Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

J.Sheldon87

New Member
You can see much better ape costumes decades earlier
You can absolutely make Patti, but Morris makes it sound a doddle, which it obviously isn't. it's incredibly hard to get realism on film. This is not just hand-sewing some legs, arms and a torso in your basement and sticking a guy named bob in there. finished with some black face-paint and a hairy mask. It takes true craftsmanship, even the work for something like Mugato:
Janos_Prohaska.jpg
Do you ever see the back and front of those earlier apes in one continuous scene? Incredible stuff if you do
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
You're comparing stills from film and/or photographs to grainy film, of course details will be visible that don't match up. Also, if you're referring to the "creases" on the front of the shoulder, those aren't creases in the suit, they're fur clumping up. That's very typical of fur in joints.

Star Trek: The Original Series, where the Mugato comes from, has undergone an incredible hi-def remaster. You're going to see details that you won't see on a piece of film that is notoriously grainy.

You bring up the thinness of Chewbacca and then immediately present us with the Mugato, who is quite thick, chunky and muscular. I'd argue (and I believe I have argued in this thread before) that the Mugato is proof it has been done. Also, Chewbacca is thin because Peter Mayhew, his actor, was 7'3" and skinny as a rail. Having a tall creature was always part of the character design, it doesn't really stand as evidence that suits can't be made that are muscular and wide: the Mugato is, as previously mentioned, quite thick.

I'd recommend, if you haven't, reading this entire thread. Much of what you touch on has been discussed.
Yes it has been done but with major problems, like a huge crease in the leg. hi-def or no hi-def, that's plainly visible. While Patti walks without one.6311492664_9a36569c4d_b.jpg
My argument is a bit all over the place I agree, it was my first post so hopefully it will get better with time. The thread is called "Bigfoot film is a Hoax" and the second reason for this was Phillip Morris & Bob Heironimus. I'm saying that he's version of the suit build, and what it would take to fake this are miles apart.
And I just joined, rookie mistake. Will read through in full in future.
 
Last edited:

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
Yes it has been done but with major problems, like a huge crease in the leg. hi-def or no hi-def, that's plainly visible. While Patti walks without one.6311492664_9a36569c4d_b.jpg
My argument is a bit all over the place I agree, it was my first post so hopefully it will get better with time. The thread is called "Bigfoot film is a Hoax" and the second reason for this was Phillip Morris & Bob Heironimus. I'm saying that he's version of the suit build, and what it would take to fake this are miles apart.
And I just joined, rookie mistake. Will read through in full in future.
Welcome aboard! Had I stopped to figure out that you're a newbie here, I would have been a bit more welcoming! No worries about not reading through, I've done that a few times even as a veteran.

Keep in mind, you're also looking at Mogato pretty close-up here. Patty is far away. Details are going to be easier to see because of that alone. From 40 feet and with some noise added, I suspect that crease would be much more natural-looking.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
In this he says:
Hollywood has never succeeded in duplicating the P-G film. They have made their hairy ape-men, they have deluged our TV screens with furry snarling antagonists, and suffocated a legion of brave actors under a veritable sea of prepackaged yak hair, but they have never duplicated the P-G film. Content from External Source And:
the P-G film escapes scrutiny unscathed. No hints of shortcuts, no fingerprints of clever trickery. Hollywood cannot touch it, and we need to ask why.

First of all, welcome. You seem to have found a nice long thread to jump in on, so have fun.

I've always found this a bit of "negative proof" if you will. Mr. Keith, and others that use this line of reasoning, should be able to give list of Hollywood crews, FX people, directors and others that have attempted to duplicate it, and subsequently failed.

By duplicate, I would suggest this means going out into the woods and using a handheld Kodak mid-grade 16mm camera to try to film a guy in a gorilla suite walking along ~80' away in filtered daylight. No lighting, no tripod, no Panavision cameras, no zooming in.

I'm not aware of any such attempts. The closest seems to be the quick and badly executed recreation by Morris and Heronioums themselves, shown here from discussion in posts #320-#340 or so:




It's pretty bad, the color isn't even right. They also filmed it from around 10-15' with much higher resolution equipment. Note the detail in the pine needles.

This seems to be the same problem with the arguments made by Keith and others make when presenting Ewoks, Chewie, the Mugato and so on as examples of Hollywood work looking different than the PG film. It's apples to oranges.

Much of Star Wars was filmed with some of the most advanced camera systems available at the time.

Remember, this is what the original film would have looked like:

 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
Welcome aboard! Had I stopped to figure out that you're a newbie here, I would have been a bit more welcoming! No worries about not reading through, I've done that a few times even as a veteran.

Keep in mind, you're also looking at Mogato pretty close-up here. Patty is far away. Details are going to be easier to see because of that alone. From 40 feet and with some noise added, I suspect that crease would be much more natural-looking.
Thanks, Its ok you was only saying do my due diligence before I post.

