Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
- 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.

It appears you and @Duke are holding out on us. What is this podcast? I'm always looking for something to listen too out in the shop, especially Bigfoot stuff.
 

Duke

Active Member
It appears you and @Duke are holding out on us. What is this podcast? I'm always looking for something to listen too out in the shop, especially Bigfoot stuff.
*lol* I figured I'd get zapped again for some rules violation had I posted info on a podcast without bonafides. But since you asked....

The podcast is called "Astonishing Legends," it's two guys who do deep dives into paranormal and conspiracy stories. Not only is the level of their research impressive, but I think they are quite entertaining. They are also fairly objective, and don't go into any topic with an intent to prove/disprove any opinion or position.

They did a six part, 15+ hour series on the PGF, the last segment being an interview with Gimlin. The segments I found most interesting were those where they interviewed not only costume designers/manufacturers, but an actor who's worn monster/animal costumes in various motion pictures and TV shows.

Here is the link to the first show in the PGF series:

https://www.astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/2019/4/13/ep-139-the-patterson-gimlin-film-part-1
 
Last edited:

Ann K

Senior Member.
Perhaps it was not worth as much as we might assume?
I agree, absolutely. This was 1967, long before "reality TV" was invented, many years before Youtube and Twitter and Facebook. A story to tell to their bar-room buddies might have been their initial aim. A printed report in a pulp "fantastic stories"-type magazine would be the most likely outlet for most people to hear of it. A quick blurb on TV news and a vanity-press book would be a real step up for them. I imagine the attention they got would have been more than they expected.
 

Bob Jase

New Member
*lol* I figured I'd get zapped again for some rules violation had I posted info on a podcast without bonafides. But since you asked....

The podcast is called "Astonishing Legends," it's two guys who do deep dives into paranormal and conspiracy stories. Not only is the level of their research impressive, but I think they are quite entertaining. They are also fairly objective, and don't go into any topic with an intent to prove/disprove any opinion or position.

They did a six part, 15+ hour series on the PGF, the last segment being an interview with Gimlin. The segments I found most interesting were those where they interviewed not only costume designers/manufacturers, but an actor who's worn monster/animal costumes in various motion pictures and TV shows.

Here is the link to the first show in the PGF series:

https://www.astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/2019/4/13/ep-139-the-patterson-gimlin-film-part-1
Godfrey Daniels, I just spent three + hours listening to the podcasters there make excuses for how Mel's hole is real - fuggeddaboudit
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Godfrey Daniels, I just spent three + hours listening to the podcasters there make excuses for how Mel's hole is real - fuggeddaboudit

Sorry Bob, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, although AnnK seems to. I'm assuming Godfrey is a euphemism for God Damn but I'm not sure what "Mel's hole" is.

Remember, for many members here, English is not their native language and for many that it is, they're not Americans, so slang like "fuggeddaboutit" goes over their heads.

I think what you're saying is that you find the conclusions of the podcast presenters dubious, at least in regard to a different topic and so the listener may be wary listening to their ideas on the PG film. Yeah?

Looking forward to your other thoughts on the film.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but I'm not sure what "Mel's hole" is.
?
Article:
Mel's Hole is, according to an urban legend, a "bottomless pit" near Ellensburg, Washington. Claims about it were first made on the radio show Coast to Coast AM by a guest calling himself Mel Waters. Later investigation revealed no such person was listed as residing in that area, and no credible evidence has been given that the hole ever existed.[1][2]


i'm American and it took like 2 hours to get what fuggeddaboutit was (and i'm italian from the nyc area!).
i was stuck on "f'ed about it", and didnt know what that meant.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
i'm American and it took like 2 hours to get what fuggeddaboutit was (and i'm italian from the nyc area!).
@NorCal Dave I'm an American immigrant from Scotland with absolutely no Italian ancestry and have hardly ever been in NYC ... yet I had no trouble translating it! And if you don't understand "Mel's hole" and "fuggedaboutit ", that's ten seconds each with Google, open 24/7.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
@NorCal Dave I'm an American immigrant from Scotland with absolutely no Italian ancestry and have hardly ever been in NYC ... yet I had no trouble translating it! And if you don't understand "Mel's hole" and "fuggedaboutit ", that's ten seconds each with Google, open 24/7.

I'm well aware of what "fuggedaboutit" means and I am perfectly capable of Googling "Mel's Hole". My point is that NO ONE should have to Google American slang terms to try to understand someone's post. And no one should have to Google a reference (Mel's Hole) in someone's post to understand it.

"Mel's Hole" has not been discussed at all in the 10+ pages of this thread, and not on Metabunk at all as far as I can tell. Just throwing it out there is similar to violating the "no click policy". If, as I think @Bob Jase is trying to say, the podcasters in question draw some dubious conclusions about Mel's Hole and therefor whatever conclusions they draw in regard to the PG film are equally dubious, then fine. Just come out and say that. Don't use slang, euphemisms and references to other unknown cases, all of which require others to try and Google what he's talking about, to make that point.

Just tell us what you mean. I've only listened to about 10 minutes of the many hours of their PG film podcast and I'm already a bit suspicious, so I'm likely in agreement with Bob.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I'm well aware of what "fuggedaboutit" means and I am perfectly capable of Googling "Mel's Hole". My point is that NO ONE should have to Google American slang terms to try to understand someone's post. And no one should have to Google a reference (Mel's Hole) in someone's post to understand it.

"Mel's Hole" has not been discussed at all in the 10+ pages of this thread, and not on Metabunk at all as far as I can tell. Just throwing it out there is similar to violating the "no click policy". If, as I think @Bob Jase is trying to say, the podcasters in question draw some dubious conclusions about Mel's Hole and therefor whatever conclusions they draw in regard to the PG film are equally dubious, then fine. Just come out and say that. Don't use slang, euphemisms and references to other unknown cases, all of which require others to try and Google what he's talking about, to make that point.

Just tell us what you mean. I've only listened to about 10 minutes of the many hours of their PG film podcast and I'm already a bit suspicious, so I'm likely in agreement with Bob.
I tend to agree. Use of regional slang terms that have not been recently discussed are not appropriate for this forum.
 

