in 1973 (McLeod, 173); at the 1978 University of British Columbia Museum of Anthropology (McLeod, 140) Conference; and on Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World in 1980
  8. ^ Murphy (2008), 57
  9. ^ a b Regal, 129
  10. ^ Munns, 29 – he located two additional frames at the beginning that should be part of the "count"
  11. ^ Krantz, 89, caption
  12. ^ Long, 373–74, 401, 420–21
  13. ^ Daegling, 147–49
  14. ^ McLeod, 81–82
  15. ^ Munns, 5
  16. ^ Perez, 6
  17. ^ However, Cliff Barackman's site notes that the year carved in the casts while they were drying is 1963. Cliff contends that the 1964 date in Patterson's book is likely an error. See http://cliffbarackman.com/bigfoot-prints/cast-index/1963-laird-meadow/ June 21, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  18. ^ Murphy (2009) 51, 120, 146, 170; It is mistakenly spelt "Leard" in a couple of books
  19. ^ Marian Place, 135–36
  20. ^ Hunter and Dahinden, 113
  21. ^ (under his publishing company, Pyramid Productions) in a very limited number (approximately 200, according to Murphy)
  22. ^ under Hancock House Publishing
  23. ^ Long, 39, 109–10, 115, 228–29
  24. ^ This is the only stretch in that period that all the men would have had 3 free days.
  25. ^ Long, 132
  26. ^ Patterson and Murphy, 15
  27. ^ Long, 176–77; Al Hodgson remembers that this was his mission on "the first time I met him [1964]" on his way south.
  28. ^ McLeod, 79
  29. ^ Long, 107, 126
  30. ^ Long, 99; see also Long, 100–33 and 312
  31. ^ Long, 73, 91, 230
  32. ^ Long, 230
  33. ^ Long, 110–11, 114, 130
  34. ^ Long, 127, 140
  35. ^ Long, 90. (This citation does not cover this entire sentence.)
  36. ^ Perez, 8
  37. ^ Byrne, 138
  38. ^ Jevning, Notes from the Field: Tracking North America's Sasquatch, 105, quoting Hodgson in an interview. Later, Hodgson said, he "branched out" into selling, e.g., clothing (and the "variety store" designation was dropped).
  39. ^ Daegling, 115
  40. ^ Perez, 9, 20
  41. ^ Gimlin, quoted in Perez, 9
  42. ^ Meldrum, 139
  43. ^ a b Krantz, 87
  44. ^ Patterson & Murphy, 195
  45. ^ Patterson and Murphy, 195
  46. ^ Napier, 90
  47. ^ Sanderson (1969), 66
  48. ^ Perez, 9
  49. ^ a b Perez, 10
  50. ^ Meldrum, 140
  51. ^ a b Perez, 12
  52. ^ Wasson, 69
  53. ^ Krantz, 89–90
  54. ^ Wylie, 12
  55. ^ Sanderson (1969), 68; Sanderson might have mixed up this with the three-mile (4.8 km) they traveled back to the campsite.
  56. ^ Coleman and Clark, 198
  57. ^ Long, 162–65
  58. ^ For instance, see "How Not to Plan a Hoaxed Filming," Bigfoot Times, March 2004.
  59. ^ Long, 252–54
  60. ^ Daegling, Bigfoot Exposed, 147–49.
  61. ^ McLeod, Anatomy of a Beast, 79–82.
  62. ^ Perez, Bigfoot Times,
  63. ^ Murphy (2008), 39
  64. ^ Long, 347
  65. ^ McLeod, 79, quoting Hodgson in an interview with him
  66. ^ Murphy, Bigfoot Film Journal, 34–35
  67. ^ Murphy, Bigfoot Film Journal, 34, 39
  68. ^ Krantz, 122
  69. ^ a b Murphy, Bigfoot Film Journal, p 35
  70. ^ Murphy (2008), 40
  71. ^ Perez, 14
  72. ^ Murphy (2008), 35
  73. ^ Meldrum, 145
  74. ^ Bob Gimlin's talk at the Lake Chautauqua (NY) conference, April 28, 2013; transcribed by Todd Prescott
  75. ^ Perez, 22
  76. ^ Bigfoot Times newsletter, Sept. 2006, p. 1
  77. ^ Green (1978), 119–23, writes, quoting Titmus: "Aline was a skeptic and Harry a hard-headed non-believer. Both of them left there believing. ... Harry has hunted big game all of his life. ... " (p. 123)
  78. ^ Murphy (2008), 33
  79. ^ Titmus is profiled in Chris Murphy's Know the Sasquatch, pp. 225–26, and in Coleman and Clark's Cryptozoology A to Z, pp. 239–40.
  80. ^ Krantz, 91
  81. ^ Regal, 105–06
  82. ^ Hunter & Dahinden, 117–25
  83. ^ Perez (1992), 15–19
  84. ^ Murphy (2009), 53–54
  85. ^ Buhs, 140–43
  86. ^ Daegling, 107–08
  87. ^ Murphy (2008), 80–81
  88. ^ McLeod, 134–35
  89. ^ Perez (1992), 15–16
  90. ^ Bayanov, 27–40
  91. ^ Long, 111, 248, 261–62
  92. ^ Long, 263–64
  93. ^ McLeod, 118
  94. ^ Long, 263
  95. ^ Long, 265, 424
  96. ^ But Glen Koelling said, "It was my understanding that his [Roger's] brother-in-law made quite a bit of money off that movie. And Roger didn't get his share of it. ... Roger told me, and several other people too, you know, that I trust." (Long, 206) And Bigfoot-book author Michael McLeod concluded similarly. (McLeod, 112: "A lot of money was coming in (DeAtley has admitted to personally making several hundred thousand dollars from the film), but people close to the action agree that an awful lot was also going out. Whatever money filtered down to Roger Patterson wasn't near enough.")
  97. ^ Long, 203
  98. ^ Long, 258
  99. ^ M. Place, 139; National Wildlife magazine, April–May 1968
  100. ^ February 1968
  101. ^ August 15, 1968
  102. ^ January 1969; (reprinted from West magazine, a Sunday supplement of the Los Angeles Times)
  103. ^ Coleman, 83–95
  104. ^ Long, 266
  105. ^ Long, 308, 325–26
  106. ^ Murphy (2008), 56
  107. ^ Buhs, 191
  108. ^ Regal, 121
  109. ^ McLeod, 138–40
  110. ^ Buhs, 230
  111. ^ a b Wasson, 51–53
  112. ^ Buhs, 157, describes two prior, less ambitious Bigfoot movies by ANE
  113. ^ "The Mysterious Monster Mash of the Mid 1970s: Bigfoot hits prime time TV". July 6, 2019.
  114. ^ Murphy, 63
  115. ^ a b . Point of Inquiry. Center for Inquiry. September 26, 2008. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 17, 2015.
  116. ^ Long, 167
  117. ^ McLeod, 112
  118. ^ Long, 167, 169
  119. ^ Long, 265
  120. ^ Coleman, 83
  121. ^ Long, 159–160
  122. ^ Daegling, 114
  123. ^ Long, 182, quoting John Green
  124. ^ Long, 269–70, quoting Al DeAtley
  125. ^ Regal, 129, writes: "For all his personal flaws and dubious behavior, Patterson seems to have genuinely believed in Bigfoot."
  126. ^ Long, 406
  127. ^ McLeod, 119–21
  128. ^ Hunter & Dahinden, 152, 154–55, 158
  129. ^ Coleman (2003), 125
  130. ^ McLeod, 121
  131. ^ a b Krantz, 120
  132. ^ a b c d Green (1978), 129
  133. ^ a b McLeod, 121–22
  134. ^ Darling, Dylan (October 20, 2007). . Redding Record Searchlight. Archived from the original on May 21, 2015. Retrieved May 20, 2015.
  135. ^ McLeod, 128
  136. ^ a b c Long, 188
  137. ^ Munns, 19
  138. ^ Pyle, 269
  139. ^ Long, 29
  140. ^ Long, 96–97
  141. ^ Long, 105, 116, 120, 125, 127, 132
  142. ^ Long, 139–44
  143. ^ Long, 198–202, 205, 215
  144. ^ Long, 221–24
  145. ^ Long, 308, 315–17
  146. ^ Long, 299–313, 317–18
  147. ^ Long, 300
  148. ^ Long, 318–21
  149. ^ McLeod, 136–37
  150. ^ Long, 327; for fuller detail, see 318–29
  151. ^ Kopel, Matthew. "LibGuides: Copyright Services: Copyright Term and the Public Domain". guides.library.cornell.edu. Retrieved August 6, 2023.
  152. ^ Murphy (2008), 91
  153. ^ Munns, 306; also, 3–4
  154. ^ *René Dahinden possessed one of the copies up until his death. The film now is in possession of Dahinden's family.
    • John Green still owns his copy. Munns, 378, implies the copy in Green's archives now is the one he copied from the original at Canawest in Vancouver.
    • Grover Krantz's copy "went to the Smithsonian Institution when he died".: Munns, 394
    • Erik Beckjord (now deceased) offered his copy for sale for $1 million; it is not known if it was sold or what has become of it.
    • Peter Byrne is still alive; if he sold or donated his copy, there has been no news of that.
    • A copy was made for American National Enterprises (ANE), for use in making its commercialized documentary: Munns, 395.
    • Mrs. Patterson also has a copy in a bank vault, to which she granted access to Munns for his analytical work.
  155. ^ Bill Munns When Roger Met Patty, Appendix 2, pp. 31–32, 387–99
  156. ^ Munns, 306–10:
    • The Ektachrome master Canawest Labs made for John Green.
    • A complete copy of the PGF theatrical documentary shown in movie houses by Patterson and DeAtley.
    • The BBC documentary that included the PGF.
    • ANE's Bigfoot: Man or Beast? documentary film.
  157. ^ Murphy (2008), 36
  158. ^ Murphy (2008), 46
  159. ^ Long, 181
  160. ^ Murphy (2008), 46–47, 91
  161. ^ Krantz, 306
  162. ^ Green (1978), 126
  163. ^ Daegling, 109–11
  164. ^ a b Napier, 94 [2nd printing]
  165. ^ Bayanov, 70
  166. ^ Regal, 120, writes: "Krantz also found a copy of the camera's manual. It states, 'For normal screen action, when using a silent projector, use the 16 frames per second speed.'"
  167. ^ Krantz, 96
  168. ^ a b c Perez, 21
  169. ^ Munns, 326–27
  170. ^ Murphy (2008), 59–66, 72–82
  171. ^ Cited in Wasson, 74
  172. ^ Krantz, 304
  173. ^ Daegling, 119
  174. ^ Krantz, 92
  175. ^ Munns, 366–70
  176. ^ Sanderson, 78–79
  177. ^ a b Chorvinsky, Mark (October 1997). "Some Thoughts About the Patterson Bigfoot Film on its 30th Anniversary". Strange Magazine. Retrieved May 20, 2015.
  178. ^ Krantz, 301–04
  179. ^ Napier, 205 – 2nd printing
  180. ^ a b Napier, 95
  181. ^ Napier, 90–94
  182. ^ Napier, 94
  183. ^ Napier, 126
  184. ^ Wasson, 72–76, 78–79
  185. ^ Wylie, Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon, 237–42.
  186. ^ "Conclusions Reached by Dr. Esteban Sarmiento ... (affiliations follow)," in Murphy (2009), pp. 94–99
  187. ^ Murphy (2009), 94
  188. ^ Murphy (2009), 95
  189. ^ Murphy (2009), 96
  190. ^ Murphy (2009), 97
  191. ^ Murphy (2009), 98–99
  192. ^ Daegling, David J.; Schmitt, Daniel O. (May–June 1999). "Bigfoot's screen test". Skeptical Inquirer. 23 (3): 20. Retrieved June 20, 2015.
  193. ^ Daegling, 127
  194. ^ a b Daegling, 112
  195. ^ publisher's blurb on Amazon
  196. ^ "Bigfoot". Best Evidence. Episode 2. Discovery Channel.
  197. ^ a b c d e . Archived from the original on October 17, 2017. Retrieved October 16, 2017.
  198. ^ a b Krantz, 93
  199. ^ "Bigfoot". MonsterQuest. Season 1. Episode 5. November 28, 2007. History Channel.
  200. ^ Murphy (2008), 73
  201. ^ Hunter and Dahinden, 119
  202. ^ Dick Kirkpatrick, National Wildlife Magazine, April–May 1968
  203. ^ Munns, 371, 378
  204. ^ Daegling, 112–13
  205. ^ Daegling, 150, n.25, wrote: "Peter Byrne, in an e-mail to the author September 8, 2002, indicates that he personally talked to the Disney people. ... "
  206. ^ Munns, passim
  207. ^ Munns, 54–55
  208. ^ Munns, 16–20
  209. ^ "TheMunnsReport.com". TheMunnsReport.com. May 15, 2009. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
  210. ^ (1) "Surface Anatomy and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Features in the Analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hominid," Relict Hominoid Inquiry 2:1–21 (2013), online at: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf August 24, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (2) "Analysis Integrity of the Patterson-Gimlin Film Image." Relict Hominoid Inquiry 2:41–80 (2013), online at http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/ANALYSIS%20INTEGRITY%20OF%20THE%20PATTERSON-GIMLIN%20FILM%20IMAGE_final.pdf February 8, 2016, at the Wayback Machine (3) "Surface anatomy and subcutaneous adipose tissue features in the Patterson-Gimlin film hominid" Relict Hominoid Inquiry 2:125–30 (2013), online at: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns%20&%20Meldrum%20Commentary_2013.pdf March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine Those three papers contain images that are the same as those in his book, When Roger Met Patty, but they are larger and in color.
  211. ^ Munns, 229–37
  212. ^ "Critical Evidence". MonsterQuest. Season 3. Episode 19. July 8, 2009. History Channel.
  213. ^ Perez(1992), 21
  214. ^ Mark Chorvinsky (summer 1996), "The Makeup Man and the Monster: John Chambers and the Patterson Bigfoot Suit," under the heading, "Howard Berger: An Earlier Account" (http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html July 14, 2015, at the Wayback Machine)
  215. ^ Mark Chorvinsky (summer 1996), "The Makeup Man and the Monster: John Chambers and the Patterson Bigfoot Suit," under the heading, "Back to Baker" (http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html October 31, 2022, at the Wayback Machine)
  216. ^ a b Guenette, 117
  217. ^ Coleman (2003), 99–100
  218. ^ NASI newsletter, January 1998
  219. ^ The Track Record newsletter, November 1, 1998
  220. ^ Transcript, 10/27/97:
  221. ^ Meldrum, 157–58
  222. ^ Daegling, 146–47
  223. ^ Munns, 252
  224. ^ TV series Movie Magic, which aired from 1994 to 1997.
  225. ^ "The Patterson–Gimlin Film: What Makes a 'Hoax' Absolutely Genuine?", Relict Hominoid Inquiry, 1:93–114 (2012), ISSN 2165-770X, a university-hosted online magazine edited by Jeff Meldrum, at http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Keith_rev.pdf July 23, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  226. ^ Long, 166
  227. ^ Long, 219–20, 389–94
  228. ^ Long, 220–21, 223
  229. ^ Daniel Perez, "The Patterson–Gimlin Film: A Discussion," in Fortean Times, January 2005.
  230. ^ Bob Heironimus & Greg Long; Internet Interview on Seth Shostak's "Skeptical Sunday" Radio Show; August 1, 2004
  231. ^ Daegling, 78
  232. ^ Patterson & Murphy, 73–74
  233. ^ Daegling, 143–49
  234. ^ Byrne, 144
  235. ^ Long, p 453
  236. ^ Long, 444
  237. ^ Jameson, Tonya (May 11, 2004). . The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on May 26, 2004. Retrieved April 27, 2015.
  238. ^ Long, 453
  239. ^ a b Long, 446
  240. ^ a b Long, 448
  241. ^ a b Long, 447
  242. ^ a b c Korff, Kal K.; Kocis, Michaela (July–August 2004). "Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax". Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. 28 (4): 35–40. ISSN 0194-6730.
  243. ^ "Bigfoot Hoax Goes in Halls of Hooey," by Leah Beth Ward, Yakima Herald, October 7, 2004, p. 1-A
  244. ^ Long, 443
  245. ^ Daniel Perez, "The Patterson–Gimlin Film: A Discussion," in Fortean Times, January 2005, at www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/forteantimes05.htm.
  246. ^ Sandsberry, Scott (July 10, 2012). "A look at Bigfoot film: What do you see?". Yakima Herald-Republic. Archived from the original on April 28, 2015. Retrieved April 28, 2015.
  247. ^ Wasson, David (January 30, 1999). . Yakima Herald-Republic. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved July 3, 2015.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required)
  248. ^ Wasson, David (February 4, 1999). "Bigfoot believers say film no fake". Yakima Herald-Republic.
  249. ^ Long, 363–64
  250. ^ Long, 414
  251. ^ Long, 398
  252. ^ a b Long, 345
  253. ^ Long, 445
  254. ^ a b c Long, 449
  255. ^ Long, 344–45
  256. ^ Long, 349
  257. ^ His only comments are in items 7 and 12 of "Q & A – The Making of Bigfoot," by Greg Long, April 6, 2004, where he wrote, "We know Roger Patterson owned a tool shed and worked in leather, clay, and wood. Modifying the suit parts—such as gluing or riveting the hands to the cuffs of the suit, as well as the feet to the leg cuffs—was well within his skill set."
  258. ^ Long, 459
  259. ^ Murphy (2005), 242–43
  260. ^ Murphy (2008), 93
  261. ^ Daegling, 143, paraphrasing Green
  262. ^ Murphy (2009), 90–91
  263. ^ author Greg Long: "Bob told me about two nights ago there were no sticks in the arms." Speech to the Int'l. Bigfoot Society in Portland, OR, March 27, 2004, at the 1:45 mark; videotaped by IBS official Patti Reinhold and available from her.
  264. ^ 3rd XZone radio interview with Rob McConnell, August 23, 2007
  265. ^ Wylie, 238
  266. ^ Long, 383–84
  267. ^ Long, 355
  268. ^ Rob McConnell – "Did you have to have stuffing inside?" Bob Heironimus – "Oh yes, there was football helmets, pads, and an old football helmet for the head, and the legs had rubber boots in the legs for the big calves, and padding in the rear end there."
  269. ^ Long, 210, 356: conducted by Jim McCormick, an examiner who did contract work for the Yakima police department; and a second test on the Lie Detector PAX Cable TV show, May 17, 2005, administered by high-profile examiner Ed Gelb, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoU_flRFCbc April 21, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  270. ^ Murphy (2009), 103: it was conducted under the auspices of National Wildlife magazine and described briefly in its October/November 1970 issue.
  271. ^ Young, Bob (December 5, 2002). "Lovable trickster created a monster with Bigfoot hoax". The Seattle Times. Retrieved April 27, 2015.
  272. ^ See, for instance, "New $10k Bigfoot Photo Investigation 1993," by Mark Chorvinsky, at http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/10K-photograph.htm September 23, 2015, at the Wayback Machine
  273. ^ "Some Thoughts About the Patterson Bigfoot Film on its 30th Anniversary," by Mark Chorvinsky, at http://www.strangemag.com/pattersonfilm30th.html April 9, 2004, at the Wayback Machine
  274. ^ Daegling, 117–18
  275. ^ Coleman, 2007
  276. ^ Meldrum, Jeff (2007). Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. New York: Forge Books. ISBN 978-0765312174., 55–71
  277. ^ Murphy (2005), 240–52
  278. ^ Murphy (2009), 100–03
  279. ^ Coleman, 97–110
  280. ^ Daegling, 116–18, 140–41

