This is the older version. If you visit the link above it has all of the updated information.
I had to write a paper for my cultural anthropology course and since I happen to
know the real story behind the famous Bigfoot film, I decided to write the paper
about that and how pseudo-scientists minterpret cultural symbology. Whether you
believe in this subject or not, you will find this story to be intensely
interesting. It would make a fantastic screenplay about the making of the hoax,
enjoy... This is me writing a serious scientific paper....LOL
The Truth behind
the Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot Film and the ongoing narrative about Bigfoot:
Patterson was interested in orchestrating a Bigfoot hoax and was particularly
fascinated by the female Bigfoot sketches discussed in this thread. These
sketches served as the basis for his plan, akin to a storyboard. Coincidentally,
shortly after he published his book, a Star Trek episode titled "THE GALILEO
SEVEN" aired in January of '67.
Patterson was impressed by the creatures
depicted in this episode and, in the midst of planning his hoax, he contacted
Chambers at Desilu Studios for assistance with acquiring a mask and guidance.
Chambers, known for renting out suits and mixing parts from various creatures,
took the Galileo Seven mask that had captivated Patterson, added more hair to
it, and incorporated the body from the werewolf suit featured in the LOST IN
SPACE episode "SPACE CROPPERS."
In the image below, you'll find the Taurus II
Anthropoid from Star Trek: The Galileo Seven, which aired shortly after
Patterson's book was published in January 1967. This image is juxtaposed with
Patterson's Bigfoot, clearly showing that it's the same mask with some
alterations to the hair, but all the features—including the mouth, nose, and
coloration—are identical.
Patterson also spoke with Philip Morris and incorporated elements from his suit.
Following Morris' advice, he acquired football shoulder pads, and at Chambers'
suggestion, he utilized the old Charlie Gemora trick of using water bags
underneath the suit to create the illusion of muscles moving beneath the fur.
This technique, developed by Gemora in the 1940s, is widely known within the FX
community but is rarely discussed in cryptozoology documentaries, which tend to
be biased and favor a specific viewpoint.
The truth behind this fabrication
reveals that Bob Hiaronomous was the individual in the suit. They used arm
extensions with shoulder pads to create proportional arms, giving the illusion
of a longer body and shorter legs. Inside the suit, they utilized waders,
bulking material, and water bags in the style of Charlie Gemora, confirming what
Bob H. stated regarding Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin assisting him in wearing
the suit.
However, Phillip Morris also played a role in this scenario. It is my
belief that both Chambers and Morris were involved, with Chambers renting
Patterson a suit and Morris selling him one. The on-screen portrayal was likely
a combination of both, including the Galileo Seven mask along with elements from
the other two suits. This aligns with discussions within the industry and
Morris' statement about Patterson initially renting a suit but later purchasing
one for customization.
Chambers' reluctance to allow significant alterations by
an amateur is understandable, given his practice of parting out suits for
various productions to reduce costs and turnaround times. My knowledge of these
details stems from insider information within the film industry, including
conversations with industry professionals. I have also worked in the film
industry, including at Famous Monsters of Filmland, where I gathered this
information firsthand.
It is an indisputable fact that Roger Patterson was a
liar, con artist, and thief. He wrote a book about Bigfoot in 1966, in which he
blatantly plagiarized a sketch depicting a female Bigfoot encounter, using it as
the storyboard for his hoax. The description in Patterson's book mirrors the
incident depicted in the hoax film with uncanny accuracy. The so-called Roe
incident, as recounted by William Roe in 1955, shares striking similarities with
the Patterson-Gimlin film. However, the veracity of Roe's account remains
unverified, casting doubt on its reliability.
The issuance of an arrest warrant
against Roger Patterson for the camera used in the Patterson-Gimlin film further
raises questions. Records show that Patterson rented the camera in May 1967 and
did not return it until October 1967, suggesting a prolonged period of
preparation for his hoax.
The timeline unfolds as follows: Patterson
self-publishes his Bigfoot book in 1966, the Galileo Seven airs in January 1967,
alleged contact between Patterson and Chambers of Desilu Studios occurs in
February-March 1967, Patterson travels to Hollywood and Desilu in April 1967,
the camera is rented in May 1967, Patterson orders a suit from Morris in August
1967, and the hoax film is shot in late September or early October 1967,
followed by the issuance of an arrest warrant for the camera in late October
1967.