Without Mugato far away or Patti close up we will never know comparatively. Surely Star Trek would have preferred no creases given the close up shoot. That says to me how hard it was given the tech available, I concede Patti is far enough away to reasonably hide it. but I am still not convinced on Morris' craftwork whatsoever being the real deal given he's poor recreation, and the effort used to make a Mugato. (Cocktails anyone?)

Not to move the goalposts. I also hear it said that she "walks like a human". Well yes, IF (and its a big galaxy sized IF) they are/was ever real, they are supposed to be pretty close to us, With facial descriptions much closer to our Neanderthal forebears, It seems the Ape Canyon incident among others changed public perception (to Creature/Monster/Apeman) The Native Americans of the PNW believed them to be a separate tribe of mountain men. To go back before the first "Bigfoot" craze swept the U.S: Front Page of “The Oregonian” On July 16, 1924 https://oregonlive.newsbank.com

Oregon and Washington Indians agree that the Seeahtik Indians are not less than seven feet tall and some have been seen that were fully eight feet in height. They have hairy bodies like a bear. This is to protect them from the cold as they live entirely in the mountains
Content from External Source
Allen Chenols added that the Tyapish had not killed any Indians of the past generation that he knows of, but he had heard that former Chehalis Indians had been murdered at times by these giant Indians.
Content from External Source
(I googled searched Seeahtik and Tyapish to find more references, and "how to type Swastika" came back, so i think I may need to try harder)

In 1929’s Introducing B.C’s HAIRY giants - https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1929/4/1/introducing-b-cs-hairy-giants - J. W. Burns wrote:

The strange people, of whom there are but few now—rarely seen and seldom met—” said the old hunter, “are known by the name of Sasquatch, or, ‘the hairy mountain men.
Content from External Source
And Natives have curiously said to have traded with them.
On the flip side they also said they had magical powers, or was spirit beings. Even so,
they were simply called Wildmen in encounters going as far back as the 17th to the early 20th century.
The book "Bigfoot Wild men and Giants" - is a book compilation of articles, dated 1680-1922 culled from the author's research from newspapers and other sources depicting encounters with giant bipedal creatures now referred to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch.-
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Bigfoot_Wild_Men_and_Giants.html?id=g5Y3uwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

Stabilising the P-G film does not throw up any immediate "there it is" Hoax moments, Which is quite something in itself. Meaning if they shook the camera wildly to hide any evident details from the unsuspecting audience. They didn't need to. Still the most likely, rational answer is: it's someone in a costume, there's no way around that without a body.
Even if we have found other Hominids/Hominin. Anyone can see how unlikely it is,
Big hairy people living in the mountains, its like me claiming there was little 3-4 feet tall people that looked and walked similar to a human, but very much they're own species who lived on their own little island independently of everyone else and hunted Stegadons for dinn-..oh wait a minute.
(Thats a joke guys)
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Big hairy people living in the mountains
If Hieronymus confessed to being the guy in the suit, I'd believe him when he said that an attempt was made to fake the whole thing. That's not to say that he is the only one to dress up for the film, or that was the only suit, or that was the only film. Several attempts might certainly have been made to get their best or most believable film, and participants may easily be misremembering which was which, so after the passage of years I'd be tempted to discount the discrepancies.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
First of all, welcome. You seem to have found a nice long thread to jump in on, so have fun.
Thank you for the kind welcome David, and well Patti is truely the last rabbit I hole I have left. Mr West pulled me back out of the recent UFO craze. And people like Prof. Miano pull apart the Hancocks of this world with he's World of Antiquity channel. A quick aside - I cannot find a sphinx erosion thread? Is there one that anyone knows of please -

I don't know of any recreations that I've seen, or can find. how strange. Ive heard them referenced all the time.
Given the quality of the original footage, And what it would hide.
Would you not expect there to be more clear indications of a suit on a cleaned up stabilised version.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
If Hieronymus confessed to being the guy in the suit, I'd believe him when he said that an attempt was made to fake the whole thing. That's not to say that he is the only one to dress up for the film, or that was the only suit, or that was the only film. Several attempts might certainly have been made to get their best or most believable film, and participants may easily be misremembering which was which, so after the passage of years I'd be tempted to discount the discrepancies.
He says he sold the suit for $475 in 1967.
so isn't that comparative to 3-4 thousand dollars of income? This has to be a huge lump sum back then.
I'm not from the U.S so I'm unsure as to how much it truly translates as, or how your business tax works or self employment etc. And definitely not your tax system from the 60s. But surely he has to declare that as income from the business and possibly what the item was no? he was a store. Wouldn't all dated paper receipts/sales have to be declared or go through the tax office at the end of the tax year. He has only ever bought forward he's testimony, surely he has access to he's own tax record of that year. He says he sold it a couple weeks before Patterson was on the news. A record of any $475 sale from that immediate period would go a long way in veryifing he's story.
 

MapperGuy

Member
What has always bothered me about the Patterson footage is how irregular the surface of the body and limbs appears. Look at a nice photo of a gorilla and notice how smooth its fur appears . The creature in Patterson's film is having a bad-hair day, with some fur brushed down and some standing up, that is why the texture varies so much. When I had a cat I could write letters on its side when it was laying down, by running my finger against the grain of the fur causing it to stand up. Disturbed fur is easily distinguished. They forgot to brush or comb the suit after it was put on, before it went for its stroll.

And the failure of anyone to duplicate the film since can easily be explained by either not hiring someone with the right skill, or paying them to not do a good job. Trust no one, especially people who don't want their favorite evidence debunked.

And I suppose I must also ask, how come in the years since, with the endless proliferation of people and cameras, has no similar or superior video been captured?
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Would you not expect there to be more clear indications of a suit on a cleaned up stabilised version.

Not necessarily. Remember, no matter how good or high resolution a scan is performed, it's still limited to scanning the original source material. From the Meldrum report on the film you referenced earlier (bold by me):

The film resolution is excellent, and has resolution as high as any 16mm film of its time. The detail is reliable and as much as one could expect for 16mm film.
Content from External Source
Considering that a 16mm film image can resolve a branch at about 11 pixels from a source full frame image 10,490 pixels high and the PGF Hominid is at the lookback frame about 1/6th of the frame height, she would be about 1748 pixels high in that source image. Dividing that by the determined 11 pixel lines as the smallest detail, that would mean the film can resolve 158.94 lines for her full height.
Arbitrarily assigning an example height of 6ft 6in (78in), the film would resolve a theoretical approximate 0.5in object on her body. Motion blur and lens influence slightly reduce resolution, putting the resolution of the PGF Hominid body aspects at somewhere between 0.5in and 1.0in.
Content from External Source
https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries...-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf

So, as I noted in post #76:
Correct me if I"m not understanding this, but it sounds like the the smallest detail that can be resolved on the creature is somewhere between 1/2"-1". It seems to me that a seam or zipper, or rippling muscle under the fur would be less than 1", thus those things may not show up. They would just be lost in the "fur"

The original film likely could not have discerned anything smaller than .5"-1", especially at 80' away.

In addition, the best that could have been scanned was a copy of the original. The original is lost. Meldrum, in the above cited report, makes the case that these were good contact copies, but 2nd generation, nevertheless.

No matter how high resolution the scan or the amount of zooming and stabilizing is done, modern technology can't recreate what was never there in the first place. If the camera/film combination was unable to capture a zipper or seam from 80' away on the day of filming, I don't see how a scan of a copy can reveal them 50 years later.

Wouldn't all dated paper receipts/sales have to be declared or go through the tax office at the end of the tax year. He has only ever bought forward he's testimony, surely he has access to he's own tax record of that year. He says he sold it a couple weeks before Patterson was on the news. A record of any $475 sale from that immediate period would go a long way in veryifing he's story.

Again, not necessarily. It sounds like he was running a small business selling costumes and other things, mostly for the circus/carnival circuit and maybe the B movie industry as I understand it, not Hollywood. It was likely a listed as a Sole Proprietor for tax purposes, same as my contracting business I ran.

When filing federal Income taxes in this situation, one uses their records, including the sale of various items like a Gorilla suit, to produce a Profit and Loss statement showing how money went in and out of the business over the course of the year and how much was considered taxable income.

It would NOT include every itemized sale, rather it would include the Gross sales, or amount of money made selling all the costumes in a year and the cost associated with doing that. So, things like material, labor, rent and so on. Hopefully there is some money left over and this is your income.

The records of the sale of the suit would have to be kept for up to 7 years back in those days, in case you were audited by the government. Meaning they could require you to bring all your records for a giving year and prove that your Profit and Loss statement and therefore your tax liability, was accurate. So, the record of the suit sale would have been kept for around 7 years or so.

This assumes that a record of the sale ever existed in the first place. Some number of unreported sales, or under-the-table as we say, is not uncommon. Even if it did, the notion that it would still be floating around in a file box somewhere 10, 20 or 30 years on is unlikely.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
This assumes that a record of the sale ever existed in the first place. Some number of unreported sales, or under-the-table as we say, is not uncommon. Even if it did, the notion that it would still be floating around in a file box somewhere 10, 20 or 30 years on is unlikely.
Thanks for that thorough answer! so no we should not expect any tax record given the length of time,
I ask as Morris has never brought anything other than he's claim it was him, or the reproduction he later attempted as far as I'm aware. For me, because of the the poor somewhat lazy recreation attempt. It is still likely that a costume store owner simply wanted some free publicity.
Much like the reasoning Pattersons character makes it a hoax.