Bibliography Edit

Skeptical Edit

Other by scientists Edit

  • Dmitri Bayanov (1997). America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction. Moscow: Crypto-Logos. ISBN 5-900229-22-X.
  • Jeff Glickman (1999). Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon (PDF). North American Science Institute / PHOTEK. pp. 10–22.
  • Grover Krantz (1999) [1992]. Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence (originally "Big Footprints: A Scientific Inquiry Into the Reality of Sasquatch"). Hancock House. pp. 87–124, 300–14. ISBN 0-88839-447-0.
  • Vladimir Markotic; Grover Krantz, eds. (1984). The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominids (OP). Calgary: Western Publishers. pp. 174–85, 218–35.
  • Jeff Meldrum (2007). Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. Forge Books. pp. 137–78. ISBN 978-0765312174.
  • Robert Michael Pyle (1995). Where Bigfoot Walks: Crossing the Dark Divide. Houghton Mifflin. pp. 207–11. ISBN 0-395-44114-5.
  • Ivan Sanderson (1969). More "Things". Pyramid Books. pp. 65–79.

Other by non-scientists Edit

  • Peter Byrne (1975). The Search for Big Foot: Monster, Myth or Man?. Acropolis Books. pp. 133–66. ISBN 0-87491-159-1.
  • Thom Cantrall (2013). Sasquatch: The Search for a New Man. The Prologue contains an interview of Bob Gimlin and a transcript of a talk by him at a 2010 Ohio Bigfoot Conference. CreateSpace. pp. 4–24. ISBN 978-1490567846.
  • Loren Coleman; Jerome Clark (1999). Cryptozoology A to Z. Fireside Books. pp. 55–56, 197–200. ISBN 0-684-85602-6.
  • —— (2003). Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America. Paraview Pocket Books. pp. 81–110. ISBN 0-7434-6975-5.
  • Loren Coleman (2007). "Bigfoot's Bogus Burial: The Media and Other Wallace Myths". In Greg Taylor (ed.). Darklore Volume 1. Brisbane, Australia: Daily Grail Publishing. pp. 95–109. ISBN 978-0-9757200-1-1.
  • John Green (2006) [1978]. Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us. Hancock House. pp. 113–31. ISBN 0-88839-018-1.
  • Robert & Frances Guenette (1975). The Mysterious Monsters. Sun Classics. pp. 113–25.
  • Don Hunter, with René Dahinden (1993) [1973]. Sasquatch/Bigfoot: The Search for North America's Incredible Creature. Firefly Books. pp. 114–25, 172–78. ISBN 1-895565-28-6.
  • William Munns (2014). When Roger Met Patty: 1 Minute of Film ... 47 Years of Controversy. self-published. ISBN 978-1500534028.
  • Christopher Murphy (2008). Bigfoot Film Journal: A Detailed Account & Analysis of the Patterson/Gimlin Film Circumstances. Hancock House. ISBN 978-0-88839-658-7.
  • —— (2009). Know the Sasquatch/Bigfoot: Sequel and Update to Meet the Sasquatch. Hancock House. pp. 42–103. ISBN 978-0-88839-689-1.
  • Roger Patterson & Chris Murphy (2005) [1966]. The Bigfoot Film Controversy (contains Patterson's 1966 book, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?). Illustrated by Roger Patterson. Hancock House. ISBN 0-88839-581-7.
  • Daniel Perez (2003) [1992]. Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. Bigfoot Times. ISBN 99948-943-2-3.
  • Marian Place (1974). On the Track of Bigfoot. Dodd, Mead. pp. 134–44. ISBN 0-396-06883-9.
  • Barbara Wasson (1979). Sasquatch Apparitions: A Critique on the Pacific Northwest Hominoid. self-published. pp. 65–85. ISBN 0-9614105-0-7.