The entire folklore surrounding Bigfoot and Native Americans is also fabricated.
The creatures in Native American legends differ significantly from those
described in Bigfoot mythology, with no mention of a shy, giant primate-like
creature in any Native American legend. This narrative originated in the 1950s
with individuals like Jerry Crew and Ray Wallace, who perpetuated hoaxes related
to Bigfoot sightings.
Ray Wallace, often regarded as the godfather of Bigfoot,
fabricated numerous Bigfoot prints during his lifetime. He had a close
association with Patterson, who even possessed a set of Wallace's hoax feet and
was trained by Wallace in his methods of hoaxing Bigfoot tracks and sightings.
This fabricated folklore is evident from a cultural anthropological perspective.
To attribute specific meanings to folklore and legends, one must first
understand the tribes' customs, symbology, and beliefs. It is erroneous to
extrapolate a tall, shy primate-like creature from tales that describe entirely
different entities, such as humanoid figures made of stone with supernatural
abilities.
Cherry-picking elements from various civilizations and claiming
similarities without considering the cultural context leads to false narratives.
This tendency is akin to the ancient alien theories, which are met with
skepticism by archaeologists and cultural anthropologists. Such theories often
misinterpret symbols and customs, attributing them to influences like
interplanetary visitors without factual basis or cultural understanding.
The
absence of evidence in the fossil record and the lack of support from academic
circles highlight the unsubstantiated nature of these claims. Bigfoot proponents
often mention Gigantopithecus, an Asian primate resembling an orangutan, but
this species' characteristics do not align with the traits attributed to Bigfoot
by hoaxers like Patterson and Wallace.
The entirety of Bigfoot mythology is
fictitious, and when examining this film specifically, it is undoubtedly a hoax.
Let me share something intriguing with you—the Patterson-Gimlin Hoax film is a
captivating tale, yet the film itself is perhaps the least captivating aspect of
it all. The story is rife with twists, discrepancies, and peculiar encounters.
For instance, there are accounts of Roger visiting photo shop employees with
casts, inquiring about their appearance, only to return with a different, more
proportional set of casts two weeks later after being advised that the originals
looked impractical.
You see Roger had visited camera shop employees of
Sheppard’s Camera Shop with casts, asking about their appearance. Some employees
remarked that the casts looked too narrow and might not support the weight of a
creature as described. Roger claimed he could fix that, only to return two weeks
later with a different, more proportional set of casts, among other very
specific events related to the hoax.
Roger's mention of cancer to various
individuals, including the photo shop personnel and Ray Wallace, the notorious
Bigfoot hoaxer, adds another layer of complexity. There are inconsistencies in
timelines, challenges with film development—specifically, the inability to
develop the film where it was claimed to have been developed—, and the curious
fact that the camera used had been in Roger's possession for approximately six
months before the alleged filming.
Roger had consulted the owner of Sheppards Camera Shop on how to obscure something on film without revealing too much. The owner advised him to shake the camera, a technique Roger employed. Therefore, when Roger claimed he fell off his horse, it was a fabrication. In reality, he stood there shaking the camera until Bob H reached the predetermined point for the dramatic turn, a move inspired by the Kuntsler sketch that Roger had plagiarized in his book in 1966, which also served as the storyboard for his hoax
Moreover, the involvement of questionable
characters like Patterson and Gimlin, coupled with observations from the
original film roll showing both individuals on horseback simultaneously,
suggests the presence of another person filming them. This contradicts their
narrative of being alone during the filming.
The Patterson-Gimlin film is indeed
a treasure trove of intriguing details, but its authenticity is highly
questionable given the myriad discrepancies and shady elements in its backstory.
Delving into the narrative behind the film unveils a fascinating account of how
a renowned hoax unfolded.
Adding to the intrigue, no media scrutiny seems to
have reached Yakima, Washington, where these individuals reside. It's noteworthy
that Bob H. resides just a few doors down from Bob Gimlin, and within their
community, the consensus is that the film was a hoax—a long-standing inside joke
known to all.
Exploring the intricacies of the Patterson-Gimlin saga beyond the
film itself offers a captivating journey into the world of a famous hoax.