In regards to the film, So just because its cleaned up etc does not mean that smaller details will appear, they were likely never picked up in the recording anyway, tinkertailor also said to me its just too for away to see, so I now understand the fact we don't see seams/zipper is nothing to get exited about.
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
I now understand the fact we don't see seams/zipper is nothing to get exited about.
I wanna be clear here and just say that I've been into skepticism and debunking for a pretty big chunk of my life now, and I still occasionally find myself believing, for just a moment, in Patty and other Bigfoot evidence. It's my weak spot. I love me some Bigfeets. Considering this, I hope that you find peace in your rabbit-hole, but I also hope that you don't stop getting excited. Heck, hang around here long enough and you'll get excited about things that disprove Bigfoot!
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I was looking for you to find some of the lesser known photos/vids I know about like this one (4:54 in length).
This is not meant to be superior but i tend to find the less conspicuous ones more interesting. This video is supposedly from a Snapchat call, and it purportedly all happens in well under 2 seconds. (from being sat up the tree, jumping down, running out of site)

As a general rule here, we try to keep to 1 topic per thread. This isn't a general Bigfoot thread, but a thread on the P&G film and if it's a hoax. In fact, a lot of this thread sort of violates the one topic rule as we've been discussing costumes, timelines, how bigfoot walks, witness testimony and so on. It's all in reference to the P&G film, so it works.

The video you are sharing is a different bit of evidence for Bigfoot and not directly related to the P&G film, so it should likely have its own thread. I don't have time to start one tonight, but maybe tomorrow.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
As a general rule here, we try to keep to 1 topic per thread. This isn't a general Bigfoot thread, but a thread on the P&G film and if it's a hoax. In fact, a lot of this thread sort of violates the one topic rule as we've been discussing costumes, timelines, how bigfoot walks, witness testimony and so on. It's all in reference to the P&G film, so it works.

The video you are sharing is a different bit of evidence for Bigfoot and not directly related to the P&G film, so it should likely have its own thread. I don't have time to start one tonight, but maybe tomorrow.
apologies, I will delete it and put in a new thread
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Patti is truely the last rabbit I hole I have left
probably one of the more harmless ones?

the idea that bigfoot is still out there in hiding is interesting, unprovable, and if you don't attach any ideas of salvation to it, comparable to the "here be dragons" on early maps: a little bit of mystery left in a largely de-mystified world.

And that remains no matter whether any footage is proven a hoax or not.
 

MapperGuy

Member
With respect to the appearance of the Bigfoot in Patterson's film I would suggest people do a Google search for the terms "cosplay" and "bigfoot". Or "cosplay" and "furry". There are many examples of bigfoot and other animal costumes available, or that people have made for their own use. Filmed under the conditions of the Patterson film I suspect many of them would look as realistic.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
I've always found it interesting that he sorta drew what he later filmed, having never seen a Bigfoot before.
It is very coincidental, but I'm also thinking why someone who is often chalked down to being a morally questionable man. (Justifying the assertion he is just a hoaxer looking for his 15mins of fame and a quick buck.).
Would go through the effort of compiling all the historical data, writing, and hand drawing maps/sketches for a book that has everything apart from the very thing he is thinking of hoaxing, mere months later?

He must of had the idea of this "grand hoax" at least a little while before he did it. At minimum it was finding and buying 1000's dollars worth of believable costume from Morris, Modifying the costume (according to Morris #356), expedition planning (Horses, equipment etc), Hiring a decent camera, finding and hiring a suitable costume wearer, then getting Heironimus and Gimlin together for the same day all the way out in bluff creek, It is not a simple hoax just given the remote location itself, let alone the rest for 1967 (Only home telephone calls etc).

Given the short time frame between two events (book publication - 66, Bluff Creek -67) he would only have to delay publication temporarily, I find it hard to believe this conman would not want the ultimate "money shot" in he's own book on the exact same subject coming out. One would expect it to be the titular focal point, with all the effort of he's hard work historically backing up the hoax. Same goes for saying he made the footage beforehand. It pushes the time of book publication even closer.

- Duke (Member) has kindly sent me a PM link to a huge multi-episode deep dive into the P-G film which I'm currently listening to. Hopefully I have my information right so far, but I have learned a lot of new info I didn't know from the deep dive, same goes for this thread.
I'm looking to be a much more informed individual on the finer details surrounding the P-G film. -
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
the idea that bigfoot is still out there in hiding is interesting, unprovable, and if you don't attach any ideas of salvation to it, comparable to the "here be dragons" on early maps: a little bit of mystery left in a largely de-mystified world.
I think the correct balance is to be as "bunk-proof" as possible, without losing that childlike wonder of the world.
As reality is often more awe-inspiring than fiction.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Given the short time frame between two events (book publication - 66, Bluff Creek -67) he would only have to delay publication temporarily, I find it hard to believe this conman would not want the ultimate "money shot" in he's own book on the exact same subject coming out. One would expect it to be the titular focal point, with all the effort of he's hard work historically backing up the hoax. Same goes for saying he made the footage beforehand. It pushes the time of book publication even closer.
that's a one-sided argument

there are strong points in favor of releasing the book first, because the film would help sell the book nonetheless, even if the hoax was uncovered; and releasing the book together with the film would raise more suspicions about the film being a hoax. I think the timeline works well as-is.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
that's a one-sided argument

there are strong points in favor of releasing the book first, because the film would help sell the book nonetheless, even if the hoax was uncovered; and releasing the book together with the film would raise more suspicions about the film being a hoax. I think the timeline works well as-is.