Bob Jase

New Member
Cheerio, pip pip & a bit of all right (I assume English English is acceptable), I listened to that podcast's first couple of episodes on the PG film and it was four hours + of excuses for the discrepancies & contradictions in P & G's stories, conjecture on 'explanations' to account for those which (of course) made them all 'true', poisonous references to skeptics (hiss, boo, blasphemers!) and the defence of why everyone should trust a con-man, fraud & liar like Patterson. I knew about bigfoot before the PG film , I'm old, and as a kid thought it nifty but decades of looking at the story & evidence as well as the mounting paradolia about the images (I am shocked that no one has yet spotted Jesus on Patti's thigh) long ago convinced me its a hoax. Patterson, some will say, died too soon to mount a second pony ride(you can't ride thirty miles in only five years) but Gimlin, the mighty tracker, has had decades to track down the critter whose capture or killing would make him rich and he's done nothing more than sell autographs at bigfoiot conventions. Tally-ho, Bob's your uncle, who stole the donkey? (its English English!!!)
 

jamesrav

Member
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.
I think you mean 'moot'. Why so? if the film can be analyzed and shown via probability to almost certainly not be a hoax, then that raises questions (perhaps uncomfortable ones for materialists) doesn't it? A fairly recent post mentioned a "largely de-mystified world". That harkens back to the famed physicist Michelson (of Michelson-Morley) making a quote that did not age well, considering he said it before the theory of Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics.

"While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
if the film can be analyzed and shown via probability to almost certainly not be a hoax, then that raises questions (perhaps uncomfortable ones for materialists) doesn't it?
When and if it has been "shown ('via probability', whatever that means) to almost certainly not be a hoax", questions will certainly be raised, but I see no sign that's happened yet. If it's not a hoax, then there's a material animal out there that we have not yet been able to study, and thus there is no reason those questions would ever be "uncomfortable for materialists". Biologists would be excited and delighted about the possibility of another new species; many are found, every year, but are generally small ones that are not the stuff of legends. Surely you're not suggesting the supernatural, are you?
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I think you mean 'moot'. Why so? if the film can be analyzed and shown via probability to almost certainly not be a hoax, then that raises questions (perhaps uncomfortable ones for materialists) doesn't it?

Yes, moot.

I confess to not being very good with math, but I don't understand how "probability" can show the film to be "almost certainly not a hoax"? What I find improbable is:
  • On Patterson's first trip to Bluff Creek with a camera he captures a creature.
  • The creature looks a lot like drawings he had previously made.
  • The normally incredibly reclusive creature didn't run or hide, but merely strolled along in plane site.
  • Patterson managed to capture the creature in a fortuitus clearing that allowed it to be filmed from 80' away.
  • And along a recently deposited gravel bar that allowed for simultaneous collection of footprints.
  • Neither he, nor Gimlin ever made a concerted effort to return to the one place a Bigfoot was actually captured on film and try again.
There has never been any form of physical evidence for the existence of the creature produced, despite literally dozens of groups like the BFRO and others routinely combing the woods in the ensuing 50 years. Something you seem to agree with.
But I too don't think the filmed subject was part of a breeding population of bipedal creatures somehow living undiscovered in the US. Frankly preposterous to me, yet Meldrum and a few others hold out hope. Faced with a binary choice of hoax / real animal there is no good option there (for me) based on the evidence

I'd say that sounds like a hoax, but for you:
Once you bring in the possibility of the Universe being a simulation then something as farcical as a (fleeting, non-persistent) Bigfoot becomes possible.

I dont think they exist as a physical 'real' animal

If I understand your explanation right, Bigfoot is a bit of code slipped into the simulation by the master programmer at the perfect time for Patterson to capture it on film for whatever purpose. If so, why stop there? Not only is Bigfoot a bit of code, or a glitch, so is Patterson. And Gimlin. Neither of them exists as "physical real people".

And now that we're in a simulation, from my point of view, you don't exist. You're a bit of code I'm interacting with, assuming I'm actually sitting in my house in California typing on a computer. Maybe that's all a simulation too. The same is true about me from your point of view.

So, then what's the point. If I'm just a bit of simulated code that's telling you I think it's a hoax, it's meaningless.
 

Henkka

Banned
Banned
If things were popping in and out of our existence due to simulation theory being real, wouldn't we see constant examples of this occurring that are far more mundane than Bigfoot? Like coffee cups appearing on tables suddenly, or trees popping in and out of existence. Or how about new stars suddenly appearing in the sky? We should have such events recorded many, many times over. Now that doesn't mean simulation theory isn't true, but even if it is true, there's no reason to think things are popping into our simulation from other simulations.
 

jamesrav

Member
Yes, moot.

I confess to not being very good with math, but I don't understand how "probability" can show the film to be "almost certainly not a hoax"? What I find improbable is:
  • On Patterson's first trip to Bluff Creek with a camera he captures a creature.
  • The creature looks a lot like drawings he had previously made.
  • The normally incredibly reclusive creature didn't run or hide, but merely strolled along in plane site.
  • Patterson managed to capture the creature in a fortuitus clearing that allowed it to be filmed from 80' away.
  • And along a recently deposited gravel bar that allowed for simultaneous collection of footprints.
  • Neither he, nor Gimlin ever made a concerted effort to return to the one place a Bigfoot was actually captured on film and try again.
There has never been any form of physical evidence for the existence of the creature produced, despite literally dozens of groups like the BFRO and others routinely combing the woods in the ensuing 50 years. Something you seem to agree with.


I'd say that sounds like a hoax, but for you:




If I understand your explanation right, Bigfoot is a bit of code slipped into the simulation by the master programmer at the perfect time for Patterson to capture it on film for whatever purpose. If so, why stop there? Not only is Bigfoot a bit of code, or a glitch, so is Patterson. And Gimlin. Neither of them exists as "physical real people".

And now that we're in a simulation, from my point of view, you don't exist. You're a bit of code I'm interacting with, assuming I'm actually sitting in my house in California typing on a computer. Maybe that's all a simulation too. The same is true about me from your point of view.

