Monday, November 17, 2008

Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film A Hoax

The 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film shows a real Bigfoot

I want people to avoid wasting time and energy debating whether the Patterson Film shows a Bigfoot. It is a brilliant hoax and it is time to move on, so I have written the following:

Art. 1: Whether the Patterson Film is a hoax?

Obj. 1: It would seem that the Patterson-Gimlin film shows a genuine Bigfoot and is not a hoax. For an ape suit would have a zipper, but it is evident that there is no zipper to be found on the creature.
Obj. 2: Patterson maintained until his death from cancer in 1972 that the film was not a hoax, which proves that he was sincere and therefore that the film really shows a Bigfoot.
Obj. 3: A hoax can be ruled out because a hoax would put the person in the suit in immediate mortal danger from hunters.
Obj. 4: The North American Science Institute says that the creature's head does not bob as it walks, which is not true of humans. Therefore, the film does not show a human and must instead show a Bigfoot.
Obj. 5: The North American Science Institute points out that the creature's jaw is below the shoulder line, which means that the creature is not human.
Obj. 6: In 1969 John Green showed the film to Disney executive Ken Peterson, who then said that "their technicians would not be able to duplicate the film" [Grover Krantz, Big Footprints: A Scientific Study Into the Reality of Sasquatch 93]. But since Disney special effects technicians at the time could not duplicate the film, Patterson could not possibly have created a hoax.
Obj. 7: No one has been able to reproduce the locomotion of the creature, indicating that it cannot possibly be a human in a suit.
Obj. 8: Krantz estimated that the creature has a shoulder width that is 35.1% of its standing height, which far exceeds the ratio of a human.
Obj. 9: Dr. Jeff Meldrum points out that the creature in the film has
an IM index somewhere between 80 and 90, intermediate between humans and African apes. In spite of the imprecision of this preliminary estimate, it is well beyond the mean for humans and effectively rules out a man-in-a-suit explanation for the Patterson-Gimlin film without invoking an elaborate, if not inconceivable, prosthetic contrivance to account for the appropriate positions and actions of wrist and elbow and finger flexion visible on the film. This point deserves further examination and may well rule out the probability of hoaxing.
Obj. 10: The creature has distinct buttocks and groups of muscles can be seen moving. Even the feet flex when the creature lifts a leg.

On the contrary, John Napier says [Bigfoot: The Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality 89], "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."

I answer that, the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin color film purporting to show a female Sasquatch walking through Bluff Creek is a clever hoax. Roger Patterson was a shady character. Patterson had known about the report that in 1955, William Roe saw a female Bigfoot in eastern British Columbia. The build of the figure in the film and its actions mirror Roe's account:
… as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female… Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to tip…its arms were much thicker than a man's arms and longer reaching almost to its knees…[T]he nose was broad and flat…the hair that covered it [the face], leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth, nose, and ears…its neck also was unhuman, thicker and shorter than any man's I have ever seen…It looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face… [It] straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come…again turning its head to look in my direction.
Patterson illustrated this scene and it matched the creature's stance, build, and hairy breasts [Roger Patterson, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?]. Patterson and Gimlin should have followed the alleged Bigfoot, which was not fleeing and which could have been incapacitated with their guns. Patterson needed to shoot the film because there was an arrest warrant against him for not paying the bill for the camera rental. Patterson "never went back to Bluff Creek, to any search except Thailand" [Barbara Wasson] but would have if there really was a Bigfoot. The so-called Bigfoot is an anatomical impossibility. The Bigfoot shown is supposed to be a human-like female ape, but it has a cone-shaped head (male) and sagittal crest (male) in addition to pendulous hairy breasts (no female great ape has hairy breasts) and a hairy buttocks (no great ape has a hairy buttocks). However, the conclusive proof that the film is a hoax can be seen in the original version. Before the film was edited, the figure went from right to left, then there were several blank frames, then the figure walked from left to right. This proves that the film was shot in two takes and that the so-called Bigfoot is actually a human actor in a costume.

Reply 1: Either there was a zipper or there was not. If there was a zipper, it could have been concealed by the fur. If there was no zipper, the costume had a snap instead of a zipper for more natural movement and easier concealment due to the absence of seams and bunching, and increased safety in case the actor needed to quickly exit the suit on that balmy day.
Reply 2: Patterson was a shady character and would have wanted to protect his financial assets for posterity.
Reply 3: Actually, Patterson and Gimlin had made an agreement not to shoot a Bigfoot if they saw one, and there were no hunters who put the actor in danger that day, and so the actor was in no danger of being shot.
Reply 4: A suit which restricts head movement causes the head not to bob.
Reply 5: The jaw can be made to come below the shoulder line via bulky shoulder pads.
Reply 6: Disney technicians did not see a stabilized version of the film, and it is possible they would have said otherwise had they seen the stabilized version of the film created by M.K. Davis, in which case they would have a clear view of the costume and gait.
Reply 7: Bob Heironimus reproduced the creature's locomotion to a tee. There are several glaring problems with Heironimus's confession but regardless of whether he is lying about being the actor in the suit, he showed conclusively that the locomotion is not unhuman.
Reply 8: Bulky shoulder pads can produce wide shoulders, as can the film technique of forced perspective.
Reply 9: Actually, the arms, as measured from shoulder to wrist, match human arms, which is why Bob Heironimus has the same proportions as the creature as is clear from a video capture of his Bigfoot acting. The reason the arms seem too long to be human in the eyes of many supporters of the film's authenticity is that the distance from wrist to fingertip is long, but this can indeed be reproduced with prosthetics.
Reply 10: The waist and abdomen can be enlarged with a water bag. Foam rubber and parachute cord at the ankles, knees, and hips can mimic muscle flexion and plaster extensions/prosthetics can indeed be used for flexing hands.

No comments: