






(All of these photos are courtesy of Tom Yamarone.)
This is a blog commemorating the 45th Anniversary of the Patterson/Gimlin Film, taken October 20th, 1967.
by Rob Woollard Sat Oct 20, 1:30 PM ET
LOS ANGELES, United States (AFP) - Forty years after two cowboys filmed an unidentified creature ambling through a California forest, hunters of "Bigfoot" say the grainy (this film is NOT grainy, except for the third-generation copies which are seen on some documentaries; the copy seen on Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, courtesy of John Green, is very clear, as are M.K. Davis' enhancements.) footage remains the cornerstone of their belief in the legendary ape-like beast's existence.
The subject of numerous hoax theories and investigations, Roger Patterson and Tom (should be Bob) Gimlin's film, shot at Willow Creek in the expanse of the Six Rivers National Forest on October 20, 1967, has been debunked, derided and dismissed.
But so far it has never been successfully duplicated, and it is that fact, that Bigfoot devotees say is crucial.
Daniel Perez, the editor of the BigfootTimes.net website and an avowed follower of the beast known as Sasquatch, describes the Patterson-Gimlin footage as the missing piece of the Bigfoot puzzle.
"This is the cornerstone of the entire case for Bigfoot," Perez told AFP. "People say 'It's just a guy in a suit'. Well I beg to differ. If it's a man in a costume, why can't anyone duplicate the film?"
Perez, who will address a conference of Bigfoot believers at Willow Creek on Saturday to mark the film's 40th anniversary, claims that enhancements of the original, jerky footage show the creature's muscles expanding, rippling and contracting from one frame to the next.
"You can't do that with a costume," Perez says. "A costume conceals rather than reveals."
Tom Yamarone, a member of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, a US group of enthusiasts who record sightings and embark on hunts for the creature, echoed Perez's argument.
"The Patterson-Gimlin footage, despite it's shakiness, is what we would refer to as the gold standard for visual evidence," says Yamarone.
Yet others are not convinced. In his 2004 book "The Making of Bigfoot" author Greg Long claims to have identified the 'man in the suit' as a worker from Washington state, Bob Hieronimus.
Long also casts a critical eye over Patterson's role in the affair, noting the extraordinary coincidence that he had set out into the forest to shoot a documentary about Bigfoot and returned with footage of the creature
Robert Stein, an expert in trick photography, echoed Long's scepticism in an interview.
"Roger Patterson sets out to make a Bigfoot documentary," he says. "He immediately stumbled upon a Bigfoot. Not only that, he stumbled upon a Bigfoot that was out in the open in bright, clear sunshine, perfect weather for filming. He didn't just beat the odds. He gave the odds a royal whipping."
Patterson, who died of cancer in 1972, is portrayed in Long's book as a chronically unemployed rodeo rider determined to profit from an elaborate hoax.
Gimlin has always insisted the film was genuine, denying any knowledge of Long's claim that Patterson had in fact ordered a gorilla suit from a costume supplier.
And experts in special effects have questioned the 'man-in-a-suit' theory, saying the level of sophistication displayed in the film would likely have been beyond the reach of ordinary hoaxers.
Ryan Peterson, a freelance make-up effects artist who has worked on films such as "Mighty Joe Young" and "Men In Black," believes that if the film was a hoax, the perpetrators were operating years ahead of their time.
"In my opinion, the technology and artistry were not available in 1967 to create such a convincing Bigfoot costume," Peterson wrote in the Salt Lake Tribune this week.
Perez, a 44-year-old electrician who has been chronicling Bigfoot since childhood, says he is open to arguments that the film is a hoax.
"I would be willing to change my view on the subject of the film if they were able to duplicate it," he says. "But you expect me to believe that a broke cowboy and his friend Bob Gimlin make this sophisticated movie? Come on."
Hi Henry,
Thanks for citing me as an authority! I liked your post, but there
are a few things I didn't like about it, which I suggest you correct.
You needn't credit me:
1. Pendulous breasts. This technically (I think) only applies to
breasts that hang straight down--Patty's hang only 45 to 60 degrees.
I'd call them "matronly" maybe.
2. Patty's look of scorn (see Perez, p. 10): This was given when RP
had the camera off and was madly running after her. It wasn't caught
on film, but instead caused him to stop in his tracks and get the
camera going again. Both RP & Gimlin attest that the creature looked
back at them twice--but the first look-back wasn't filmed. Many
people don't realize this, so you should make a point of spelling it
out.
3. (based on Perez, p. 11-12): After Gimlin returned when Patterson
called him back, their next step was to chase down the horses (with
RP presumably riding behind Gimlin--your comment that they both
remounted their horses is incorrect), which had fled upstream.
Then they loaded a new roll and filmed the tracks.
Then they went back to the truck and got plaster.
Then they cast the tracks.
Then they followed the creature's footprints, eventually dismounting
and going up a rough, steep hillside, at which point they abandoned
the quest. (They had to get to town and get the film shipped.)
Then they went back and filmed RP holding the cured tracks.
Then they rode back to camp and drove to town.
4. Here is additional detail you might give: The rain started hard
about midnight, and P&G left at about 6 AM, arriving in Yakima about
14 hours later (confirmed to me by Gimlin), after dark, around 8 PM.
5. The third bigfooter present at the initial screening was Jim
McClarin.
6. I wouldn't say that "many" anthropologists and specialists studied
the film. Few would look at it. I'd change that "many" to "a few".
7. Lyle Laverty was interviewed by Jeff Meldrum and told him (it's in
Perez's newsletter--and Laverty confirmed it to me by e-mail) that he
photographed the tracks on Monday, the 23rd, which was his first
workday. He took four photos, one of which has become famous.
Back to the start: You might mention that the tree-root system was
"room-high"--Gimlin's words--and concealed their approach perfectly.
Roger
This was a rather interesting segment, with myself and Kal Korff discussing the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, and I got to talk about how I thought it was real, and Rob and Kal countered that with their assessments of it. Bill Green called in and he and Rob had a rather spirited debate, in which they were both passionate about their positions (I mistakenly took this for rudeness instead of passion, and I apologize). It was very spirited, very intense between Bill and Rob, with neither side really gaining or losing an inch. Bill actually showed some rather good debate skills, to be honest. Pretty great show.
Posted by bf2006 at 2:17:00 AM 1 comments
This was a great show, with guest Daniel Perez who discussed mainly the Patterson/Gimlin Movie, his investigations into it, his relationship with Bob Gimlin (and an upcoming interview in the Bigfoot Times newsletter with Gimlin) and other aspects of the Sasquatch mystery. Thunderhawk called in and asked Daniel a question about his Mysterious Encounters appearance in which he definitely said on camera that this was the spot (referring to the actual spot the film was taken on). He also discussed other films and still photos he has seen and investigated. It was a great show, full of great information. The next show will feature John Horrigan once again, who will discuss the recent Mass Monster Mash. That show will air next Thursday at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at the link to the right. As always, we encourage you to please tune in and support great research.