I disagree,
How does releasing a book after the encounter, which is a normal course of action. Raise more suspicions than -
Already having a book out with a sketch of the exact thing you're going to encounter and film months later?

If faked, He must have had the idea of doing this for a while to plan it all and get it ready. So,
If he was writing the book to then find a publisher to print it, this makes no sense in terms of a major score.
If a publisher was waiting, delaying them until he can add in stills of the new, never seen before footage, plus he's own account of that day makes sense as it would lead to selling many more units.

Why would he release them together, he can set a release date like Dec 19th for example. And spend the intervening couple of months promoting the footage. Then the book comes out, and this conman gets a lot more rich from sales.

If the P-G film is nothing but a hoax, it took a lot of time, money and organisation to get it done right.
If Patterson is a simple conman, he would be looking to maximise profits from all angles with the ruse for as long as it lasts. He could have widely promoted the new book with he's public appearances. I just feel that if he was trying to make money via this hoax, he missed a trick there.
He never released a book of the encounter afterwards either did he?
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
He must of had the idea of this "grand hoax" at least a little while before he did it. At minimum it was finding and buying 1000's dollars worth of believable costume from Morris, Modifying the costume (according to Morris #356), expedition planning (Horses, equipment etc), Hiring a decent camera, finding and hiring a suitable costume wearer, then getting Heironimus and Gimlin together for the same day all the way out in bluff creek, It is not a simple hoax just given the remote location itself, let alone the rest for 1967 (Only home telephone calls etc).
If the P-G film is nothing but a hoax, it took a lot of time, money and organisation to get it done right.

I think it's the other way around. This was a low budget "run what ya brung" operation. He was making do with what he had and knew.

Patterson, Gimlin and Heironimus were all horse people that owned horses and the rigs needed to move them:

Both Patterson[35] and Gimlin had been rodeo riders and amateur boxers—and local champions in their weight classes.
Content from External Source
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]
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
He didn't need "$1000's worth of believable costumes from Morris". He needed one $435 costume, which he could modify himself. He was an artist and a saddle maker. Plus, the idea of him modifying it to more resemble his drawings of what he thought a Bigfoot looked like makes sense.

The camera was rented:

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]
Content from External Source
Note also, he didn't return it in time resulting in an arrest warrant. Borrowing and not returning things and money and other fundraising ventures seemed to be something Patterson did and could easily account for the money needed:

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.
Content from External Source
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]
Content from External Source
"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]
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
His self-published book also helped:

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.
Content from External Source
It appears Patterson had multiple, though small, income streams and loans to fund the film. His major expense was the costume itself, followed by the camera and some film. Most of the logistical needs like horses and transportation were all his and/or Gimlin's and Hieronimus'.

It wasn't just a couple of guys going out on a lark and making this film, Patterson had already been trying to make a film loosely based on the Ape Canyon story (Which is often thought of as a Bigfoot encounter but is much more of a spiritual treasure quest with lots of supernatural trappings. These are often stripped out to give the impression it's an eyewitness account of Bigfoots):

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.
Content from External Source
Patterson had been to the Bluff Creek area, if not the actual site, several times before October '67:

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]
Content from External Source
The remoteness of the site is also a little suspect. In that time there was heavy logging operations going on in the Six Rivers Forest and a Forest Service employee managed to drive by the site both before and after the encounter:

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.
Content from External Source
All above external content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

In addition, it proved to be one of the most fortuitist sites possible. In a thick forest, Patterson managed to catch, on his first attempt, a Bigfoot along a stretch of Bluff creek that had been washed out 2 years before, creating not just a long open site line but also a sandy gravel bar suitable for multiple recordable footprints.

So, to sum up:
  • Patterson had been looking for Bigfoot for many years prior to the encounter.
  • He had enough money from various sources to fund, at least in part, a film about a Bigfoot encounter using Gimlin, Hieronimus and their horses several months prior to the encounter.
  • He had been to the general area of Bluff Creek a few times prior to the encounter.
  • Morris claims to have sold a costume and Hieronimus claims to have worn a costume. Though the description of the costume varies.
  • Patterson and Gimlin headed to Bluff Creek with their own horses and equipment. Hieronimus claims to have followed a day or so later.
  • Soon after arriving in Bluff Creek with a camera to look for Bigfoot, Patterson captures a Bigfoot that resembles his drawings in a nearly perfect setting, allowing for both a long shot and the collection of tracks.
If Patterson woke up one day in October '67 and said something like: "Let's go hoax a Bigfoot film tomorrow, even though we have no camera, no costume, no actors, no horses, no transportation, no idea what a Bigfoot looks like, no idea where to go and no money to do any of this", then yes it would be a daunting task.