So, then what's the point. If I'm just a bit of simulated code that's telling you I think it's a hoax, it's meaningless.
your final 3 paragraphs are very well stated, and there are several videos saying as much. I'm not going to 'appeal to authority', but they are well-reasoned videos and not just a guy with a camera, 5 minutes to spare who had an 'epiphany'.

But as we all know, not fruitful for discussion and debate. As for probability, it can certainly be used to strongly exclude the possibility of a real animal (I have), so why not for the probability of a non-hoax (or a hoax)? I believe it was you who posted long ago that bio-mechanics experts have concluded it was indeed 'possible' that a person could be taught to walk like the subject (the compliant gait, the 90 degree knee bend, among other difficulties). But is 'possible' the same thing as 'the solution'? Exaggerating a bit, but in the recent billion dollar lottery drawing, somebody finally won. Did everyone consequently think "it's possible I won, therefore I did"? Bob H. repeatedly said he spent almost no time practicing the walk (with Patterson), I won't rehash with sources unless requested. In the one successful 'trained' case I am aware of (involving Meldrum ; also a guy whose name begins with 'Sar', I think he is/was a curator at a Natural History Museum, along with a very stout athlete; might be in 'Legend Meets Science') it apparently took quite a while for the athlete to get the movement down right. So yes, it can be done by a mere human. But to then leap to the conclusion puts 'theoretically can be done' on the exact same probability level as 'how do 99.99% of people normally walk' (ie not with a compliant gait, not with a 90 degree knee bend, not with 51" paces). Given that Bob H. has variously said "and people say that's how I walk anyway" along with his statement that he was very briefly 'trained' by Patterson (two statements seemingly in conflict - its either his natural walk (as he states) or the result of training (as he states)), there's confusion for me as to what Bob H. is trying to claim about the walk.

Your 6 bullet points have a couple of interest: #3 mentions "strolling" - I think the subject's speed was calculated at well-above even what is considered fast human walking speed ; #6 mention not returning (and lets leave Gimlin out, since he was apparently a fairly reluctant assistant from the get-go, the passion for this was all Patterson). Did the hullabaloo of promoting (touring with) the film for the next xx months combined with an eventual cancer diagnosis prevent much further effort? Did he have his sights set on a really well-equipped exploration, and it never panned out? He said in a PG film interview he hoped to capture one in the next 5-10 years, so he apparently was thinking long-term. Unfortunately the cancer hit well before that. The other bullet points seem to be logical steps for Patterson to take: Bluff Creek had recent sightings ; an opening is easier to traverse than a dense forest ; subject looks like the Roe drawing, which Patterson had seen - makes sense Patty would look like that if Roe was indeed telling the truth. But as you state, maybe Roe never existed :)
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Your 6 bullet points have a couple of interest: #3 mentions "strolling" - I think the subject's speed was calculated at well-above even what is considered fast human walking speed

By strolling, I meant, despite its usual reclusiveness, this Bigfoot didn't seem to be in any real hurry despite the appearance of two guys and three horses. It just meandered off. As for any speed calculations, even with the unknown filming speed, it doesn't look like it's moving all that fast. If the calcs are based the stride length of the footprints, then that could be irrelevant if the prints are made after the person in the costume has already been filmed.

I guess we differ on what is compelling evidence of it NOT being a hoax. You still seem to find the walk and Hieronimus's story major indications that it's not hoaxed. Even though you have admitted that Hieronimus kinda walks like the creature, let's just say he's lying. Even so, Krantz and others have been able to replicate the walk. If they could, the person in the costume could.

If my choice is:

  1. Patterson managed to get the only film of a bipedal hominid that there has never been any physical evidence for.
  2. It's a lucky hoax.
  3. Some over arching demi-God/master-programmer thought it would be fun to throw a Bigfoot into the simulation we all live in for whatever reason.
At this point, I'm going hoax.
 

jamesrav

Member
By strolling, I meant, despite its usual reclusiveness, this Bigfoot didn't seem to be in any real hurry despite the appearance of two guys and three horses. It just meandered off. As for any speed calculations, even with the unknown filming speed, it doesn't look like it's moving all that fast. If the calcs are based the stride length of the footprints, then that could be irrelevant if the prints are made after the person in the costume has already been filmed.

I guess we differ on what is compelling evidence of it NOT being a hoax. You still seem to find the walk and Hieronimus's story major indications that it's not hoaxed. Even though you have admitted that Hieronimus kinda walks like the creature, let's just say he's lying. Even so, Krantz and others have been able to replicate the walk. If they could, the person in the costume could.

If my choice is:

  1. Patterson managed to get the only film of a bipedal hominid that there has never been any physical evidence for.
  2. It's a lucky hoax.
  3. Some over arching demi-God/master-programmer thought it would be fun to throw a Bigfoot into the simulation we all live in for whatever reason.
At this point, I'm going hoax.
I just think Bob H.'s two statements regarding 'the walk' are totally contradictory, and that's something that easily occurs when you are lying. He says Roger told him / taught him to walk "kinda like a gorilla" (whatever that means, its non-sensical to begin with) and then in a later interview said "everyone knows it's me, everyone says I walk like that anyway". So was he taught (ie he had to 'act' or learn something , 'justifying' the supposed massive payment of $1000 in 1967 for 10 mins of work) or was he just 'a natural' at it and walked that way? He says it's both, it cannot be both. When you tell the truth you merely have to recollect ; OTOH lying requires an invention of a supposed truth, and since a liar has no firm foundation for something (since it didnt happen as stated), varying stories naturally arise. Certainly a big tip-off of a criminal is an interrogation that results in varying stories. And I will back-track on my statement that he walks similar to Patty. From a profile view, wearing stiff cowboy boots (which he was in the video I saw) there's a 'resemblance' in some respects (perhaps caused by wearing stiff boots ?). But once I saw the Patty trackway, and realized the strides are nearly tight-rope (one foot almost directly in front of the other), it was clear a strange hip action is occurring to cause that, and that unnatural action is plain to see when the athlete tries (and succeeds apparently) in re-creating it. Bob H's. re-creation in street clothes does not show a trackway, so there's no way to know if his rather short, 'choppy' stride is tight-rope in nature, but it doesnt appear to be. So he hoaxed me :). The three options are as you state them, by "lucky hoax" I assume you mean the stars aligned and he inadvertently created the perfect hoax. Probability low, but I agree not 0.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But once I saw the Patty trackway, and realized the strides are nearly tight-rope (one foot almost directly in front of the other),
that's impossible. i'd like to see this alleged trackway. bipedal animas dont walk tight rope style. even cowboys (who likely have a different gait then athletes) i highly doubt walk tightrope style. so if the tracks are in a line, that would indicate "acting" vs a normal creature gait.
 

