Editorial: Is the Patterson/Gimlin Movie an old chestnut?

Many pieces of evidence have come down the pike in many criminal cases, such as blood, skin and hair samples, murder weapons and other evidence. This kind of thing can also apply to Bigfoot research. In our case, we have hair samples, blood, footprints with dermal ridges and fecal matter. However, the most intriguing piece of evidence in favor of the existence of hairy bipeds is the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, taken by the late Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin, October 20, 1967. Many researchers have looked into the film, but the current investigators are Chris Murphy, Daniel Perez and M.K. Davis. Now, M.K. Davis hosts the Internet Radio program Bigfoot Central on Tuesday nights, and makes the P/G Movie a bit of the focus of every show, which causes some to not want to tune in because they want to hear about other aspects of the Bigfoot mystery, not the P/G Movie every week. They think the film is an old chestnut and should be left in the bin of history. But, in my opinion, it is not an old chestnut, because to be quite honest, it is the best evidence we have, and I am 98% convinced it is real. The deal is, if people do not want to hear about the P/G Movie every week on Bigfoot Central, they do not have to listen. No one is holding a gun to their head to listen to the show. Besides, they should know what they are getting with a show hosted by the foremost authority into the film. In my mind, the film should be discussed, even if it is weekly, because it still continues to yield information to those who want to look into it. I will continue to listen to the Bigfoot Central show and not be so hung up on whether the film is an old chestnut or not. The film is still important and should be discussed at least on one Bigfoot program each week.

Editorial: Heironimus-Gate: 4 Years Later

Image on the left is Bob Heironimus in a suit built by Philip Morris, said to be based on the same suit he allegedly wore in 1967. The image on the right is the creature in the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, copyright 1967, 1968, 2008 Erik and Martin Dahinden.

Four years ago tonight, on the Internet Radio program the Jeff Rense show, a group of investigators, authors and journalists and television producers (Greg Long, Kal Korff, Bob Kiviat and Michaela Kocis) gathered to build up a case that the most famous piece of evidence of Sasquatch, the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, is a hoax, citing a book called The Making Of Bigfoot: The Inside Story, written by Long and introduced by Korff. The build-up was for a gentleman named Bob Heironimus, who claimed to be the man in the suit in the film, and claimed that Patterson and Gimlin were in on it. Heironimus has gone on to pretty much not have much of an impact on those who think the film is real. The story of Heironimus has come into the spotlight again thanks to an impending documentary by Korff and Martina Tycova, a Czech investigator and supermodel, and a book by Heironimus which promises to answer all of the Bigfooters' questions, published by Prometheus Books, the same publishers of Long's book. I think that the controversy surrounding all this will continue as long as both sides of the argument are unwilling to give an inch, those sides representing Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus. Much of the Bigfoot community is convinced the film is the real thing, while Korff and Heironimus contend that 100 Yakima, Washington residents back up Heironimus and hardly anyone backs up Gimlin except the Bigfoot Community. Well, my point is, Heironimus, Korff and the alleged 100 Yakima residents have only hearsay and allegation to go on regarding their supposed proof, while Gimlin has a film to back up his contentions, and not just a film of a creature, but a film of a creature making tracks. As the work of M.K. Davis has proved, the creature does leave visible tracks on the sandbar. The film has been analyzed by many credible and qualified scientists and special effects artists over the years and has been found to be an interesting enigma, if not absolutely authentic. Heironimus and his testimony has changed quite a bit during some of the intervening years since the announcement that he was supposedly in the suit, Bob Gimlin's story has maintained itself and has not changed over the years. What we have here is a case of one party telling the truth and one party lying. It is up to you to decide who is the truthful one, but I will part with these words of wisdom from Daniel Perez-you can assassinate the character of Roger Patterson, but you will never be able to assassinate the subject of that movie film.