But that's not the case. He had access to at least some money and aside from the costume and the camera, he was just using what he already had in an area he had already scouted using guys that had already been working with him on a Bigfoot film.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
If Patterson woke up one day in October '67 and said something like: "Let's go hoax a Bigfoot film tomorrow, even though we have no camera, no costume, no actors, no horses, no transportation, no idea what a Bigfoot looks like, no idea where to go and no money to do any of this", then yes it would be a daunting task.

I don't see what that has to do with he's book coming out in practically the same calendar year.
Why isn't there a book of the encounter, separately or otherwise. This guy just wants easy money .
So he's nothing but a charlatan, a scam artist, a rip-off merchant.
But not with the book, with that he's being your regular, honest crypto Charles Darwin.
A leopard doesn't change its spots as you referenced.
He knows how to write a book, he knows a publisher who will print about the topic. I find it hard to believe that this conman, who you agree sketches what he then finds. Did not have this idea until just after the book comes out.
You make it sound even easier to do while he's writing the book.
This would be ultimately about making money off of a gullible public, in my opinion he would milk it for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
He knows how to write a book, he knows a publisher who will print about the topic. I find it hard to believe that this conman, who you agree sketches what he then finds. Did not have this idea until just after the book comes out.

I think you're giving the book a bit too much credit.

Firstly, he didn't so much write a book as he complied newspaper clippings and sketches with, yes, some original writing:

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.
Content from External Source
Second, the publisher, if there was one, was a vanity press. Patterson paid for it himself:

Patterson's book, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?, was self-published in 1966.
Content from External Source
Third, as noted above, it was published almost a year before the film in 1966.

So, he's into Bigfoot and sometime in or before '66 he complies his book and then self publishes it. He manages to sell some copies and raises a little money. Around a year later comes up with the idea for a film about Bigfoot and does some preliminary shooting:

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.
Content from External Source
I think the film is another way to make money with his Bigfoot obsession, but it takes too much money to get it going. A simple film showing a Bigfoot in a Cinema Verte style is much easier and more cost effective.

I don't know if he's a full "con man" or "grifter", but I think he's a hustler at least. He's always got another iron in the fire hoping one of them is going get red hot.

Prior to, and possibly concurrent to the book and film he was trying other money making ideas, including a Hoop-toy of some sort and a pony and wagon set up. He made trips to LA looking to sell these, or possibly raise money for his film:

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]
Content from External Source
In 1966 he visited Merritt again while he was still trying to sell his hoop-toy invention.
Content from External Source
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]
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

I see a logical progression. Patterson is a guy that doesn't seem to ever hold a steady 9-5 job, rather he's always looking for the next thing that might be the big and profitable. In the meantime, he seems to borrow and possible scam, or at least not return/payback the locals. He's into Bigfoot, maybe as a real believer, but also as yet another money making channel. He copyrighted the name "Bigfoot".

He starts with some lectures, then a self published book, then attempts to make film. As these down't completely pay off the way he had hoped, a quick and cheap to make film proving the existence of Bigfoot seems a likely next step.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
I think you're giving the book a bit too much credit.

Firstly, he didn't so much write a book as he complied newspaper clippings and sketches with, yes, some original writing:
Fair enough, when its laid out like that, its sensible. I missed the detail of being self published also, so that's become a Moot point in my reasoning.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
I see a logical progression. Patterson is a guy that doesn't seem to ever hold a steady 9-5 job, rather he's always looking for the next thing that might be the big and profitable.
I still wonder why he never made a book of the encounter, the iron was red hot
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I still wonder why he never made a book of the encounter, the iron was red hot
he was busy with his tour and documentaries mentioned in the wiki article. He was certainly making more money that way then he did with his book. Then he sold the rights to the film (so likely wouldnt have been able to include photos in his book) ..and then he died.

(and he wouldnt have needed to write a new book, just add a chapter to his old book. and republish, but maybe he didnt think of that. or...people were alot less interested in the story without the film. A picture is worth a thousand words and all.)
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
and he wouldnt have needed to write a new book, just add a chapter to his old book. and republish, but maybe he didnt think of that. or...people were alot less interested in the story without the film. A picture is worth a thousand words and all.)
A re-publish with stills of the footage and a new chapter would make financial sense though wouldn't it? The argument is he was always looking for, and trying many different angles to strike it rich. The idea of it not occurring to him, after he begins doing a tour with the film, is beyond belief.