Further reading Edit

Skeptical Edit

  • Robert Todd Carroll (2003). The Skeptic's Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-27242-6. pp. 55–57.
  • Michael Dennett (November–December 2008). "Science and Footprints". Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. 32 (6): 47–51. ISSN 0194-6730.
  • Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero (2013). Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids. Columbia University Press. pp. 44–50, 302–03. ISBN 978-0-231-15320-1.
  • Kenneth Wylie (1980). Bigfoot: A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon. Viking. pp. 10–14, 175–87, 237–42. ISBN 0-9614105-0-7.

Other Edit

  • Dmitri Bayanov (2007). Bigfoot Research: The Russian Vision. Moscow: Crypto-Logos (pp. 140–41 contain a reward-offer for disproving the authenticity of the PGF). pp. 112–41 (Section 5). ISBN 978-5-900229-36-2.
  • Janet and Colin Bord, ed. (2006) [1982]. Bigfoot Casebook Updated: Sightings and Encounters from 1818 to 2004. Pine Winds Press. pp. 90–102. ISBN 0-937663-10-7.
  • Jean-Paul Debenet (2009) [2007]. Sasquatch/Bigfoot and the Mystery of the Wild Man: Cryptozoology and Mythology in the Pacific Northwest (translation from French). Hancock House. pp. 53–61, 66–73. ISBN 978-0-88839-685-3.
  • Eastman Kodak (1958) [1955]. Cine-Kodak K-100 Cameras (The 1955 1st edition's title ended in "Camera," because the turret model was not included.). Eastman Kodak. pp. 1–28.
  • Mark A. Hall (2005) [1997]. The Yeti, Bigfoot, and True Giants (Primate Origins Series No. 1), chapter 3, "Patterson's Bigfoot". Self-published. pp. 33–50.
  • Christopher Murphy (2004). Meet the Sasquatch. Hancock House. pp. 40–89. ISBN 0-88839-573-6.
  • Mike Quast (2001). Big Footage: A History of Claims for the Sasquatch on Film. Self-published. pp. 5–19.

External links Edit

Suit-related Edit

  • (Original print copy of the interview: NASI Newsletter, January 1998. Reprinted in The Track Record, November 1, 1998)

Heironimus-related Edit

  • "Sasquatch Speaks: The Truth Is Out There" by Richard Lei (Brief; quotes from Heironimus and counter-quotes by Goodall, Green, and a lawyer, March 7, 2004) at washingtonpost.com
  • Interview of Bob Heironimus, March 22, 2004, Countdown with Keith Olbermann at countdownlibrary.com (begins 80% of the way through)
  • at northwestmysteries.com (via Wayback Machine)
  • "Some Reasons for Caution about the Bigfoot Film Exposé," by Michael Dennett, Skeptical Inquirer Volume 29.1, January/February 2005 at csicop.org (paywalled)

41°26′25″N 123°42′7″W / 41.44028°N 123.70194°W / 41.44028; -123.70194 (Patterson–Gimlin film)

August 31, 2023
patterson, gimlin, film, roger, patterson, redirects, here, bassist, roger, patterson, bassist, also, known, patterson, film, american, short, motion, picture, unidentified, subject, that, filmmakers, have, said, bigfoot, footage, shot, 1967, northern, califor. Roger Patterson redirects here For the bassist see Roger Patterson bassist The Patterson Gimlin film also known as the Patterson film or the PGF is an American short motion picture of an unidentified subject that the filmmakers have said was a Bigfoot The footage was shot in 1967 in Northern California and has since been subjected to many attempts to authenticate or debunk it Patterson Gimlin filmFrame 352 of the Patterson Gimlin film alleged to depict a female Bigfoot 1 FolkloreCryptidCountryUnited StatesRegionNorth America source source source source source source source source source source source source source source The unedited filmThe footage was filmed alongside Bluff Creek a tributary of the Klamath River about 25 logging road miles 40 km northwest of Orleans California in Del Norte County on the Six Rivers National Forest The film site is roughly 38 miles 60 km south of Oregon and 18 miles 30 km east of the Pacific Ocean 2 For decades the exact location of the site was lost primarily because of re growth of foliage in the streambed after the flood of 1964 It was rediscovered in 2011 3 4 5 It is just south of a north running segment of the creek informally known as the bowling alley The filmmakers were Roger Patterson 1933 1972 and Robert Bob Gimlin born 1931 Patterson died of cancer in 1972 and maintained right to the end that the creature on the film was real 6 Patterson s friend Gimlin has always denied being involved in any part of a hoax with Patterson Gimlin mostly avoided publicly discussing the subject from at least the early 1970s until about 2005 except for three appearances 7 when he began giving interviews and appearing at Bigfoot conferences 8 9 The film is 23 85 feet 7 27 m long preceded by 76 15 feet or 23 21 meters of horseback footage has 954 frames 10 and runs for 59 5 seconds at 16 frames per second If the film was shot at 18 fps as Grover Krantz believed 11 the event lasted 53 seconds The date was October 20 1967 according to the filmmakers although some critics believe it was shot earlier 12 13 14 15 Contents 1 Background 2 Encounter 2 1 Details 3 Immediate aftermath 4 Long term aftermath 4 1 Film related 4 2 Filmmaker related 5 Legal status 6 Ownership of the physical films 6 1 First reel 6 2 Second reel 7 Filming speed 8 Analysis 8 1 Scientific studies 8 1 1 Bernard Heuvelmans 8 1 2 John Napier 8 1 3 Esteban Sarmiento 8 1 4 David J Daegling and Daniel O Schmitt 8 1 5 Jessica Rose and James Gamble 8 1 6 Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy 8 2 Other analysts 8 2 1 Nike researcher Gordon Valient 8 2 2 MonsterQuest 8 3 Film industry personnel 8 3 1 Movie production companies executives 8 3 2 Bill Munns 8 3 3 Other special effects artists 9 Hoax allegations 9 1 Patterson and or Gimlin 9 2 Philip Morris 9 3 Bob Heironimus 9 4 Ray Wallace 9 5 Books on the subject 10 References 11 Bibliography 11 1 Skeptical 11 2 Other by scientists 11 3 Other by non scientists 12 Further reading 12 1 Skeptical 12 2 Other 13 External links 13 1 Suit related 13 2 Heironimus relatedBackground EditPatterson said he became interested in Bigfoot after reading an article about the creature by Ivan T Sanderson in True magazine in December 1959 16 In 1961 Sanderson published his encyclopedic Abominable Snowmen Legend Come to Life a worldwide survey of accounts of Bigfoot type creatures including recent track finds etc in the Bluff Creek area which heightened his interest Thereafter Marian Place wrote In 1962 he visited Bluff Creek and talked with a whole host of Bigfoot believers In 1964 17 he returned and met a timber cruiser named Pat Graves who drove him to Laird Meadows 18 There Patterson saw fresh tracks for him an almost unbearably exciting spine chilling experience What a tremendous feat it would be what a scientific breakthrough if he could obtain unshakable evidence that these tracks were not the work of a prankster but the actual mark of a hitherto unknown creature If he succeeded he would be famous And rich Alas fame and fortune were not gained that year nor the next nor the next Patterson invested thousands of hours and dollars combing Bigfoot and Sasquatch territory He fought constant ridicule and a shortage of funds he founded the Northwest Research Foundation Through it he solicited funds The response was encouraging and enabled him to lead several expeditions In 1966 he published a paperback book at his own expense He added the income from its sales and his lectures to the search fund As each wilderness jaunt failed to see or capture the monster one by one the thrill seekers dropped out But Patterson never gave up 19 Patterson s book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist was self published in 1966 The book has been characterized as little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson s circus poster style prose 20 The book however contains 20 pages of previously unpublished interviews and letters 17 drawings by Patterson of the encounters described in the text 5 hand drawn maps rare in subsequent Bigfoot books and almost 20 photos and illustrations from others It was first reprinted in 1996 by Chris Murphy 21 and then again re issued by Murphy 22 in 2005 under the title The Bigfoot Film Controversy with 81 pages of additional material by Murphy In May June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot The storyline called for Patterson his Indian guide Gimlin in a wig and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident and others as they tracked the beast on horseback For actors and cameraman Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus for three days of shooting perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend 23 24 Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes Prior to the October 1967 filming Patterson apparently visited Los Angeles on these occasions Patterson drove to Hollywood in 1964 and visited rockabilly songwriter and guitarist Jerry Lee Merritt a Yakima native who was living in Hollywood then 25 26 He was trying to sell his hoop toy invention 27 28 In 1966 he visited Merritt again while he was still trying to sell his hoop toy invention 29 Merritt soon moved back to Yakima and became Patterson s neighbor and later his collaborator on his Bigfoot documentary 30 Later in 1966 he and Merritt drove down there for several purposes Patterson visited cowboy film star Roy Rogers for help 31 He tried to sell his ponies and wagon to Disneyland or Knott s Berry Farm 32 In the summer of 1967 apparently after getting 700 from the Radfords and shooting some of his documentary they tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie 33 They copyrighted or trademarked the term Bigfoot 34 Both Patterson 35 and Gimlin had been rodeo riders and amateur boxers and local champions in their weight classes Patterson had played high school football In October 1967 Patterson and his friend Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in far Northern California They drove in Gimlin s truck carrying his provisions and three horses positioned sideways Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints since 1958 His familiarity with the area and its residents from prior visits may also have been a factor The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find which was investigated by journalist John Green Bigfoot hunter Rene Dahinden and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28 1967 36 This find was reported to Patterson via his wife soon thereafter by Al Hodgson owner of the Willow Creek Variety Store 37 38 Though Gimlin says he doubted the existence of Sasquatch like creatures he agreed to Patterson s insistence that they should not attempt to shoot one 39 Encounter EditAs their stories went in the early afternoon of Friday October 20 1967 Patterson and Gimlin were riding generally northeast upstream on horseback along the east bank of Bluff Creek At sometime between 1 15 and 1 40 p m they came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek almost as high as a room 40 41 When they rounded it there was a logjam a crow s nest left over from the flood of 64 and then they spotted the figure behind it nearly simultaneously It was either crouching beside the creek to their left or standing there on the opposite bank Gimlin later described himself as in a mild state of shock after first seeing the figure 42 43 Patterson initially estimated its height at 6 feet 6 inches 1 98 m to 7 feet 2 1 m 44 and later raised his estimate to about 7 feet 6 inches 2 29 m Some later analysts anthropologist Grover Krantz among them have suggested Patterson s later estimate was about 1 foot 0 30 m too tall Gimlin s estimate was 6 feet 1 8 m The film shows what Patterson and Gimlin claimed was a large hairy bipedal apelike figure with short silvery brown 45 or dark reddish brown 46 or black 47 hair covering most of its body including its prominent breasts The figure in the film generally matches the descriptions of Bigfoot offered by others who claim to have seen one Patterson estimated he was about 25 feet 7 6 m away from the creature at his closest Patterson said that his horse reared upon sensing the figure and he spent about 20 seconds extricating himself from the saddle controlling his horse getting around to its other side 48 and getting his camera from a saddlebag before he could run toward the figure while operating his camera He yelled Cover me to Gimlin meaning to get the gun out 49 Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback after Patterson had run well beyond it riding on a path somewhat to the left of Patterson s and somewhat beyond his position Patterson estimates he came within 60 90 feet 18 27 m of Patty 49 Then rifle in hand he dismounted but did not point his rifle at the creature 50 The figure had walked away from them to a distance of about 120 feet 37 m before Patterson began to run after it The resulting film about 59 5 seconds long at 16 fps is initially quite shaky until Patterson got about 80 feet 24 m from the figure At that point the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees on Krantz s map this corresponds to frame 264 51 To researcher John Green Patterson would later characterize the creature s expression as one of contempt and disgust you know how it is when the umpire tells you one more word and you re out of the game That s the way it felt Shortly after this point the steady middle portion of the film begins containing the famous look back frame 352 Patterson said it turned a total of I think three times 52 the other times therefore being before the filming began and or while he was running with his finger off the trigger Shortly after glancing over its shoulder on film the creature disappeared behind a grove of trees for 14 seconds then reappeared in the film s final 15 seconds after Patterson moved 10 feet 3 m to a better vantage point fading into the trees again and being lost to view at a distance of 265 feet 81 m as the reel of film ran out 53 Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback keeping his distance until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards 270 m away Patterson called him back at that point feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle because he feared the creature s mate might approach The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes Next Gimlin and Patterson rounded up Patterson s horses which had run off in the opposite direction downstream before the filming began Patterson got his second roll of film from his saddlebag and filmed the tracks 54 Then the men tracked Patty for either one mile 1 6 km 51 or three miles 4 8 km 55 but lost it in the heavy undergrowth 56 They went to their campsite three miles 4 8 km south picked up plaster returned to the initial site measured the creature s step length and made two plaster casts one each of the best quality right and left prints Details Edit According to Patterson and Gimlin they were the only witnesses to their brief encounter with what they claimed was a sasquatch Their statements agree in general but author Greg Long notes a number of inconsistencies They offered somewhat different sequences in describing how they and the horses reacted upon seeing the creature Patterson in particular increased his estimates of the creature s size in subsequent retellings of the encounter 57 In a different context Long argues these discrepancies would probably be considered minor but given the extraordinary claims made by Patterson and Gimlin any apparent disagreements in perception or memory are worth noting The film s defenders have responded by saying that commercially motivated hoaxers would have got their stories straight beforehand so they wouldn t have disagreed immediately upon being interviewed and on so many points and so they wouldn t have created a suit and a creature with foreseeably objectionable features and behaviors 58 A more serious objection concerns the film s timeline This is important because Kodachrome II movie film as far as is known could only be developed by a lab containing a 60 000 machine and the few West Coast labs known to possess one did not do developing over weekends Patterson s brother in law Al DeAtley claims not to remember where he took the film for development or where he picked it up 59 Critics claim that too much happened between the filming at 1 15 at the earliest and the filmmakers arrival in Willow Creek at 6 30 at the latest Daegling wrote All of the problems with the timeline disappear if the film is shot a few days or hours beforehand If that is the case one has to wonder what other details of this story are wrong 60 61 The film s defenders retort that although the time window was tight it was do able 62 Chris Murphy wrote I have confirmed with Bob Gimlin that Patterson definitely rode a small quarter horse which he owned not his Welsh pony Peanuts Also that Patterson had arranged to borrow a horse by the name of Chico from Bob Heironimus for Gimlin to use Gimlin did not have a horse that was suitable old enough for the expedition 63 Heironimus stated that Chico a middle aged gelding wouldn t jump or buck 64 Immediate aftermath EditAt approximately 6 30 p m 65 Patterson and Gimlin met up with Al Hodgson at his variety store in Willow Creek approximately 54 3 miles 87 4 km south by road about 28 8 miles 46 3 km by Bluff Creek Road from their camp to the 1967 roadhead by Bluff Creek and 25 5 miles 41 km down California State Route 96 to Willow Creek Patterson intended to drive on to Eureka to ship his film Either at that time or when he arrived in the Eureka Arcata area he called Al DeAtley his brother in law in Yakima and told him to expect the film he was shipping He requested Hodgson to call Donald Abbott 66 whom Grover Krantz described as the only scientist of any stature to have demonstrated any serious interest in the Bigfoot subject hoping he would help them search for the creature