jamesrav

Member
that's impossible. i'd like to see this alleged trackway. bipedal animas dont walk tight rope style. even cowboys (who likely have a different gait then athletes) i highly doubt walk tightrope style. so if the tracks are in a line, that would indicate "acting" vs a normal creature gait.
there is a single brief shot taken from behind of the trackway, consisting of several steps, I will try to locate it. Here is a still from the program where Napier interviews Sanderson, and they show the PG film and the plaster casts being made. The top is the heel of a filled in print (the white is the plaster), the bottom is the preceding print. Almost tight-rope ; I used the term although it's not exactly like the Wallenda's doing their stunts. A tight-rope stride is certainly very efficient when taking long strides, try it. If you have a tile floor, first try walking with feet separated the width of a tile. Keep right foot on the right edge of the tile, left foot on the left edge. Try taking long strides - its difficult. Now try starting with feet a few inches apart, and then stride keeping each foot near the line. Its easy and allows for long strides, which is what Patty was doing in an attempt to get out of there quickly (without running).
 

Attachments

  • trackvert.jpg
    trackvert.jpg
    77.2 KB · Views: 9

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
A tight-rope stride is certainly very efficient when taking long strides, try it. If you have a tile floor, first try walking with feet separated the width of a tile. Keep right foot on the right edge of the tile, left foot on the left edge. Try taking long strides - its difficult. Now try starting with feet a few inches apart, and then stride keeping each foot near the line. Its easy and allows for long strides, which is what Patty was doing in an attempt to get out of there quickly (without running).

Just no. Walking heel to toe as if on a tight rope is NOT more efficient. I spend years walking plate, that is walking on top of walls 8'-20' in the air. The walls were 2x4 and 2x6 construction, which means 3 1/2" or 5 1/2" wide. One had to walk heel to toe and far slower than a regular walk on flat ground.

In a normal and even fast walking stride the right foot lands roughly in front of where the right foot last was. Same for the left foot. The feet land to either side of an imaginary tightrope on the ground. One does not try to land with both feet in an exact line as if on a tight rope.

We discussed at length in previous posts that the size and depth of the footprints as compared to Chico the horses hoofprints means the creature was well in excess of 1500# if not much more. Combine that with the inefficient tightrope style walking you claim the tracts reveal and it seems likely the tracts were hoaxed AFTER the filming and are not the result of whoever or whatever is on the film.

Again, were down to the walk and an almost vitriolic revulsion towards Bob H. that you see as a lying, scamming worthless POS. I don't get it. By all accounts Bob Hieronimus seems to come off in the Yakima community far better than Patterson. Greg Long definitely had a mean spirited and derogatory take on Patterson, something that I think poisons a lot of his work, BUT he did find a lot of evidence of Patterson being a bit of hustler with a many unpaid bills, loans and collections. Even Gimlin had to sue his estate. Patterson and his brother-in-law stiffed Gimlin!

Even so, claiming that because Hieronimus is lying scammer, is not good evidence that the film is of a real Bigfoot. All the criteria for it being a hoax were around long before the early '00s when Hieronimus became publicly known.

And again, this is all irrelevant. In your world, Hieronimus could just be a bit of malicious code slipped in the sim to give you someone to fixate your wrath on. A non-real entity just for your consternation and, I guess, the master programmer's amusement.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
if the tracks are in a line, that would indicate "acting" vs a normal creature gait.
Or perhaps it merely indicates faked footprints. If we don't even know if they're real tracks (and I have my suspicions) any discussion of its supposed gait is merely speculation.
 

jamesrav

Member
In a normal and even fast walking stride the right foot lands roughly in front of where the right foot last was. Same for the left foot. The feet land to either side of an imaginary tightrope on the ground. One does not try to land with both feet in an exact line as if on a tight rope.
watch some Olympic race walking, the best guys walk virtually tight-rope straight. In fact some guys cross over the line slightly. And I explicitly said Patty was not walking an exact tight-rope, that it was merely close to being straight ahead. Considering the apparently massive width, for the prints to be 'practically' one in front of the other is even more compelling, since it indicates a hip movement to allow that to happen. Watch some 'girthy' people walk, and they certainly dont do that, they mosey along with short steps, left foot to the left, right foot to the right. You should loop the Mr. Luci YT video of Patty at .25 speed and appreciate the naturalness and smoothness of the walk, with the realization that it's walking a near tight-rope at high speed with enormous strides. That Bob H. was certainly very talented.
We discussed at length in previous posts that the size and depth of the footprints as compared to Chico the horses hoofprints means the creature was well in excess of 1500# if not much more.
Packham in the BBC documentary said the prints indicated a weight of 600 pounds. How would you know a 600 pound person could not have made prints to that depth with those exact soil wetness conditions? It was not tried (for obvious reasons) and that's the only way to know for sure. And I'd be remiss in not mentioning that the NASI analysis (very controversial) that used a height of 7'3" did come up with a weight of 1957 pounds (available here: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/nasi.htm) But admittedly , garbage in, garbage out if the height is way off.

Combine that with the inefficient tightrope style walking you claim the tracts reveal and it seems likely the tracts were hoaxed AFTER the filming and are not the result of whoever or whatever is on the film.

I would again bring up my Probability argument, it just seems to me that a distinct filming | print making separated by days (some say weeks) is so low as to be zero. What is the advantage for that again, I forget? I've seen too many 48 Hours murder shows where smart people (doctors even) do the dumbest things in a planned-out murder, in the desire to get it all done now. It's an acknowledged cause of several airplane crashes (pilot error), the desire to 'get home' even when it would be far wiser (albeit throw off the schedule) to employ an alternate plan. Yet you're implying that Patterson 'stuck to the plan', which required filming to occur one day and prints to be made days or weeks later. He's now Stanley Kubrick combined with Leonard da Vinci.
Again, were down to the walk and an almost vitriolic revulsion towards Bob H. that you see as a lying, scamming worthless POS. I don't get it. By all accounts Bob Hieronimus seems to come off in the Yakima community far better than Patterson.