I don't agree with the last bit at all, This is something never captured on film before. A world first, That's like saying everyone is less interested in a personal 9/11 account because we have the footage of it.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
Then he sold the rights to the film (so likely wouldnt have been able to include photos in his book)
This is a valid point, but it was he's film to begin with. It would be down to negotiation, We are talking a few stills of he's own film. I doubt a major payment/percentage would be needed for the usage of being added to an already published book, that at its core is not about the film anyway. So I cannot see how it's not worth it given the interest he had at that time. This of course changes nothing of the films validity itself, just something I found odd.
NorthCali David thinks I'm overthinking it as well, and he's probably right.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
A re-publish with stills of the footage and a new chapter would make financial sense though wouldn't it? The argument is he was always looking for, and trying many different angles to strike it rich. The idea of it not occurring to him, after he begins doing a tour with the film, is beyond belief.

I guess I' missing the point. We can second guess Patterson and the money he may or may not have made with a 2nd book or an updated version of his first book for ever. It appears he was very busy promoting and traveling with the film after it was released. At least for the year or so after it was made, '67-'68. He was dead by '72 and didn't think another book was worth the effort.

What bearing does that have on idea of the PG film being a hoax?

Your argument, if I understand it, is that Patterson would have been a mastermind who created a well-planned and orchestrated endeavor with lots of pre-planning, including the release of a new or updated book along with the film to maximize profits. As the book did NOT happen, Patterson did NOT plan very well and could NOT have orchestrated a complex hoax. Therefore, it wasn't a hoax.

I suggested, and detailed above, that the film was a more organic creation that took advantage of the circumstances Patterson found himself in.

All discussions of Bigfoot films/videos are always conducted with the understanding that there is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the creature. NO fossil remains. NO skeletal remains. NO remains of any kind. And NO DNA evidence. It's just a collection of accounts and fuzzy films, videos and pictures.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
What bearing does that have on idea of the PG film being a hoax?

Your argument, if I understand it, is that Patterson would have been a mastermind who created a well-planned and orchestrated endeavor with lots of pre-planning, including the release of a new or updated book along with the film to maximize profits. As the book did NOT happen, Patterson did NOT plan very well and could NOT have orchestrated a complex hoax. Therefore, it wasn't a hoax.

I suggested, and detailed above, that the film was a more organic creation that took advantage of the circumstances Patterson found himself in.

All discussions of Bigfoot films/videos are always conducted with the understanding that there is NO corroborating evidence for the existence of the creature. NO fossil remains. NO skeletal remains. NO remains of any kind. And NO DNA evidence. It's just a collection of accounts and fuzzy films, videos and pictures.
NO, i am NOT saying that. ;)

the book was self published, he could leave out the encounter, fine
You say he tried loads of different schemes as well, just not that one, fine

I just find the idea of an entrepreneur/hoaxer not fully capitalising on the hoax that struck gold a little odd.
that was all
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
This is something never captured on film before
nonone had captured bigfoot on film before?

the wiki page says he was all into the thailand bigfoot and he wanted to buy it. maybe he was planning a second book but his one bluff creek thing (that was already common knowledge from the extensive media coverage, wasnt enough so he wanted to add the thailand bigfoot in. but the thailand bigfoot was fake. and then Patterson died.

anyway, he didnt write a book so speculating on why, is just speculation. I dont think the fact he didnt write a new chapter or new book says anything to whether the film was fake or not. my opinion anyway.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
he didnt write a book so speculating on why, is just speculation. I dont think the fact he didnt write a new chapter or new book says anything to whether the film was fake or not. my opinion anyway.
Neither does selling the rights to the film so quickly, instead of charging for its use.
For me, it seems borderline idiotic if he's only goal was to earn money from it.
But hey, everyone has their opinion on this.
I guess this is why its still being debated all these years later.
 

J.Sheldon87

New Member
I am so torn on this, I came on this thread right behind Patti, but now I'm not sure at all.
So far I see the evidence leading up to the hoax makes sense, laid out by Norcal Dave its hard to disagree.
But a lot of what of what Patterson does after the hoax is almost like it's real, is that a fair assessment?
I don't actually know the ins and outs, I obviously need to learn more about it, so Im going to finish the deep dive on this topic before commenting again, its around 16 hours long and I've done 2 of the 6 episodes, so say 10 or 11 hours of information left.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
A re-publish with stills of the footage and a new chapter would make financial sense though wouldn't it?
To really make financial sense he'd need to sell the book to a major publisher. Obstacles here are the low quality of the book, and copyright issues regarding the newspaper clippings and other external content.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
But a lot of what of what Patterson does after the hoax is almost like it's real, is that a fair assessment?
He never went back and got better footage, did he?

A wildlife photographer in this situation would build a camouflaged shelter and camp out near that trail for a week until he got better pictures. What reason would Patterson have to not do that, unless he knew the sighting was fake?
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
This is something never captured on film before. A world first
Depends on what it is that got filmed. Men in ape-costumes had been filmed fairly frequently. The PG film was accepted as real by some folks, and some folks were "agnostic," and some folks thought it was a hoax. That made the film of some value, but not as much as it might have been. To be a gold mine, additional evidence, proof that the creature was real, would be require. As Mendel notes above, there was no effort to go back to the one place in the world where he would have been sure a Bigfoot was in residence and acquire that additional proof.

