Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax?

[yoshy]

The doc folks also released the first ever 4k scan of the PG film on YouTube:


Edit: some of the YouTube comments point out the clear lack of muscle movement that has been claimed for so long. Totally agree

 

[yoshy]

While I can't guarantee The Bigfoot Society is the authoritative scientific body for Bigfoot, it does have 317k followers and 6k members. They released a statement:

OFFICIAL BIGFOOT SOCIETY STATEMENT

After watching Capturing Bigfoot and considering the evidence presented, my official position is that the 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film from Bluff Creek was a hoax.

I believe that one million percent, and I'll gladly say it publicly.

Holy mackerel. What a time to be involved in the Bigfoot community.

I also believe that Bob Hieronimus and Greg Long deserve apologies from those who have unfairly ridiculed, attacked, or mistreated them over the years.

I understand why people are emotional right now. Some have spent decades studying, defending, and building friendships around this film. That's a tremendous amount of personal investment, and I respect the emotions involved.

I encourage everyone to watch the documentary, examine the evidence, and come to their own conclusions.

As for Bigfoot Society, I'm ready to move forward.

The number one mission of Bigfoot Society has always been giving witnesses a safe environment to share their experiences and get something off their chest that they may have been carrying for decades.

I've interviewed over 1,000 witnesses. Many have never shared their experiences publicly. Some have spent 30, 40, or even 50 years wondering what they saw, afraid of ridicule, or simply wishing they had someone willing to listen.

Those people deserve to be heard.

They deserve respect, compassion, and a place where they can tell their stories without fear of being mocked or judged.

That is why I do this.

I believe there are people having extraordinary experiences in the wilderness that deserve serious attention. I want to continue documenting those accounts, investigating the areas where these encounters occur, and working toward answers, discovery, and ultimately conservation.

My belief in the importance of those witnesses remains as strong as ever.

I know there will be disagreements about this documentary and the future of the Patterson–Gimlin film. That's okay. Everyone has the right to examine the evidence and reach their own conclusions.

As for me, I'm ready for the next chapter.

There are witnesses waiting to share their stories. There are experiences that need to be preserved. There are places that deserve investigation.

That's where my time and energy belong.

The mission of Bigfoot Society continues.

It's time to MOVE FORWARD.

— Bigfoot Society

 

[John J.]

Bigfoot Society
15 hours ago
OFFICIAL BIGFOOT SOCIETY STATEMENT

After watching Capturing Bigfoot and considering the evidence presented, my official position is that the 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film from Bluff Creek was a hoax.

Whoever the Bigfoot Society is/ are, and whatever their ongoing views about Bigfoot, I'm quite impressed they've made this statement.
It might have been hard for them, and they probably know it will make some supporters unhappy.

Drawing conclusions that are different to what might be wanted or expected in light of new evidence can be tough, but it's an important step in understanding the facts about a subject.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Spill the tea! (That's how the young folks say "please provide the details" lol)

My main takeaways (going from memory).

The personal/anecdotal stuff:

- Clint Patterson (Roger's son) had come to believe the original PGF was a hoax based on circumstantial evidence (apart from the new film, e.g., his father making something out of fur coats in a locked shed, and later burning what appeared to be a costume) and he wanted to come clean about it.
- Clint had become estranged and disowned by his mother Patricia because she was still receiving royalties and didn't want him to reveal the hoax.
- Clint reconciles with his mother and she agrees to finally reveal the hoax.
- Bob Heironimus continues to maintain he is the person in a costume in the PGF, but says it wasn't him in the newly released film.
- Bob Gimlin never received any money from PGF though he was supposed to receive 1/3 (instead, Roger and his brother in law Al DeAtley split all the money between themselves and it caused a falling out with Bob, through he reconciled with Roger before Roger died), but he has found celebrity and a sense of belonging and acceptance in the Bigfoot community and has been doing conference appearances for the last decade.
- Patricia says it was Al DeAtley in the costume in the newly released film and he was the one who marketed and distributed the PGF.
- Clint and Bob Heironimus view the new film and see it as vindication. Bob Gimlin is shown it and he asks who the guy on the horse is and then is quiet.
- Clint, Patricia, and Bob (Heironimus) approach Bob Gimlin at a Bigfoot conference and say they are coming clean about it all being a hoax and ask him to join them, he says okay and seems to agree. However at this point he is quite old and many not have fully grasped the situation. A text overlay after the scene says he and his wife still maintain the PGF is real.

The newly released film:

- Shows someone on a horse at the start, which looks like Bob Gimlin and his horse, then pans through trees to see a "Bigfoot" that looks very similar to Patty in the PGF, walking away from the camera and looking back over the right shoulder.
- Provenance and provenience are not firmly established. Film came from the brother of a friend Roger met while printing his earlier Bigfoot books and was allegedly locked in his safe since it was developed.
- A film expert examined the film and found a date code of 1966. He noted that doesn't mean it was exposed that year, but the lack of fogging and sharp contrast make him believe it was exposed soon after manufacture.
- Jeff Meldrum (famed BF researcher and collector of plaster footprint casts) viewed the new film and was visibly shaken. In the end he says even if the PGF was a hoax it doesn't mean BF is not out there.
- Bill Munns (former practical FX artist and famed PGF defender) examined the film and also says the film stock is authentic and was definitely shot on the same type of camera Roger used (I don't think he says it in the documentary but from what I have seen people saying he believes it was a later attempt to recreate the PGF by people other than Patterson and Gimlin).
- Larry Lund (BF researcher and former associate of Rene DaHinden) viewed the new film and now thinks PGF was a hoax.

My thoughts:

I would like to see the provenance and provenience of the new film more thoroughly addressed/established. Some correspondence between Roger and the brothers who ended up with the new film for example (not necessarily about the particular film, but at least establishing that he was in contact with them). On the claims from the people involved, it's essentially the word of Patricia Patterson and Bob Heironimus against Bob Gimlin. Gimlin appears to have a reason to maintain PGF is real, while it's harder to see what motive Patricia might have to disparage Roger's name and legacy and lose income by admitting it was a fake.

I think people who already lean towards hoax will see this as more supporting evidence. Just the established fact that there is a film from the time period that shows a similarly detailed costume already negates the old claim that a costume like that could not be created at the time, and I think that is a strong point regardless of anything else. People who really want to believe will probably not be convinced.