He's the pillar of the hoax crowd, so if he's lying it all comes tumbling down. And I think I've posted here that I do think there was a suit involved, and Bob H. may well have tried it on. I cant believe (again, Probability) that he's making up a story out of thin air just to denigrate Patterson and Gimlin. Makes no sense, what's the motive? There would have to be a strong motive to do so. That Patterson made a good deal of money, and Gimlin became a 'revered' figure, and poor ol' Bob H. was forgotten perhaps rubbed him the wrong way (and if there was a suit and he did try it on and walked around at Patterson's request, and was promised a small amount of money that never materialized, that's the type of thing that festers over time)
 

Duke

Active Member
I don't want to get into others' discussions, especially regarding a topic in which I have near zero interest. As an engineer and accomplished prankster, however, I find myself wondering primarily about the "how" of such stories. In this case, I don't believe for a minute in Bigfeetz or that P-G shot film of one, but I do want to know how it was done.

Everyone seems to agree something or someone was filmed by P-G. It's apparently not animation, some form of trick photography, or animatronics, and obviously predates CGI. So someone in a costume makes the most sense. And yes I know about the claims of Morris Costumes and Bob H. To me this all comes down to could someone have made that suit with the technology available in the mid 1960s? Some "experts" say yes, others say no. Reminds me the "experts" who claimed at the time the 1990s "Alien Autopsy" film/corpse couldn't have been faked.

I see this story as having lots of evidence, but no proof either way. The only way to prove this is how it was done is to exhibit the suit, or at least circumstantial prove it existed by presenting validated photos/documention of the suit circa mid 1960s. I doubt either will happen, but if there are those who want to believe it's a Bigfeetz, more power to them.
 

jamesrav

Member
the possibility of a fake suit is of course the primary topic in all discussions about the PG film, so it's generated an enormous amount of articles, videos. The key point is we are talking 1967, and fake suits , even in TV shows with a decent budget like Star Trek, were laughably bad. Bunching of material, no attempt at musculature, etc. And along comes the PG film, which really could not be properly analyzed until it was stabilized and filtered (not manipulated, just using methods to bring out detail). That really did not happen till the 90's. At that point each side put out their 'evidence' and that's where it stands. The hoax crowd could not find a zipper(s), seams, bunching of material around the neck or shoulders (where it would be expected). Could it be done now? Certainly, and I think it has. There's a very compelling video that shows a great deal of musculature, a form fitting suit, almost a Patty clone (however the backstory screams 'hoax' since it was anonymously sent to a YT channel that puts out a lot of Bigfoot hoaxes). But it's 50 years post-PG, so why should it be surprising? Things improve over time. When watching the BBC documentary from 1998 and hearing a Special Effects guy say he could re-create that now, you have to wonder why the questioner didn't ask, "and how about 31 years ago?", because that's all that matters. In brief, the top Hollywood costume guy at the time was John Chambers, and while in a nursing home shortly before he died told a Bigfoot researcher he had nothing to do with it. If he did, you'd think that'd be the time for some final glory. By all accounts, Patterson had little money, and if he did buy a suit for nefarious purposes (that never got used) it probably was the off-the-shelf Morris gorilla suit. All the claims that it was then 'modified' to include: arm extensions, a football helmet, custom booties, have nothing to back them. The suit was never found and Bob H. never took a souvenir (or even a photo) when he had the chance. It's just a case of (for the hoax proponents) "you have to believe us, there was a suit".
 

captancourgette

Active Member
The key point is we are talking 1967, and fake suits , even in TV shows with a decent budget like Star Trek, were laughably bad.
Did you not see my post from earlier, its men in ape suits in the 30s,40s and they look much better than those
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/patterson-gimlin-bigfoot-film-is-a-hoax.12254/page-9#post-286228
The thing is the PG film is of such low quality (unlike the photos in my post) that there could be a wacking great zipper running up bigfoots back in the PG film but because of the lowquality PG film its lost in the low quality.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Or perhaps it merely indicates faked footprints
obviously. his pic sucks anyway, we cant see anything. and i hardly think Patterson was so low iq as to put the prints in a straight line anyway! That theory probably comes from (alleged) yeti tracks in snow, which are more likely a rabbit hopping along. (yea, ive seen a bigfoot documentary or 60 :) )
1674054910732.png
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
there could be a wacking great zipper running up bigfoots back in the PG film but because of the lowquality PG film its lost in the low quality.
Even beyond that, the film (at least in the copies I have seen) is sufficiently poor and fuzzy to allow for any amount of pareidolia if your mind is seeking evidence to back up what it wants to believe. I, and others, have noted what appears to be a bad case of saggy-baggy-pants in the buttocks area -- but not everybody agrees and it is certainly possible I am seeing detail there that exist more in my mind than on the screen as I watch the video copy of the film.

Similarly, many folks have told me that they see muscles moving realistically under the fur. I have looked as hard as I can, I don't see anything like that. Whether those who see the muscles working or those who don't are in error is not my point. I'd suggest that strictly speaking, seeing the presence OR the absence of such details in these low-quality copies of the film may not be possible.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Just for comparison, a video of a bear walking on two and four legs, for help in judging how much muscle movement might be visible under hair that is maybe similar to Patty's in better quality imagery. I'm not seeing the muscles working much, but the shaking back and forth of the muscle mass from the impact shock when the foot hits the ground is pretty noticeable.

Source: https://youtu.be/UdRTLsGjKwo


Amusingly, among the comments are folks claiming it looks like a man in a suit, and at least one rebuttal citing the muscles moving under the skin.
 

RTM

Member
Even beyond that, the film (at least in the copies I have seen) is sufficiently poor and fuzzy to allow for any amount of pareidolia if your mind is seeking evidence to back up what it wants to believe. I, and others, have noted what appears to be a bad case of saggy-baggy-pants in the buttocks area -- but not everybody agrees and it is certainly possible I am seeing detail there that exist more in my mind than on the screen as I watch the video copy of the film.