by bringing a tracking dog 67 Hodgson called but Abbott declined Krantz argued that this call the same day of the encounter is evidence against a hoax at least on Patterson s part 68 After shipping the film they headed back toward their camp where they had left their horses On their way they stopped at the Lower Trinity Ranger Station as planned arriving about 9 00 p m Here they met with Syl McCoy another friend and Al Hodgson 69 At this point Patterson called the daily Times Standard newspaper in Eureka and related his story 70 They arrived back at their campsite at about midnight At either 5 71 or 5 30 72 the next morning after it started to rain heavily Gimlin returned to the filmsite from the camp and covered the other prints with bark to protect them The cardboard boxes he had been given by Al Hodgson for this purpose and had left outside were so soggy they were useless so he left them 69 73 When he returned to the camp he and Patterson aborted their plan to remain looking for more evidence and departed for home fearing the rain would wash out their exit After attempting to go out along the low road Bluff Creek Road and finding it blocked by a mudslide 74 they went instead up the steep Onion Mountain Road off whose shoulder their truck slipped extracting it required the unauthorized borrowing of a nearby front end loader The drive home from their campsite covered about 580 miles 930 km the initial 28 8 miles 46 3 km on a low speed logging road and then about 110 miles 180 km on twisty Route 96 Driving a truck with three horses and allowing for occasional stops it would have taken 13 hours to get home Saturday evening at an average speed of 45 mph 72 km h it would have taken 14 5 hours at a 40 mph 64 km h average speed US Forest Service Timber Management Assistant 75 Lyle Laverty said I and his team of three in a Jeep passed the site on either Thursday the 19th or Friday the 20th 76 and noticed no tracks After reading the news of Patterson s encounter on their weekend break Laverty and his team returned to the site on Monday the 23rd and made six photos of the tracks Laverty later served as an Assistant Secretary of the Interior under George W Bush Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his sister and brother in law nine days later 77 Titmus made plaster casts of ten successive prints 78 of the creature and as best he could plotted Patterson s and the creature s movements on a map 79 Long term aftermath EditFilm related Edit The Bigfoot Museum in Willow Creek CaliforniaGrover Krantz writes that Patterson had the film developed as soon as possible At first he thought he had brought in proof of Bigfoot s existence and really expected the scientists to accept it But only a few scientists were willing to even look at the film 80 usually at showings at scientific organizations These were usually arranged at the behest of zoologist author and media figure Ivan Sanderson a supporter of Patterson s film 9 Seven showings occurred in Vancouver Manhattan 81 The Bronx Washington D C Atlanta and Washington D C again all by the end of 1968 then later in Beaverton Oregon Of those who were quoted most expressed various reservations although some were willing to say they were intrigued by it 82 83 84 85 86 Christopher Murphy wrote Dahinden traveled to Europe with the film in 1971 He visited England Finland Sweden Switzerland and Russia Although scientists in these countries were somewhat more open minded than those in North America their findings were basically the same A real glimmer of hope however emerged in Russia where he met Bayanov Bourtsev and their associates 87 88 89 90 Though there was little scientific interest in the film Patterson was still able to capitalize on it He made a deal with the BBC allowing the use of his footage in a docudrama made in return for letting him tour with their docudrama into which he melded material from his own documentary and additional material he and Al DeAtley filmed 91 This film was shown in local movie houses around the Pacific Northwest and Midwest 92 93 A technique commonly used for nature films called four walling was employed involving heavy local advertising mostly on TV of a few days of showings 94 It was a modest financial success Al DeAtley estimated that his 50 of the film s profits amounted to 75 000 95 96 The film generated a fair amount of national publicity Patterson appeared on a few popular TV talk shows to promote the film and belief in Bigfoot by showing excerpts from it for instance on the Joe Pyne Show in Los Angeles in 1967 which covered most of the western US 97 on Merv Griffin s program with Krantz offering his analysis of the film on Joey Bishop s talk show 98 and also on Johnny Carson s Tonight Show 99 Articles on the film appeared in Argosy 100 National Wildlife Magazine 101 and Reader s Digest 102 One radio interview with Gimlin by Vancouver based Jack Webster in November 1967 was partly recorded by John Green and reprinted in Loren Coleman s Bigfoot 103 Patterson also appeared on broadcast interviews on local stations near where his film would be shown during his four walling tour in 1968 104 Patterson subsequently sold overlapping distribution rights for the film to several parties which resulted in costly legal entanglements 105 106 107 108 After Patterson s death Michael McLeod wrote With the consent of Al DeAtley and Patricia Patterson the film distributor Ron Olson took over the operation of Northwest Research and changed its name to the North American Wildlife Research Association He worked full time compiling reports soliciting volunteers to join the hunt and organizing several small expeditions A Bigfoot trap Olson and his crew built still survives Olson continued to lobby the company American National Enterprises to produce a Bigfoot film In 1974 ANE finally agreed It was released in 1975 titled Bigfoot Man or Beast H e devised a storyline involving members of a Bigfoot research party Olson spent several years exhibiting the film around the country He planned to make millions with the film but says it lost money 109 110 111 112 Olson is profiled in Barbara Wasson s Sasquatch Apparitions 111 On November 25 1974 CBS broadcast Monsters Mystery or Myth a documentary about the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot It was co produced by the Smithsonian Institution which cancelled their contract with the producer the next year The show attracted fifty million viewers In 1975 Sunn Classic Pictures released Bigfoot The Mysterious Monster aka The Mysterious Monsters which remixed parts of Monsters Mystery or Myth another documentary called Land Of The Yeti and also included footage from the Patterson Gimlin film 113 Filmmaker related Edit Patterson s expensive 369 114 16 mm camera had been rented on May 13 from photographer Harold Mattson 115 at Sheppard s Camera Shop in Yakima but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on October 17 116 he was arrested within weeks of his return from Bluff Creek 117 After Patterson returned the camera in working order this charge was dismissed in 1969 118 While Patterson sought publicity Gimlin was conspicuous by his absence He only briefly helped to promote the film 119 and avoided discussing his Bigfoot encounter publicly for many subsequent years he turned down requests for interviews 120 He later reported that he had avoided publicity after Patterson and promoter Al DeAtley had broken their agreement to pay him a one third share of any profits generated by the film 121 Another factor was that his wife objected to publicity Daegling wrote Bigfoot advocates emphasize that Patterson remained an active Bigfoot hunter up until his death 122 123 124 125 For instance in 1969 he hired a pair of brothers to travel around in a truck chasing down leads to Bigfoot witnesses and interviewing them 126 Later in December of that year he was one of those present in Bossburg Washington in the aftermath of the cripplefoot tracks found there 127 128 129 Krantz reports that a few years after the film was made Patterson received a letter from a man a US airman stationed in Thailand 130 who assured him a Sasquatch was being held in a Buddhist monastery Patterson spent most of his remaining money preparing an expedition to retrieve this creature 131 only to learn it was a hoax He learned this only after having sent Dennis Jenson fruitlessly to Thailand where he concluded that the airman was mentally unbalanced and then after receiving a second untrue letter from the man going himself to Thailand with Jenson 132 133 To obtain money to travel to Thailand Patterson called Ron who had returned to ANE and sold the company the theatrical rights to the clip for what Olson described as a pretty good sum of money 133 Patterson died of Hodgkin s lymphoma in 1972 134 According to Michael McLeod 135 Greg Long 136 and Bill Munns 137 A few days before Roger died he told Bigfoot book author Peter Byrne that in retrospect he wished he would have shot the thing and brought out a body instead of a reel of film According to Grover Krantz 43 and Robert Pyle 138 years later Patterson and Gimlin both agreed they should have tried to shoot the creature both for financial gain and to silence naysayers In 1995 139 almost three decades after the Patterson Gimlin filming Greg Long 115 a technical writer for a technology firm who had a hobby of investigating and writing about Northwest mysteries started years of interviewing people who knew Patterson some of whom described him as a liar and a conman Marvin pseudonym 140 Jerry Lee Merritt 141 Pat Mason 142 Glen Koelling 143 and Bob Swanson 144 suffered financially from their dealings with him as well as 21 small local creditors who sued Patterson via a collection agency 145 Vilma Radford 146 claimed Patterson never repaid a loan made to him for a Bigfoot movie Roger was planning Radford had corroborative evidence a 700 promissory note for expenses in connection with filming of Bigfoot America s Abominable Snowman 147 Patterson had agreed to repay her 850 plus 5 percent of any profits from the movie In 1974 Bob Gimlin with Rene Dahinden s financial assistance sued DeAtley and Patterson s widow Patricia claiming he had not received his one third share of the film s proceeds He won his case in 1976 148 149 Legal status EditGreg Long reports that a 1978 legal settlement gave Dahinden controlling rights 51 percent of the film footage 51 percent of video cassette rights and 100 percent of all 952 frames of the footage Patty Patterson had 100 percent of all TV rights and 49 percent rights in the film footage Dahinden had bought out Gimlin who himself had received nothing from Patterson and Mason and Radford promised part of the profits by Patterson had nothing to show for their investment or efforts 150 The film is in the public domain in the United States as it was published without a copyright notice between 1964 and 1977 all works in the United States required such a notice or they would enter the public domain 151 Ownership of the physical films EditFirst reel Edit The whereabouts of the original is unknown although there are several speculations as to what happened to it Patterson had ceded ownership of the original to American National Enterprises which went bankrupt a few years after his death in 1972 Thereafter Greg Long writes Peregrine Entertainment bought the company Then Peregrine was bought by Century Group of Los Angeles When Century Group went bankrupt in 1996 Byrne rushed to Deerfield Beach Florida where an accountant was auctioning off the company s assets to pay creditors The company s films were in storage in Los Angeles but a search failed to turn up the Patterson footage 136 In 2008 Chris Murphy thought a Florida lawyer might have the film not realizing until later that the lawyer had contacted the Los Angeles storage company that held it and that it had responded that the film was not in the location the lawyer s records indicated 152 Bill Munns writes that it was last seen by researchers Rene Dahinden and Bruce Bonney in 1980 when Rene convinced the film vault in Southern California holding it to release it to him He made Cibachrome images from it Sometime between then and 1996 the film went missing from its numbered location in the vault 153 At least seven copies were made of the original film 154 155 Bill Munns listed four other missing reels of derivative works that would be helpful to film analysts 156 Second reel Edit The second reel showing Patterson and Gimlin making and displaying plaster casts of some footprints was not shown in conjunction with the first reel at Al DeAtley s house 157 according to those who were there Chris Murphy wrote I believe the screening of this roll at the University of British Columbia on October 26 1967 was the first and last major screening 158 It has subsequently been lost John Green suspects that Al DeAtley has it 159 A ten foot strip from that reel or from a copy of that reel from which still images were taken by Chris Murphy still exists but it too has gone missing 160 Filming speed EditOne factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film he did not note the camera s setting His Cine Kodak K 100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial at 16 24 32 48 and 64 frames per second but no click stops and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range Grover Krantz wrote Patterson clearly told John Green that he found after the filming that the camera was set on 18 frames per second fps 161 162 It has been suggested by whom that Patterson simply misread 16 as 18 citation needed Dr D W Grieve an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics evaluated the various possibilities regarding film speed and did not come to a conclusion between them He confessed to being perplexed and unsettled by the tangible possibility that it the film subject was real 163 John Napier a primatologist claimed that if the movie was filmed at 24 frame s then the creature s walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame s there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man s gait 164 Napier who published before Dahinden and Krantz 165 contended it was likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame s because it is best suited to TV transmission while conceding that this is entirely speculative 164 166 Krantz argued on the basis of an analysis by Igor Bourtsev that since Patterson s height is known 5 ft 2 in or 5 ft 3 in 157 or 160 cm a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature On the basis of this analysis Krantz argued that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that we may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18 167 Rene Dahinden stated that the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame s 168 And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature s path and reported None of us could walk that distance in 40 seconds 952 frames 24 frame s 39 6 s so I eliminated 24 frame s 168 Bill Munns wrote One researcher Bill Miller found technical data from a Kodak technician that stated the K 100 cameras were tweaked so even when the dial is set to 16 fps the camera actually runs at 18 fps I