On the other hand, it also might seem odd that he never went out with the suit and filmed more fake shots. There are possible reasons for that (possibly something happened to the suit, possibly he worried about getting away with it a second time, possibly he had enough film for his purposes or possibly it just never occurred to him -- whether the film was real or fake, his efforts to exploit it seem amateurish and not as effective as they might have been, like a PT Barnum wannabe who was not very good at it.)

In either case, I'm not sure his being a not hugely successful hustler as he tried to make bucks off of his real or fake Bigfoot film tells us much about the reality or fakeness of the film. Lots of great artists die broke, so do lots of art forgers.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
As Mendel notes above, there was no effort to go back to the one place in the world where he would have been sure a Bigfoot was in residence and acquire that additional proof.

I think he did return at least once, but I can't find it right now. It's somewhere in the proceeding 10 pages.

On the other hand, it also might seem odd that he never went out with the suit and filmed more fake shots.

I think the problem here was that he had failed to pay his current crew, so they may have been reluctant to do it again before getting paid for the first one. Likewise, Patterson may have been reluctant to try again with a new crew:

He (Gimlin) 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.
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

Just speculating here but note that Patterson's wife got a chunk of the rights. As most of Patterson's money-making schemes didn't amount to much, this was akin to a life insurance policy. Once he knew he was ill and likely terminal, a deathbed confession would have been like pulling the financial rug out from underneath his wife, so he just kept up the story.

But a lot of what of what Patterson does after the hoax is almost like it's real, is that a fair assessment?
A real hoax, yes. He goes around promoting the film on TV, radio and in magazines. He sells overlapping rights to various people. He sets up a traveling 4-wall theatrical tour with his brother-in-law, and he never shared any of the proceeds with Gimlin.

While he may have returned to Bluff Creek a couple of times, he never made any real attempt to go back with another expedition to capture more footage of a creature he claims is wondering around there.

I am so torn on this, I came on this thread right behind Patti,

The film is a lot fun to discuss and try to figure out. It's iconic, as I said in my first post on this thread:
I grew up in suburban housing tract, but my grandparents had some land next to Lassen National Forest that we would visit. I remember being about 9-10 years old and having just seen this footage on TV before we went "up to the woods". My dad suggested that me and my younger brother "head up to the 'ol fishing hole" a 1/2 mile or so up the creek
...through heavy timber:oops:
...just the two of us:oops:
...in Northern California Bigfoot country:oops:

It leaves a lasting impression.

However, as I also noted above there is still the contextual realm in which the discussions take place. There is NO physical evidence for the existence of an unknown bi-pedal hominoid in North America now or at any time in the past. NO fossils, NO remains, NO DNA. Ever.

In fact, if we go back 35-40,000 years when the Neanderthals fade away, there is little evidence for any other be-pedal hominoid anywhere in the world, except for anatomically modern humans. Homo Floresiensis (The Hobbit), was thought to have lived as late as 12,000 years ago, but that has now been pushed back to 50,000 years:

This hominin was at first considered remarkable for its survival until relatively recent times, initially thought to be only 12,000 years ago.[6] However, more extensive stratigraphic and chronological work has pushed the dating of the most recent evidence of its existence back to 50,000 years ago.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

Possibly Homo Denisovans, may have persisted as late as 14,000 years ago in Southeast Asia, but they are still closer to modern humans than what Bigfoot is commonly described as:

Introgression into modern humans may have occurred as recently as 30,000 years ago in New Guinea, which, if correct, might indicate this population persisted as late as 14,500 years ago
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

If Bigfoot is a real creature, it has to maintain a viable breeding population. If so, at some point there should be some sort of physical evidence of the that population. There just isn't.

If Bigfoot is a paranormal interdimensional jumping entity, or as one person suggested further back in this thread, Patterson captured a "glitch in the matrix", then all the discussions about the film are mute.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
I think he did return at least once, but I can't find it right now. It's somewhere in the proceeding 10 pages.
Nor I. My memory, which like everybody else's is ALWAYS 100% reliable (^_^) is that he went back to cast footprints, more or less immediately after. If that is incorrect, I am more than happy to be corrected. But I was thinking in terms of "went back to capture more, corroborating, film, or something that would constitute PROOF." More footprint casts would be worth his having, genuine or faked, but the lack of "get the bloodhounds, get the camera, there's an honest to God Bigfoot right freakin' here let's find it!" response seems roughly as odd as never filming a suit again to get "corroborating" but fake footage.

Whether "Patty" was real or faked, Patterson seems not to have effectively maximized his potential cash-flow, to my eye.

Edited for a irritating typo.
 
Top