John J.
Senior Member.
External Quote:
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
Senior Member.
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.
- 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.
Last edited:
The newly discovered clip is often referred to as a "rehearsal", but to me, it looks more like a scene from the mockumentary-style Bigfoot movie Patterson was working on. The movie that never came to be. I don't remember the exact details, but wasn't he working on it around May or June 1967? If so, this clip could have been shot around that time. The stereotypical cowboy character (Gimlin?) comes across as a bad actor in a spaghetti western.
And yeah, this really should be the final nail in the coffin for the whole story. I have no doubt that believers will keep arguing that there are issues with the clip's provenance, that we don't know exactly when it was filmed, and that the ape doesn't look quite identical to the one in the October 1967 video. But none of that really matters. At the end of the day, the new clip proves that it was indeed possible to stage a reasonably convincing-looking video of a furry creature strolling off into the distance. But I'm sure some people will keep imagining muscle movements and facial features in that blurry silhouette. Well, let's give the creature the scientific name Magnipes hieronymus.
And yeah, this really should be the final nail in the coffin for the whole story. I have no doubt that believers will keep arguing that there are issues with the clip's provenance, that we don't know exactly when it was filmed, and that the ape doesn't look quite identical to the one in the October 1967 video. But none of that really matters. At the end of the day, the new clip proves that it was indeed possible to stage a reasonably convincing-looking video of a furry creature strolling off into the distance. But I'm sure some people will keep imagining muscle movements and facial features in that blurry silhouette. Well, let's give the creature the scientific name Magnipes hieronymus.
Oh that's actually a much wider scope than I expected. I thought it was just the new footage. That's some good tea! I'm going to watch it for sure
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
I don't recall them discussing Philip Morris or the origin of the costume at all. I was kind of surprised. But it's already almost two hours long and was mostly focused on personal interviews for the first 2/3 and the new film for the last 1/3, so maybe it didn't fit the flow or they didn't have time to get into it.
Similar threads