Similarly, many folks have told me that they see muscles moving realistically under the fur. I have looked as hard as I can, I don't see anything like that. Whether those who see the muscles working or those who don't are in error is not my point. I'd suggest that strictly speaking, seeing the presence OR the absence of such details in these low-quality copies of the film may not be possible.
Sorry if it has been addressed earlier, but I remember seeing a tv show where they claim the Bigfoot is female because her breasts undulate. Is this agreed upon within BFology?
 

jamesrav

Member
Did you not see my post from earlier, its men in ape suits in the 30s,40s and they look much better than those
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/patterson-gimlin-bigfoot-film-is-a-hoax.12254/page-9#post-286228
The thing is the PG film is of such low quality (unlike the photos in my post) that there could be a wacking great zipper running up bigfoots back in the PG film but because of the lowquality PG film its lost in the low quality.
stationary pics dont reveal much, it is movement when a suit becomes apparent. I posted a pic of Bob H. (re-posted recently by Norcal Dave) when he's trying (and failing badly) to recreate the suit and walk, and there's a huge bunching of material near the neck or shoulder (I circled it). That's the result of movement. Entire articles have been written about ape costumes and how they compare to the PG film. As I recall the key differences are hair length (suits generally employ long hair in an effort to 'hide' problems) , lack of musculature as compared to what is depicted in PG, and the neck/head attachment problem.

People see different things when it comes to the thigh: its either proof of muscle movement (and therefore not a suit) or bunching of material. I see muscle movement. As far as "such low quality", that's a personal opinion. It was the best film and camera of its day, great grain resolution according to the experts. Once stabilized and filtered, its quite good in my opinion. Watching the original and concluding 'poor quality' is not a fair assessment. I've seen a myriad of versions, this is my favorite. Loop it at .25x speed and watch for a few minutes.

Source: https://youtu.be/oPlRr_OfxZI
 

jamesrav

Member
Sorry if it has been addressed earlier, but I remember seeing a tv show where they claim the Bigfoot is female because her breasts undulate. Is this agreed upon within BFology?
the breast issue is practically a topic in itself. There are breasts, there is no disagreement on that. Video analysis by MK Davis shows breast movement. Therefore female, or an extreme case of gynecomastia (I dont think that's been offered up as a solution). So it's a female with a male walk, and the least female-looking face of any great ape I've seen. A definite conundrum.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
watch some Olympic race walking, the best guys walk virtually tight-rope straight. In fact some guys cross over the line slightly.

Completely meaningless. Racewalking is a contrived limited on the normal human gait. It prescribes silly rules about how a person can walk, and then tries to see who can do it the fastest. It's like having a gunnysack race. Is hopping in a sack an efficient way to travel? Not at all. Can someone figure out how to be faster than the other guy hopping in a sack? Sure.

There are only two rules that govern racewalking.[6][7] The first dictates that the athlete's back toe cannot leave the ground until the heel of the front foot has touched. Violation of this rule is known as loss of contact. The second rule requires that the supporting leg must straighten from the point of contact with the ground and remain straightened until the body passes directly over it. These rules are judged by the unaided human eye.

Speed is achieved by stepping quickly with the aim of rapid turnover. This minimizes the risk of the feet leaving the ground. Strides are short and quick, with pushoff coming forward from the ball of the foot, again to minimize the risk of losing contact with the ground. World-class racewalkers (male and female) can average under four and five minutes per kilometre in a 20-km racewalk.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racewalking#Rules

If racewalking was in any way efficient, runners and ultra-marathoners would be using the technique. They don't because it isn't. The world record for 50km racewalking is almost an hour longer than for 50km running:

See also: World record progression 50km walk men
MarkAthleteNationalityVenueDateRef
3:32:33Yohann Diniz FranceZurich15 August 2014

Men[edit]​

EventRecordAthleteDatePlace
50 km2:42:07 Ketema Bekele Negasa (ETH)23 May 2021 South Africa Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racewalking#Rules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramarathon

And I explicitly said Patty was not walking an exact tight-rope, that it was merely close to being straight ahead

Which is how people walk. Even people in a suit.

Packham in the BBC documentary said the prints indicated a weight of 600 pounds. How would you know a 600 pound person could not have made prints to that depth with those exact soil wetness conditions? It was not tried (for obvious reasons) and that's the only way to know for sure.

We discussed this in post #283 using YOUR transcript of Gimlin's story about the creature's tracks being deeper than his horse:

IF Gimlin's recollections are correct as recorded:

So then I got on this big horse [Chico], and it weighed 1,200 lbs. With four feet distributing its weight, its tracks didn't go as deep as the tracks of the creature.

Chico is 1,200 # on four feet, that makes 300# per foot right? Not exactly:

The forelimb is complex in the horse, with the head and neck being a crane-like structure that causes 60% of a horse’s body weight distribution to the forelimbs. Therefore, impact is greatest on the front legs (except when pushing off from behind).
Content from External Source
https://thehorse.com/123412/comparing-humans-and-horses/

So more like 720# for the front feet and 480# for the rear, plus 150# or so for Gimlin spread out. Now if Chico walked over to the tracks, at some point he's putting 1/2 his, and Gimlin's weight onto 1 of his front and 1 of his rear feet, the other 2 are moving. So, 720#+ and 480# + on front and rear foot respectively, correct? Or something close?

And Chico's foot (hoof) which is smaller than Bigfoot's foot does not sink into the sand/gravel as much as Bigfoot's does. And yet, he has a much bigger foot to displace the weight than does Chico.