have nine K 100 cameras now I tried it on one camera and got 18 fps but the rest still need testing and all with film running through the camera 169 Analysis EditThe Patterson Gimlin film has seen relatively little interest from mainstream scientists Statements of scientists who viewed the film at a screening or who conducted a study are reprinted in Chris Murphy s Bigfoot Film Journal 170 Typical objections include Neither humans nor chimpanzees have hairy breasts as does the figure in the film and Napier has noted that a sagittal crest is only very occasionally seen to an insignificant extent in chimpanzees sic females 171 Critics have argued these features are evidence against authenticity Krantz countered the latter point saying a sagittal crest is a consequence of absolute size alone 172 As anthropologist David Daegling writes t he skeptics have not felt compelled to offer much of a detailed argument against the film the burden of proof rightly enough should lie with the advocates Yet without a detailed argument against authenticity Daegling notes that the film has not gone away 173 Similarly Krantz argues that of the many opinions offered about the Patterson film o nly a few of these opinions are based on technical expertise and careful study of the film itself 174 Regarding the quality of the film second generation copies or copies from TV and DVD productions are inferior to first generation copies Many early frames are blurry due to camera shake and the quality of subsequent frames varies for the same reason Stabilization of the film e g by M K Davis to counter the effect of camera shake has improved viewers ability to analyze it Regarding graininess Bill Munns writes Based on transparencies taken off the camera original the PGF original is as fine grain as any color 16mm film can achieve He adds that graininess increases as images are magnified 175 Scientific studies Edit Bernard Heuvelmans Edit Bernard Heuvelmans a zoologist and the so called father of cryptozoology thought the creature in the Patterson film was a suited human 176 177 178 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 Edit Prominent primate expert 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 179 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 180 Napier gives several reasons for his and others skepticism 181 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 182 Second the footprints are of the hourglass type which he is suspicious of 183 In response Barbara Wasson criticized Napier s logic at length 184 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 Dubois the discoverer of Pithecanthropus erectus or Raymond Dart of Johannesburg the man who introduced the world to its immediate human ancestor Australopithecus africanus 180 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 185 Esteban Sarmiento Edit 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 186 I did find some inconsistencies in appearance and behavior that might suggest a fake but nothing that conclusively shows that this is the case 187 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 188 His most controversial statements are these The gluteals although large fail to show a humanlike cleft or crack 189 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 190 E g the IM index is in the normal human range And I estimate bigfoot s weight to be between 190 and 240 lbs 85 and 110 kg 191 David J Daegling and Daniel O Schmitt Edit 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 if 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 192 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 193 Daegling notes that in 1967 movie and television special effects 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 194 Jessica Rose and James Gamble Edit Jessica Rose and James Gamble are authors of the definitive text on human gait 195 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 196 Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy Edit A computerized visual analysis of the video conducted by Cliff Crook who once devoted rooms to sasquatch memorabilia in his home in Bothell Washington 197 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 197 Zooming in on four magnified frames of the 16 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 197 Since both Crook and Murphy were previously staunch supporters of the video s authenticity 197 Associated Press journalist John W Humbell noted Longtime enthusiasts smell a deserter 197 Other analysts Edit Nike researcher Gordon Valient Edit Krantz also showed the film to Gordon Valient a researcher for Nike shoes who he says made some rather useful observations about some rather unhuman movements he could see 198 MonsterQuest Edit A first season episode of MonsterQuest focuses on the Bigfoot phenomenon One pair of scientists Jurgen Konczak Director Human Sensorimotor Control Laboratory University of Minnesota and Esteban Sarmiento attempts and fails to get a mime outfitted with LEDs on his joints to mimic the Patterson Bigfoot s gait A second pair Daris Swindler and Owen Caddy employs digital enhancement and observes facial movements such as moving eyelids lips that compress like an upset chimp s and a mouth that is lower than it appears due to a false lip anomaly like that of a chimp s The episode concludes the new findings are intriguing but inconclusive until a body is found 199 Film industry personnel Edit Movie production companies executives Edit Dale Sheets and Universal Studios Patterson Gimlin and DeAtley 200 screened the film for Dale Sheets head of the Documentary Film Department and unnamed technicians 132 in the special effects department at Universal Studios in Hollywood Their conclusion was We could try faking it but we would have to create a completely new system of artificial muscles and find an actor who could be trained to walk like that It might be done but we would have to say that it would be almost impossible 201 A more moderate version of their opinion was if it is a man in an ape suit it s a very good one a job that would take a lot of time and money to produce 202 Disney executive Ken Peterson Krantz reports that in 1969 John Green who owned a first generation copy of the original Patterson film 203 interviewed Disney executive Ken Peterson who after viewing the Patterson film asserted that their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film 132 198 204 Krantz argues that if Disney personnel were unable to duplicate the film there is little likelihood that Patterson could have done so Greg Long writes Byrne cited his trip to Walt Disney studios in 1972 where Disney s chief of animation and four assistants viewed Patterson s footage and praised it as a beautiful piece of work although they said it must have been shot in a studio When Byrne told them it had been shot in the woods of Northern California They shook their heads and walked away 136 205 Bill Munns Edit Bill Munns retired was a special effects and make up artist 206 cameraman and film editor 207 He argues that Universal and Disney were not the most knowledgeable studios to consult with He says that Fox MGM and special effects artist Stuart Freeborn in England who had just completed his groundbreaking ape suits for 2001 A Space Odyssey would have been preferable 208 Munns started posting his online analysis of the film in 2009 and summarizing it in the online Munns Report 209 In 2013 he and Jeff Meldrum co authored three papers in Meldrum s online magazine Relict Hominoid Inquiry 210 In 2014 Munns self published When Roger Met Patty a 488 page book incorporating material from those articles that analyses the film and film subject from various perspectives He argues the film depicts a non human animal not a man in a fur suit He proposes a new diagnostic test of authenticity at the armpit natural concave skin fold vs artificial vertical crease 211 Munns analysis has been featured in an episode of the History Channel series MonsterQuest 212 Other special effects artists Edit Rick Baker Famed Hollywood creator of Harry from the movie Harry and the Hendersons Rick Baker told Geraldo Rivera s Now It Can Be Told show in 1992 that it looked like cheap fake fur after seeing the subject in Patterson s filmstrip 213 Baker said that John Chambers had a crappy walkaround suit that he sold as a gag to be played on the guy that shot it the film 214 Later on Baker s studio stated in a fax He no longer believes this that Chambers made the suit is true 215 Ellis Burman The Guenettes Robert amp Frances wrote of him I also spoke to Ellis Burman of Burman Studios in Hollywood creators of all kinds of strange creatures including a fake Bigfoot for a traveling pickled punk carnival exhibit Burman denied his company created the Patterson Bigfoot but did say he could duplicate it but for more than 10 000 in total costs 216 John Chambers Academy Award winning monster maker John Chambers is most famous for his innovative flexible masks in Planet of the Apes 1968 In a 1997 interview in a nursing home with Bigfooter Bobbie Short in her nurse s uniform he denied rumors that he had created a costume for the Patterson subject saying I m good but not that good 217 218 219 220 Some time before 1976 the Guenettes reported that in answer to their questions He concluded that if the creature is a man in a suit then it is no ordinary gorilla suit It is not something they bought or rented in a store it would have to be something tailor made He also felt like it might have been made out of real animal fur 216 Janos Prohaska After viewing the Patterson Gimlin film with John Green 132 costume designer and ape suit mime Janos Prohaska noted for his work in the late 1960s television programs Star Trek and Lost in Space concluded the film s subject looked real to him When asked if he thought the film was faked Prohaska replied I don t think so to me it looks very very real If the film was hoaxed Prohaska thought it was remarkably realistic and sophisticated and the best costume he had ever seen and the only plausible explanation was that someone might have glued false hair directly to the actor s skin 221 However film critic David Daegling speculates that the same effect could be had by gluing the hair to a set of tight but expandable waffle design long johns 222 Chris Walas Academy Award winning makeup artist Chris Walas in the BigfootForums site in 2004 presented a theory that the arching hip line represents the overlap line between a fur costume leggings section and the torso section 223 Stan Winston Academy Award winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston after viewing the PGF said it s a guy in a bad hair suit sorry He also added that if one of my colleagues created this for a movie he would be out of business He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for a couple hundred dollars or under a thousand in that day 224 Barry Keith pen name an experienced make up and costume artist accused the Hollywood costume industry of making bravado claims of how easy such an event would be to fake He said that their cheats and shortcuts are not detectable in Patty 225 Hoax allegations EditPatterson and or Gimlin Edit Patterson and Gimlin both denied that they had perpetrated a hoax but in a 1999 telephone interview with television producer Chris Packham for the BBC s The X Creatures Gimlin said that for some time I was totally convinced no one could fool me And of course I m an older man now and I think there could have been the possibility of a hoax But it would have to be really well planned by Roger Patterson 226 Author Greg Long uncovered circumstantial evidence of varying strength of footprint hoaxing and possibly even sighting and photo hoaxing in the Yakima vicinity by Patterson 227 Long argues that this means that he faked the film too One possible motive for the Yakima fakery would have been to make Bigfoot seem more real to local millionaire Floyd Paxton with whom he was acquainted and from whom he hoped to obtain funding for an expedition 228 The film s proponents position is that what is seen in the film is unfakable especially not by a costume beginner like Patterson For instance most of Bill Munns book makes detailed examinations of film features that he argues could not have been created with 1967 special effects technology He filmed recreation attempts of his own that failed Daniel Perez writing in 1992 asserted If the film is in fact a fake a costumed man or a machine surely science could duplicate the film with ease Twenty five years later no one has come close 168 He later asserted It has never been convincingly replicated To any thinking person that should speak volumes 229 Greg Long s response was The film they have just isn t going to do it I m sorry That s not evidence 230 David Daegling anthropologist writes that the more cynical skeptics see Patterson s luck as more than a little suspicious He sets out to make a Bigfoot documentary then almost literally stumbles across a Bigfoot Daegling however offers the benefit of the doubt noting that Patterson s reasoning is sound In seeking something elusive he went to where it had been reported 231 Bluff Creek had also been the site of well known Bigfoot hoaxer Ray Wallace s activities in 1958 In Patterson s book he mentions meeting with Wallace once 232 Later Daegling cites certain features in the film and the storyline as suspicious 233 Krantz thought Patterson might have perpetrated such a hoax given the opportunity and resources Roger was an accomplished 2 D artist whose drawings and painting of horses and other wildlife showed a detailed understanding of musculature and anatomy But he also argued that Patterson had nowhere near the knowledge or facilities to do so nor for that matter did anyone else When I talked about some of the more technical details of biomechanics he Patterson showed the familiar blank look of a student who had lost the drift of the explanation but was still trying hard to pay attention Yet he must have known all these details to create a hoax For instance he could see the anterior position of the front of the shin but how that related to foot leverage was quite beyond him 131 Peter Byrne who interviewed Patterson and Gimlin many times wrote both men lacked primarily the intellectual capacity essential to the production of a hoax termed a masterpiece 234 Similarly Daegling writes that Most acquaintances of Patterson volunteered that neither he nor Gimlin were clever enough to put something that detailed together 194 Philip Morris Edit In 2002 Philip Morris owner of Morris Costumes a North Carolina based company offering costumes props and stage products claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film Morris says he discussed his role in the hoax at costume conventions lectures and magician conventions 235 in the 1980s but first addressed the public at large on August 16 2002 on Charlotte North Carolina radio station WBT 236 His story was also printed in The Charlotte Observer 237 Morris claims he was reluctant to expose the hoax earlier for fear of harming his business giving away a performer s secrets he said would be widely regarded as disreputable 238 Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail order in 1967 thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a prank 239 Ordinarily the gorilla suits he sold were used for a popular sideshow routine that depicted an attractive woman supposedly from some far flung corner of the globe being altered by a sorcerer or scientist into a gorilla or otherwise apelike monster After the initial sale Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the shoulders more massive 240 and the arms longer 241 Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear football shoulder pads and hold sticks in his hands within the suit As for the creature s walk Morris said The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film Oh yes they can When you re wearing long clown s feet you can t place the ball of your foot down first You have to put your foot down flat Otherwise you ll stumble Another thing when you put on the gorilla head you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way And to look behind you you ve got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips Plus the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw That s why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film He has to twist his entire upper body 242 Morris wife and business partner Amy had vouched for her husband and claims to have helped frame the suit 242 Morris offered no evidence apart from his own testimony to support his account the most conspicuous shortcoming being the absence of a gorilla suit or documentation that would match the detail evidenced in the film and could have been produced in 1967 A re creation of the PGF was undertaken on October 6 2004 at Cow Camp near Rimrock Lake a location 41 miles 66 km west of Yakima 243 This was six months after the publication of Long s book and 11 months after Long had first contacted Morris 244 Bigfooter Daniel Perez wrote National Geographic s producer Noel Dockster noted the suit used in the re creation was in no way similar to what was depicted in the P G film 245 Morris would not consent to release the video to National Geographic the re creation s sponsor claiming he had not had adequate time to prepare and that the month was in the middle of his busy season citation needed Bob Heironimus Edit Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film 246 Heironimus says he had not previously publicly discussed his role in the hoax because he hoped to be paid eventually and was afraid of being convicted of fraud had he confessed After speaking with his lawyer he was told that since he had not been paid for his involvement in the hoax he could not be held accountable A month after watching the December 28 1998 Fox television special World s Greatest Hoaxes Secrets Finally Revealed he went public via a January 30 press release by his lawyer Barry Woodard in a Yakima newspaper story 247 He stated I m telling the truth I m tired after thirty seven years 242 Five days later a second newspaper story reported that his lawyer s office has been inundated with calls from media outlets We re just sort of waiting for the dust to settle he said explaining he and his client are evaluating offers He also said We anticipate that we will be telling the full story to somebody rather quickly 248 Heironimus s name was first publicly revealed and his allegations first publicly detailed five years later in Greg Long s book The Making of Bigfoot which includes testimony that corroborates Heironimus claims Heironimus s relatives his mother Opal and nephew John Miller claim to have seen an ape suit in Heironimus car Opal said she saw the suit two days after the film was shot 249 Russ Bohannon a longtime friend says that Heironimus revealed the hoax privately in 1968 or 1969 250 Bernard Hammermeister another longtime friend said he was shown an ape suit in Heironimus car No date was given by Long for Hammermeister s observation but it apparently came well after the relatives observation as implied by the word still in the justification Heironimus gave Hammermeister for requesting his silence There was still supposed to be a payola on this thing and he didn t have it 251 Long argues that the suit Morris says he sold to Patterson was the same suit Heironimus claims to have worn in the Patterson film However Long quotes Heironimus and Morris describing different ape suits in many respects Among the notable differences are Suit Material Horsehide vs Dynel Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that Patterson claimed he manufactured the suit from horsehide 252 When Long asked how heavy the suit was Bob replied It weighed maybe twenty twenty five pounds 9 11 kg Horsehide would be heavy 252 Bob added It stunk Roger skinned out a dead red horse But Morris reports that the suit was made of Dynel a lighter weight synthetic material with little or no odor Morris said that it was his standard suit that we sold to all our customers 239 that cost 435 241 cheaper than the competition 253 Another contrast is that Howard reported that the horsehide was a real dark brown and Long writes that Morris was using brown Dynel in 1967 254 But Morris wouldn t have wanted a real dark brown color as he chose brown to contrast against the black background of the girl to gorilla illusion 254 Suit Top and Trousers vs a Back Zipped Onesie Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper torso part that he donned like putting on a T shirt 255 At Bluff Creek he put on the top 256 Asked about the bottom portion he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring But Morris made a one piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back 254 Presumably one stepped into it first then wiggled in one s arms in any event donning it like a T shirt would be impossible Hands and Feet Suit Attached vs Separate Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs But Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit but offers no evidence to support this idea If Patterson had done so he must have done it before Heironimus did his test fitting and walk because Heironimus describes a three piece suit head torso and legs omitting separate hands and feet i e without adjusting their location to his dimensions And Heironimus never described being measured beforehand Long speculates that Patterson modified the costume but only by attaching Morris s loose hands and feet to the costume 257 and by replacing Morris s mask 258 However there s nothing he wrote on suit modification There s no evidence or testimony that Patterson changed the Morris suit to horsehide or dyed it a darker color or cut it in half at the waist to agree with Heironimus s description Some film proponents 259 260 261 say that Heironimus arms are too short to match that of a Bigfoot and that he was a few inches shorter than the creature on the film up to 14 inches or 36 cm shorter 262 But Heironimus said that he wore football shoulder pads 240 which might explain why the shoulders and arms appear to be out of proportion to the rest of the body However Heironimus disclaimed the use of arm extending sticks in his costume 263 and said that he wore gloves a little bit longer than my actual hands were 264 It has also been said that Heironimus was not as bulky as the creature but film critics claim that a suit could correct for that 265 and for height 266 However Heironimus did not mention there being padding in the torso either when questioned by Long about the suit 267 or when specifically asked about padding by Rob McConnell in his 2nd XZone radio interview on August 6 2007 268 Polygraph tests regarding their claims have been passed by both Heironimus 269 and Patterson 270 Ray Wallace Edit After the death of Ray Wallace in 2002 following a request by Loren Coleman to The Seattle Times reporter Bob Young to investigate the family of Wallace went public with claims that he had started the Bigfoot phenomenon with fake footprints made from a wooden foot shaped cutout left in Californian sites in 1958 271 Mark Chorvinsky editor of Strange magazine promoted Wallace s claim that he tipped off Patterson exactly where to look for a Bigfoot 272 Chorvinsky wrote Roger Patterson came over dozens of times pumping me on this Bigfoot Ray Wallace explained to researcher Dennis Pilchis in 1982 I felt sorry for Roger Patterson He told me he had cancer of the lymph glands and he was desperately broke and he wanted to try to get something where he could have a little income Well he went down there exactly where I told him I told him You go down there and hang around on that bank Stay up there and watch that spot 177 273 David Daegling summarized Chorvinsky s argument and concluded that Wallace had a degree of involvement with the Patterson Gimlin film and that this gave grounds for suspicion of it 274 Loren Coleman has written that Patterson was an early Bigfoot investigator and that it was only natural that he sought out and interviewed older Bigfoot event principals which included Wallace because of the 1958 Bluff Creek track incidents Coleman has asserted that Wallace had nothing to do with Patterson s footage in 1967 and has argued in an analysis of the media treatment of the death of Wallace that the international media inappropriately confused the Wallace films of the 1970s with the Patterson Gimlin 1967 film 275 Meldrum has written extensively about Wallace his allegations continued by his family after his death and the significant problems with them in his book Sasquatch Legend Meets Science 276 Books on the subject Edit The major hoax allegations are summarized and criticized in Two of Christopher Murphy s books 277 278 Loren Coleman s Bigfoot The True Story of Apes in America 279 David Daegling s Bigfoot Exposed 280 References Edit DNA tests to help crack mystery of Bigfoot or Yeti existence The Australian Associated Press May 24 2012 Retrieved May 21 2014 Murphy 2008 32 BIGFOOT S bLOG January 21 2013 at http bigfootbooksblog blogspot com 2013 01 gps coordinates for bluff creek pgf html Archived July 14 2015 at the Wayback Machine Bigfoot Times newsletter August 2012 BIGFOOT S bLOG at http bigfootbooksblog blogspot com 2015 06 corrections and clarifications to peter html Archived July 14 2015 at the Wayback Machine McLeod 128 29 140 In Toronto for Dahinden s book launch in 1973 McLeod 173 at the 1978 University of British Columbia Museum of Anthropology McLeod 140 Conference and on Arthur C Clarke s Mysterious World in 1980 Murphy 2008 57 a b Regal 129 Munns 29 he located two additional frames at the beginning that should be part of the count Krantz 89 caption Long 373 74 401 420 21 Daegling 147 49 McLeod 81 82 Munns 5 Perez 6 However Cliff Barackman s site notes that the year carved in the casts while they were drying is 1963 Cliff contends that the 1964 date in Patterson s book is likely an error See http cliffbarackman com bigfoot prints cast index 1963 laird meadow Archived June 21 2015 at the Wayback Machine Murphy 2009 51 120 146 170 It is mistakenly spelt Leard in a couple of books Marian Place 135 36 Hunter and Dahinden 113 under his publishing company Pyramid Productions in a very limited number approximately 200 according to Murphy under Hancock House Publishing Long 39 109 10 115 228 29 This is the only stretch in that period that all the men would have had 3 free days Long 132 Patterson and Murphy 15 Long 176 77 Al Hodgson remembers that this was his mission on the first time I met him 1964 on his way south McLeod 79 Long 107 126 Long 99 see also Long 100 33 and 312 Long 73 91 230 Long 230 Long 110 11 114 130 Long 127 140 Long 90 This citation does not cover this entire sentence Perez 8 Byrne 138 Jevning Notes from the Field Tracking North America s Sasquatch 105 quoting Hodgson in an interview Later Hodgson said he branched out into selling e g clothing and the variety store designation was dropped Daegling 115 Perez 9 20 Gimlin quoted in Perez 9 Meldrum 139 a b Krantz 87 Patterson amp Murphy 195 Patterson and Murphy 195 Napier 90 Sanderson 1969 66 Perez 9 a b Perez 10 Meldrum 140 a b Perez 12 Wasson 69 Krantz 89 90 Wylie 12 Sanderson 1969 68 Sanderson might have mixed up this with the three mile 4 8 km they traveled back to the campsite Coleman and Clark 198 Long 162 65 For instance see How Not to Plan a Hoaxed Filming Bigfoot Times March 2004 Long 252 54 Daegling Bigfoot Exposed 147 49 McLeod Anatomy of a Beast 79 82 Perez Bigfoot Times Murphy 2008 39 Long 347 McLeod 79 quoting Hodgson in an interview with him Murphy Bigfoot Film Journal 34 35 Murphy Bigfoot Film Journal 34 39 Krantz 122 a b Murphy Bigfoot Film Journal p 35 Murphy 2008 40 Perez 14 Murphy 2008 35 Meldrum 145 Bob Gimlin s talk at the Lake Chautauqua NY conference April 28 2013 transcribed by Todd Prescott Perez 22 Bigfoot Times newsletter Sept 2006 p 1 Green 1978 119 23 writes quoting Titmus Aline was a skeptic and Harry a hard headed non believer Both of them left there believing Harry has hunted big game all of his life p 123 Murphy 2008 33 Titmus is profiled in Chris Murphy s Know the Sasquatch pp 225 26 and in Coleman and Clark s Cryptozoology A to Z pp 239 40 Krantz 91 Regal 105 06 Hunter amp Dahinden 117 25 Perez 1992 15 19 Murphy 2009 53 54 Buhs 140 43 Daegling 107 08 Murphy 2008 80 81 McLeod 134 35 Perez 1992 15 16 Bayanov 27 40 Long 111 248 261 62 Long 263 64 McLeod 118 Long 263 Long 265 424 But Glen Koelling said It was my understanding that his Roger s brother in law made quite a bit of money off that movie And Roger didn t get his share of it Roger told me and several other people too you know that I trust Long 206 And Bigfoot book author Michael McLeod concluded similarly McLeod 112 A lot of money was coming in DeAtley has admitted to personally making several hundred thousand dollars from the film but people close to the action agree that an awful lot was also going out Whatever money filtered down to Roger Patterson wasn t near enough Long 203 Long 258 M Place 139 National Wildlife magazine April May 1968 February 1968 August 15 1968 January 1969 reprinted from West magazine a Sunday supplement of the Los Angeles Times Coleman 83 95 Long 266 Long 308 325 26 Murphy 2008 56 Buhs 191 Regal 121 McLeod 138 40 Buhs 230 a b Wasson 51 53 Buhs 157 describes two prior less ambitious Bigfoot movies by ANE The Mysterious Monster Mash of the Mid 1970s Bigfoot hits prime time TV July 6 2019 Murphy 63 a b Greg Long The Making of Bigfoot Point of Inquiry Center for Inquiry September 26 2008 Archived from the original on April 2 2015 Retrieved March 17 2015 Long 167 McLeod 112 Long 167 169 Long 265 Coleman 83 Long 159 160 Daegling 114 Long 182 quoting John Green Long 269 70 quoting Al DeAtley Regal 129 writes For all his personal flaws and dubious behavior Patterson seems to have genuinely believed in Bigfoot Long 406 McLeod 119 21 Hunter amp Dahinden 152 154 55 158 Coleman 2003 125 McLeod 121 a b Krantz 120 a b c d Green 1978 129 a b McLeod 121 22 Darling Dylan October 20 2007 Big day for Bigfoot believers Redding Record Searchlight Archived from the original on May 21 2015 Retrieved May 20 2015 McLeod 128 a b c Long 188 Munns 19 Pyle 269 Long 29 Long 96 97 Long 105 116 120 125 127 132 Long 139 44 Long 198 202 205 215 Long 221 24 Long 308 315 17 Long 299 