There is a calculation for the Foot Surface Area for human feet from this abstract:

The results show that foot-length and ball-girth are effective estimators of FSA for the total (FSA=1.043 x foot-length x ball-girth, R(2)=95.4%). A test on the necessity of gender-specific formula indicated that no gender-specific formula is needed, and the formula for the total is good for both genders.
Content from External Source
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18937935/

More importantly this is what an average human footprint looks like:

1659370881207.png

We have an arch, so there is a section of our foot that does not support our weight directly, unlike Bigfoot. As our Soviet Bio-mech expert, as well as Krantz noted:


Lack of an arch may be caused by the great weight of the creature. **

**The above emphasis was Rene Dahinden's...compare this statement with the findings of anthropologists Grover Krantz and of the two Russians, Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev in Chapter 9 of Dahinden's book, "Sasquatch" in the 1993 revised edition. Each of these three sources arrived at the same conclusion totally independent of the others.
Content from External Source
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/donskoy1.htm


So, it has huge feet with no arch, meaning the weight can be further spread out, yet it still makes tracks much deeper than a 1200# horse with smaller feet (hooves), according to Gimlin.

Think of it this way, if Chico's 2 front hooves, which are supporting 720# make a track or impression, in the sandy gravel that is say, 1" deep, what happens if Chico then puts his hooves on the Bigfoot sized cutouts (stompers) and spreads the 720# over a much larger area in the same sandy gravel? Does it go even deeper? Quite the opposite, correct? It's the same effect as using snowshoes to spread one's wight out and not sink.

If I'm wrong, and I'm not that good at math so let me know, but it seems we are getting way beyond 500-700# for the creature, giving the size of the foot and the supposed, and almost necessitated, depth of the prints. We're getting into the 1000# range if not more, yet it's still only 6'-6' 6" tall. That just doesn't add up.

Now if they were faked and Patterson didn't think it through and just figured, correctly, that if people saw deep prints, they would assume it was a heavy creature, not realizing it might be way heavier than he thought.
Content from External Source
post #283

I would again bring up my Probability argument, it just seems to me that a distinct filming | print making separated by days (some say weeks) is so low as to be zero.

Argument from incredulity. What probability?

What is the advantage for that again, I forget?

It's a pre-digital age. No one knows what's been captured on film until it has been developed. If orchestrating a hoax that involves filming a supposed creature, one may want to be certain that there is something worthwhile on the film, before claiming to have filmed it.

The argument would be that, once certain that there is in fact some useful footage, one would then fake going out and capturing that footage while actually making the footprints. This also helps to explain how the footage of an encounter that happened up in the woods on a Friday afternoon in Bluff Creek CA made it 500 miles to Yakima WA via Seattle, where it had to be developed so it could be viewed Sunday afternoon.

I've seen too many 48 Hours murder shows where smart people (doctors even) do the dumbest things in a planned-out murder, in the desire to get it all done now.

Scripted TV shows? Completely irrelevant.

Yet you're implying that Patterson 'stuck to the plan', which required filming to occur one day and prints to be made days or weeks later. He's now Stanley Kubrick combined with Leonard da Vinci.

Hardly Kubick, merely pragmatic. Again, make sure you have some useful footage, before claiming to have useful footage.

Once there is useful footage, Patterson could then go spend Friday afternoon making the footprints and casting them and whatnot, then tell his story about how the encounter happened and how they tracked it and then went back and forth to camp and then hauled ass down the mountain and tried to get tracker dogs. Then he had to speed off to Eurika so the precious film could be delivered via a mysterious airplane to his brother-in-law who forgot where he had the film developed on a Saturday so it could be viewed on Sunday.

He's the pillar of the hoax crowd, so if he's lying it all comes tumbling down.

Again, hardly the case. Hieronimus's name doesn't become very public until Longs book was published in '04, over 30 years later. It's not like everyone thought the film totally authentic up to that point and then changed their mind after the book came out. In post #314 I referenced an article from 1999, showing among other things the gait was easy enough to replicate:

https://skepticalinquirer.org/1999/05/bigfoots-screen-test/

In other words, it's claiming the film is a hoax, with no mention of Hieronimus. That he might be the guy in the costume didn't change the minds of Meldrum or others, or you. He's largely a footnote. The guy that might have been in the costume.
And I think I've posted here that I do think there was a suit involved, and Bob H. may well have tried it on.

And here is where I get really confused. Going back over the 10+ pages of this thread I think I can accurately sum up your positions as:
  1. You DO NOT think there is any real physical bi-pedaled relic hominid roaming around North America.
  2. You agree that there is NO physical evidence for such a creature at all.
  3. You think it likely that Patterson was trying or attempting to create some sort of Bigfoot film, possibly with the help of Gimlin and Hieronimus.
  4. You think it likely that Patterson had some sort of costume and it's possible that Hieronimus tried the costume on and walked around in it.
From that you DO NOT conclude that Patterson rented a camera went to Bluff Creek and then used the costume with Hieronimus to create a hoax of a non-existent creature.

Rather, you conclude that Patterson rented a camera went to Bluff Creek WITHOUT the suit or Hieronimus and managed to film a non-physical "glitch in the simulation" entity that happened to resemble the idea of the non-existent creature he was after.

I'll agree to disagree.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
That theory probably comes from (alleged) yeti tracks in snow, which are more likely a rabbit hopping along.
I saw these the day before yesterday in my front lawn, where something as small as a squirrel track melts into big holes in the snow as the temperature rises. I even commented to a friend "See my Yeti tracks?"
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Amusingly, among the comments are folks claiming it looks like a man in a suit, and at least one rebuttal citing the muscles moving under the skin.
Speculation: I think a suit padded with sheets of foam rubber might also demonstrate ripples reminiscent of muscles.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Speculation: I think a suit padded with sheets of foam rubber might also demonstrate ripples reminiscent of muscles.
Especially if you add a little appropriate mass to it, as might be by stepping in a creek or something.

Just a thought.
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
watch some Olympic race walking, the best guys walk virtually tight-rope straight
I have known race walkers that operate at an Olympic level and seen them race walk often. Having seen it in person regularly, race walking is NOT efficient. It is highly controlled and unnatural, bordering on goofy. The whole point is form, not efficiency. It cannot be done with an easy, efficient gate. Every muscle in the body looks tense. If you're comparing the Patty walk to a race walk, there is no similarity. They might as well be examples of opposites.