313 317 18 Long 300 Long 318 21 McLeod 136 37 Long 327 for fuller detail see 318 29 Kopel Matthew LibGuides Copyright Services Copyright Term and the Public Domain guides library cornell edu Retrieved August 6 2023 Murphy 2008 91 Munns 306 also 3 4 Rene Dahinden possessed one of the copies up until his death The film now is in possession of Dahinden s family John Green still owns his copy Munns 378 implies the copy in Green s archives now is the one he copied from the original at Canawest in Vancouver Grover Krantz s copy went to the Smithsonian Institution when he died Munns 394 Erik Beckjord now deceased offered his copy for sale for 1 million it is not known if it was sold or what has become of it Peter Byrne is still alive if he sold or donated his copy there has been no news of that A copy was made for American National Enterprises ANE for use in making its commercialized documentary Munns 395 Mrs Patterson also has a copy in a bank vault to which she granted access to Munns for his analytical work Bill Munns When Roger Met Patty Appendix 2 pp 31 32 387 99 Munns 306 10 The Ektachrome master Canawest Labs made for John Green A complete copy of the PGF theatrical documentary shown in movie houses by Patterson and DeAtley The BBC documentary that included the PGF ANE s Bigfoot Man or Beast documentary film Murphy 2008 36 Murphy 2008 46 Long 181 Murphy 2008 46 47 91 Krantz 306 Green 1978 126 Daegling 109 11 a b Napier 94 2nd printing Bayanov 70 Regal 120 writes Krantz also found a copy of the camera s manual It states For normal screen action when using a silent projector use the 16 frames per second speed Krantz 96 a b c Perez 21 Munns 326 27 Murphy 2008 59 66 72 82 Cited in Wasson 74 Krantz 304 Daegling 119 Krantz 92 Munns 366 70 Sanderson 78 79 a b Chorvinsky Mark October 1997 Some Thoughts About the Patterson Bigfoot Film on its 30th Anniversary Strange Magazine Retrieved May 20 2015 Krantz 301 04 Napier 205 2nd printing a b Napier 95 Napier 90 94 Napier 94 Napier 126 Wasson 72 76 78 79 Wylie Bigfoot A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon 237 42 Conclusions Reached by Dr Esteban Sarmiento affiliations follow in Murphy 2009 pp 94 99 Murphy 2009 94 Murphy 2009 95 Murphy 2009 96 Murphy 2009 97 Murphy 2009 98 99 Daegling David J Schmitt Daniel O May June 1999 Bigfoot s screen test Skeptical Inquirer 23 3 20 Retrieved June 20 2015 Daegling 127 a b Daegling 112 publisher s blurb on Amazon Bigfoot Best Evidence Episode 2 Discovery Channel a b c d e What Bigfoot s a big fake Amarillo com Amarillo Globe News Archived from the original on October 17 2017 Retrieved October 16 2017 a b Krantz 93 Bigfoot MonsterQuest Season 1 Episode 5 November 28 2007 History Channel Murphy 2008 73 Hunter and Dahinden 119 Dick Kirkpatrick National Wildlife Magazine April May 1968 Munns 371 378 Daegling 112 13 Daegling 150 n 25 wrote Peter Byrne in an e mail to the author September 8 2002 indicates that he personally talked to the Disney people Munns passim Munns 54 55 Munns 16 20 TheMunnsReport com TheMunnsReport com May 15 2009 Retrieved November 6 2012 1 Surface Anatomy and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Features in the Analysis of the Patterson Gimlin Film Hominid Relict Hominoid Inquiry 2 1 21 2013 online at http www isu edu rhi pdf Munns 20Meldrum 20Final 20draft pdf Archived August 24 2016 at the Wayback Machine 2 Analysis Integrity of the Patterson Gimlin Film Image Relict Hominoid Inquiry 2 41 80 2013 online at http www isu edu rhi pdf ANALYSIS 20INTEGRITY 20OF 20THE 20PATTERSON GIMLIN 20FILM 20IMAGE final pdf Archived February 8 2016 at the Wayback Machine 3 Surface anatomy and subcutaneous adipose tissue features in the Patterson Gimlin film hominid Relict Hominoid Inquiry 2 125 30 2013 online at http www isu edu rhi pdf Munns 20 amp 20Meldrum 20Commentary 2013 pdf Archived March 4 2016 at the Wayback Machine Those three papers contain images that are the same as those in his book When Roger Met Patty but they are larger and in color Munns 229 37 Critical Evidence MonsterQuest Season 3 Episode 19 July 8 2009 History Channel Perez 1992 21 Mark Chorvinsky summer 1996 The Makeup Man and the Monster John Chambers and the Patterson Bigfoot Suit under the heading Howard Berger An Earlier Account http www strangemag com chambers17 html Archived July 14 2015 at the Wayback Machine Mark Chorvinsky summer 1996 The Makeup Man and the Monster John Chambers and the Patterson Bigfoot Suit under the heading Back to Baker http www strangemag com chambers17 html Archived October 31 2022 at the Wayback Machine a b Guenette 117 Coleman 2003 99 100 NASI newsletter January 1998 The Track Recordnewsletter November 1 1998 Transcript 10 27 97 https web archive org web 20021208083704 http www n2 net prey bigfoot Meldrum 157 58 Daegling 146 47 Munns 252 TV series Movie Magic which aired from 1994 to 1997 The Patterson Gimlin Film What Makes a Hoax Absolutely Genuine Relict Hominoid Inquiry 1 93 114 2012 ISSN 2165 770X a university hosted online magazine edited by Jeff Meldrum at http www isu edu rhi pdf Keith rev pdf Archived July 23 2015 at the Wayback Machine Long 166 Long 219 20 389 94 Long 220 21 223 Daniel Perez The Patterson Gimlin Film A Discussion in Fortean Times January 2005 Bob Heironimus amp Greg Long Internet Interview on Seth Shostak s Skeptical Sunday Radio Show August 1 2004 Daegling 78 Patterson amp Murphy 73 74 Daegling 143 49 Byrne 144 Long p 453 Long 444 Jameson Tonya May 11 2004 Bigfoot just a big hoax The Charlotte Observer Archived from the original on May 26 2004 Retrieved April 27 2015 Long 453 a b Long 446 a b Long 448 a b Long 447 a b c Korff Kal K Kocis Michaela July August 2004 Exposing Roger Patterson s 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax Skeptical Inquirer Committee for Skeptical Inquiry 28 4 35 40 ISSN 0194 6730 Bigfoot Hoax Goes in Halls of Hooey by Leah Beth Ward Yakima Herald October 7 2004 p 1 A Long 443 Daniel Perez The Patterson Gimlin Film A Discussion in Fortean Times January 2005 at www bigfootencounters com articles forteantimes05 htm Sandsberry Scott July 10 2012 A look at Bigfoot film What do you see Yakima Herald Republic Archived from the original on April 28 2015 Retrieved April 28 2015 Wasson David January 30 1999 Bigfoot Unzipped Yakima Valley man who says he wore suit passes lie detector test Yakima Herald Republic Archived from the original on September 24 2015 Retrieved July 3 2015 via HighBeam Research subscription required Wasson David February 4 1999 Bigfoot believers say film no fake Yakima Herald Republic Long 363 64 Long 414 Long 398 a b Long 345 Long 445 a b c Long 449 Long 344 45 Long 349 His only comments are in items 7 and 12 of Q amp A The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long April 6 2004 where he wrote We know Roger Patterson owned a tool shed and worked in leather clay and wood Modifying the suit parts such as gluing or riveting the hands to the cuffs of the suit as well as the feet to the leg cuffs was well within his skill set Long 459 Murphy 2005 242 43 Murphy 2008 93 Daegling 143 paraphrasing Green Murphy 2009 90 91 author Greg Long Bob told me about two nights ago there were no sticks in the arms Speech to the Int l Bigfoot Society in Portland OR March 27 2004 at the 1 45 mark videotaped by IBS official Patti Reinhold and available from her 3rd XZone radio interview with Rob McConnell August 23 2007 Wylie 238 Long 383 84 Long 355 Rob McConnell Did you have to have stuffing inside Bob Heironimus Oh yes there was football helmets pads and an old football helmet for the head and the legs had rubber boots in the legs for the big calves and padding in the rear end there Long 210 356 conducted by Jim McCormick an examiner who did contract work for the Yakima police department and a second test on the Lie Detector PAX Cable TV show May 17 2005 administered by high profile examiner Ed Gelb at https www youtube com watch v yoU flRFCbc Archived April 21 2020 at the Wayback Machine Murphy 2009 103 it was conducted under the auspices of National Wildlife magazine and described briefly in its October November 1970 issue Young Bob December 5 2002 Lovable trickster created a monster with Bigfoot hoax The Seattle Times Retrieved April 27 2015 See for instance New 10k Bigfoot Photo Investigation 1993 by Mark Chorvinsky at http www bigfootencounters com articles 10K photograph htm Archived September 23 2015 at the Wayback Machine Some Thoughts About the Patterson Bigfoot Film on its 30th Anniversary by Mark Chorvinsky at http www strangemag com pattersonfilm30th html Archived April 9 2004 at the Wayback Machine Daegling 117 18 Coleman 2007 Meldrum Jeff 2007 Sasquatch Legend Meets Science New York Forge Books ISBN 978 0765312174 55 71 Murphy 2005 240 52 Murphy 2009 100 03 Coleman 97 110 Daegling 116 18 140 41Bibliography EditSkeptical Edit Joshua Blu Buhs 2009 Bigfoot The Life and Times of a Legend University of Chicago Press pp 131 56 187 92 ISBN 978 0 226 07979 0 David Daegling 2004 Bigfoot Exposed An Anthropologist Examines America s Enduring Legend Altamira Press pp 105 55 ISBN 0 7591 0539 1 Greg Long 2004 The Making of Bigfoot The Inside Story Prometheus Books ISBN 1 59102 139 1 Michael McLeod 2009 Part II Obsession Anatomy of a Beast Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot University of California Press pp 79 141 ISBN 978 0 520 25571 5 John Napier 1973 Bigfoot The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and Reality E P Dutton pp 89 96 126 203 ISBN 0 525 06658 6 Other by scientists Edit Dmitri Bayanov 1997 America s Bigfoot Fact Not Fiction Moscow Crypto Logos ISBN 5 900229 22 X Jeff Glickman 1999 Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon PDF North American Science Institute PHOTEK pp 10 22 Grover Krantz 1999 1992 Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence originally Big Footprints A Scientific Inquiry Into the Reality of Sasquatch Hancock House pp 87 124 300 14 ISBN 0 88839 447 0 Vladimir Markotic Grover Krantz eds 1984 The Sasquatch and Other Unknown Hominids OP Calgary Western Publishers pp 174 85 218 35 Jeff Meldrum 2007 Sasquatch Legend Meets Science Forge Books pp 137 78 ISBN 978 0765312174 Robert Michael Pyle 1995 Where Bigfoot Walks Crossing the Dark Divide Houghton Mifflin pp 207 11 ISBN 0 395 44114 5 Ivan Sanderson 1969 More Things Pyramid Books pp 65 79 Other by non scientists Edit Peter Byrne 1975 The Search for Big Foot Monster Myth or Man Acropolis Books pp 133 66 ISBN 0 87491 159 1 Thom Cantrall 2013 Sasquatch The Search for a New Man The Prologue contains an interview of Bob Gimlin and a transcript of a talk by him at a 2010 Ohio Bigfoot Conference CreateSpace pp 4 24 ISBN 978 1490567846 Loren Coleman Jerome Clark 1999 Cryptozoology A to Z Fireside Books pp 55 56 197 200 ISBN 0 684 85602 6 2003 Bigfoot The True Story of Apes in America Paraview Pocket Books pp 81 110 ISBN 0 7434 6975 5 Loren Coleman 2007 Bigfoot s Bogus Burial The Media and Other Wallace Myths In Greg Taylor ed Darklore Volume 1 Brisbane Australia Daily Grail Publishing pp 95 109 ISBN 978 0 9757200 1 1 John Green 2006 1978 Sasquatch The Apes Among Us Hancock House pp 113 31 ISBN 0 88839 018 1 Robert amp Frances Guenette 1975 The Mysterious Monsters Sun Classics pp 113 25 Don Hunter with Rene Dahinden 1993 1973 Sasquatch Bigfoot The Search for North America s Incredible Creature Firefly Books pp 114 25 172 78 ISBN 1 895565 28 6 William Munns 2014 When Roger Met Patty 1 Minute of Film 47 Years of Controversy self published ISBN 978 1500534028 Christopher Murphy 2008 Bigfoot Film Journal A Detailed Account amp Analysis of the Patterson Gimlin Film Circumstances Hancock House ISBN 978 0 88839 658 7 2009 Know the Sasquatch Bigfoot Sequel and Update to Meet the Sasquatch Hancock House pp 42 103 ISBN 978 0 88839 689 1 Roger Patterson amp Chris Murphy 2005 1966 The Bigfoot Film Controversy contains Patterson s 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist Illustrated by Roger Patterson Hancock House ISBN 0 88839 581 7 Daniel Perez 2003 1992 Bigfoot at Bluff Creek Bigfoot Times ISBN 99948 943 2 3 Marian Place 1974 On the Track of Bigfoot Dodd Mead pp 134 44 ISBN 0 396 06883 9 Barbara Wasson 1979 Sasquatch Apparitions A Critique on the Pacific Northwest Hominoid self published pp 65 85 ISBN 0 9614105 0 7 Further reading EditSkeptical Edit Robert Todd Carroll 2003 The Skeptic s Dictionary A Collection of Strange Beliefs Amusing Deceptions and Dangerous Delusions John Wiley amp Sons ISBN 0 471 27242 6 pp 55 57 Michael Dennett November December 2008 Science and Footprints Skeptical Inquirer Committee for Skeptical Inquiry 32 6 47 51 ISSN 0194 6730 Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero 2013 Abominable Science Origins of the Yeti Nessie and Other Famous Cryptids Columbia University Press pp 44 50 302 03 ISBN 978 0 231 15320 1 Kenneth Wylie 1980 Bigfoot A Personal Inquiry into a Phenomenon Viking pp 10 14 175 87 237 42 ISBN 0 9614105 0 7 Other Edit Dmitri Bayanov 2007 Bigfoot Research The Russian Vision Moscow Crypto Logos pp 140 41 contain a reward offer for disproving the authenticity of the PGF pp 112 41 Section 5 ISBN 978 5 900229 36 2 Janet and Colin Bord ed 2006 1982 Bigfoot Casebook Updated Sightings and Encounters from 1818 to 2004 Pine Winds Press pp 90 102 ISBN 0 937663 10 7 Jean Paul Debenet 2009 2007 Sasquatch Bigfoot and the Mystery of the Wild Man Cryptozoology and Mythology in the Pacific Northwest translation from French Hancock House pp 53 61 66 73 ISBN 978 0 88839 685 3 Eastman Kodak 1958 1955 Cine Kodak K 100 Cameras The 1955 1st edition s title ended in Camera because the turret model was not included Eastman Kodak pp 1 28 Mark A Hall 2005 1997 The Yeti Bigfoot and True Giants Primate Origins Series No 1 chapter 3 Patterson s Bigfoot Self published pp 33 50 Christopher Murphy 2004 Meet the Sasquatch Hancock House pp 40 89 ISBN 0 88839 573 6 Mike Quast 2001 Big Footage A History of Claims for the Sasquatch on Film Self published pp 5 19 External links EditThe entry on Bigfoot at The Skeptic s Dictionary Patterson Gimlin film at IMDb Dunning Brian August 13 2013 Skeptoid 375 The Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film Skeptoid Suit related Edit Transcript of Bobbie Short s taped interview with John Chambers October 27 1997 Original print copy of the interview NASI Newsletter January 1998 Reprinted in The Track Record November 1 1998 Heironimus related Edit Sasquatch Speaks The Truth Is Out There by Richard Lei Brief quotes from Heironimus and counter quotes by Goodall Green and a lawyer March 7 2004 at washingtonpost com Interview of Bob Heironimus March 22 2004 Countdown with Keith Olbermann at countdownlibrary com begins 80 of the way through Response to Critics by Greg Long 2005 at northwestmysteries com via Wayback Machine Some Reasons for Caution about the Bigfoot Film Expose by Michael Dennett Skeptical Inquirer Volume 29 1 January February 2005 at csicop org paywalled 41 26 25 N 123 42 7 W 41 44028 N 123 70194 W 41 44028 123 70194 Patterson Gimlin film Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Patterson Gimlin film amp oldid 1170688144, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.