The hoax crowd could not find a zipper(s), seams, bunching of material around the neck or shoulders (where it would be expected).
A classic trick among costume seamstresses is sewing the actor into the suit. As in, no zippers. You sew them in, shoot, then cut the stitches open to release the actor. This is commonly used when the outfit needs to be extremely form fitting, or the zipper will ruin the look. If you paid me money to sew a monkey suit and said "make it convincing," that's the first thing I'd do.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Even without sewing it shut, a decent store bought or rented costume will have something to conceal the zipper, like a flap with velcro or clasps or even a zipper on the inside that the wearer has to contort themselves to close.

The video is absolute potato quality, and even the best upscaling or enhancement doesn't bring out details that weren't captured, they create details to fill in what wasn't captured.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
even the best upscaling or enhancement doesn't bring out details that weren't captured, they create details to fill in what wasn't captured.

Yes, and it seems no amount of explaining this gets through. Scanning a 4k image with an 8k scanner doesn't create a new image with 8k resolution. It is still limited to 4k resolution of the original image.

Likewise, if one were to do a 4k color scan of an old film like Citizen Kane, one does not end up with a 4k color version of the film. The original film could not capture color or 4k resolution.

According to Munns and Meldrum, 2 guys who think the film is real and that there are man-apes running around North America, the resolution of the original film is great for it's time but still limited (bold by me):

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

Somewhere between 0.5 and 1" would hide a seam or zipper in the ORIGINAL footage. No amount of 4k or 8k scanning can create what was never captured.
 

jamesrav

Member
If racewalking was in any way efficient, runners and ultra-marathoners would be using the technique. They don't because it isn't. The world record for 50km racewalking is almost an hour longer than for 50km running:

my main point was that the trackway is somewhat tight-rope ; if an imaginary line was put between the right and left prints it appears the right print would be just to the right of the line and the left to the left. Not a big separation, which is amazing given the apparent dimensions of Patty. Packham in the BBC documentary (fervent believer in hoax for those not familiar) showed the overlay, and concluded a 'few inches taller' than McClarin, placing Patty at a minimum of 6'7". It's readily apparent that Patty is slightly hunched over and taking a large stride in the overlay comparison. So this is somewhat reminiscent of Groucho Marx's walk (which Groucho apparently did not invent). In this photo, are we to conclude the person's height is representative of his correct height? Obviously not. It takes little imagination to see him 'ramrod straight' and he'd be substantially taller.

groucho walk.jpg
That's why many feel Patty (if she could achieve an 'Armed Forces' ramrod straight posture) could be as much as 8% taller (apparently the standard correction percentage for a stooped-over stride height compared to legs-together true height - I saw it recently and will check my chrome History) than indicated, which results in a height of over 7'. And that leads to the problem of who is in the suit that is 7' tall, and how easily could a person that height and perhaps 600-700 pounds (again Packham, who said the creature was at least 4x McClarin's weight to make the prints to that depth) , who stands 6'5" and admittedly quite thin still must have weighed 160-180 pounds.

There aren't many similarly sized humans, but Andre The Giant nearly fits the bill at 6'11" and a top weight (shown in this photo) of over 500 pounds due to heavy drinking at the time (as a somewhat inane aside, you'd be amazed how many posts, rebuttals, re-rebuttals there are as to whether he was actually 7' tall or 'merely' 6'11" on a site devoted to celebrity heights). So Patty is comparable to this, and a weight of 600-700 pounds would mean she's closer to the NASI calculated height of 7'3" than Packham's lower-bound of 6'7". As a comparison, the wrestler John Minton ('Big John Studd') was probably 6'7", massively built, and weighed 360 pounds. But certainly not massive enough to have made the prints.

André_the_Giant_in_the_late_'80s.jpg

So my question would be: can anyone imagine Andre The Giant effortlessly and smoothly walking a near tight-rope? The hip width alone would seem to render it impossible, unless he employed the technique taught to the athlete in my previous post, in a concerted attempt to mimic the gait of Patty.

We discussed this in post #283 using YOUR transcript of Gimlin's story about the creature's tracks being deeper than his horse:

I am not sure how trying to equate a horse to a person and trying to justify a weight to make the prints is possible. It would seem to be an apples to oranges comparison. Packham says 4x the weight of McClarin, which would be 600-700 pounds. Out of human range by quite a bit.

If I'm wrong, and I'm not that good at math so let me know, but it seems we are getting way beyond 500-700# for the creature, giving the size of the foot and the supposed, and almost necessitated, depth of the prints. We're getting into the 1000# range if not more, yet it's still only 6'-6' 6" tall. That just doesn't add up.

so your hypothesis then is what, that Patterson invented a prodigiously heavy 'Bigfoot footprint making machine' and somehow transported it to the site (those poor mules!)
It's a pre-digital age. No one knows what's been captured on film until it has been developed. If orchestrating a hoax that involves filming a supposed creature, one may want to be certain that there is something worthwhile on the film, before claiming to have filmed it.
Patterson (humbly) says he wasn't sure what he had, but obviously there is a very stable portion and he had it in the view-finder for that portion, so he knew he had something.

And here is where I get really confused. Going back over the 10+ pages of this thread I think I can accurately sum up your positions as:
  1. You DO NOT think there is any real physical bi-pedaled relic hominid roaming around North America.
  2. You agree that there is NO physical evidence for such a creature at all.
  3. You think it likely that Patterson was trying or attempting to create some sort of Bigfoot film, possibly with the help of Gimlin and Hieronimus.
  4. You think it likely that Patterson had some sort of costume and it's possible that Hieronimus tried the costume on and walked around in it.

close, but #3 is not accurate. I think Patterson was not going to come away empty-handed after all the effort and expense. It was a back-up plan in case nothing 'real' was filmed. As luck would have it, he got the real deal and Bob H.'s acting talents were not needed. In light of my admittedly unconventional explanation, this does not seem bizarre to me. It's almost to be expected given what John Mack had to say in 2003, just before being killed in a traffic accident (and contemporaneous with Bostrom proposing the Simulation Theory. No way to know if he was aware of it, probably not, but I'd imagine he'd have been intrigued , given what his quote).

“It is as if the agent or intelligence here at work is parodying, daubing, hoaxing;
(and tricking investigators, providing them with just enough physical evidence to
convince those willing to believe in the reality of the phenomenon, but not enough
to persuade the skeptics)”
 
Top