Numerous individuals can attest to having seen the suit in Bob H.'s car trunk.
There exists an entire community that will unequivocally assert that Roger
Patterson was a shady, untrustworthy con artist, notorious for evading debts,
frequently entangled in trouble, and known for his deceitful nature. Contrary to
what some Bigfoot researchers may claim, these facts hold significance. It's
crucial to scrutinize the integrity of the individual involved in such an overt
hoax and to carefully examine all the different accounts, particularly when
confronted with audacious assertions that a mythical creature actually exists
and that the film capturing it is a faithful recreation of an unrelated,
unverified event—of which a stolen sketch eerily mirrors the filmed scene.
Such
claims are outlandish and defy rationality. While manifestation is a genuine
subject, it must align with the laws of the physical world, incapable of
conjuring nonexistent creatures or replicating them as exact replicas of
whimsical fantasies. Furthermore, the anatomical discrepancies in the depicted
female primate mammal are glaring.
It's essential to note that presenting
factual information about Roger Patterson's character, as shared by individuals
like Bob H. or Greg Long, does not constitute slander or character
assassination. When multiple accounts and verifiable evidence paint a consistent
picture of Patterson as a shady figure involved in schemes such as the Bigfoot
hoax, it's simply a matter of stating the truth. Why focus solely on the film
without delving into the backgrounds of those behind it? Understanding the
backstory and the individuals involved is paramount. If someone with a history
of deception suddenly makes a colossal claim, skepticism is warranted.
Conversely, individuals like Bob H., who lack a reputation for deceit, lend
credibility to their claims.
The lack of media investigation into the residents
of Yakima, Washington, who possess firsthand knowledge of these events is
puzzling. Equally intriguing is the dishonest reputation of the film's creator,
the plagiarized incident sketch mirroring the film, the community's longstanding
awareness of the hoax, the arrest warrant for the camera, the unfulfilled
promise to Bob H., and the uncanny resemblance between the Star Trek mask and
the film subject.
Bob H.'s reputation, untainted by dishonesty or criminal
records within the Yakima community, stands in stark contrast to the cloud of
deceit surrounding Patterson. It's evident that Patterson was a habitual liar
and con artist, and the evidence suggests either Bob H. or Bob Gimlin is
perpetuating falsehoods—signs point to Bob Gimlin as the unreliable narrator.
Bob H.'s track record of hard work and integrity, affirmed by his community,
underscores the credibility of his statements. It's also concerning how
misinformation about the technological capabilities of FX artists in the 1960s
has misled many purported experts. These are certainties worth considering in
unraveling the complexities of the Patterson-Gimlin hoax.
Here are some factual points to consider:
The notion that "Sasquatch" or any similar creature was a prevalent legend among Native American tribes is untrue. The term "Sasquatch" itself was coined by individuals propagating the legend, chosen for its eerie sound reminiscent of Native American names. Similarly, the naming of states like Idaho or Utah reflects a penchant for indigenous-sounding names rather than historical accuracy or cultural significance.
The modern legend of "bigfoot," "sasquatch," or "skunk ape" emerged around 1930, coinciding with a period when pranksters began fabricating fake giant footprints, akin to crop circle hoaxes, to exploit people's gullibility.
Roger Patterson, prior to embarking on his fake "bigfoot" quest, consulted with these footprint pranksters, intending to fabricate evidence to support his narrative.
Patterson's claims of discovering bigfoot tracks and capturing bigfoot on film are dubious, especially considering the absence of such sightings before his arrival and their sudden cessation upon his departure.
Bill Munns, often touted as an FX expert, lacks a substantial filmography to validate such claims. His failure to recognize fundamental FX techniques, coupled with his endorsement of the Patterson-Gimlin film, casts doubt on his expertise.
Bill Munns has experience on 3 films: Swamp Thing (1980) Lousy FX work, Beatmaster (1982) Horrible FX work and Return Of The Living Dead (1985) in which he was fired and replaced accounts of the events are as follows:
the initial effects artist, Bill Munns, was sacked and replaced because of his ropey zombie masks and poor props. Dan O.Bannon flipped Munns was so bad.
My first intensely negative encounter on The Return of the Living Dead with the work of make-up man Bill Munns came after he showed me his version of First Corpse, the first zombie to burst from its grave.
It seems pretty clear to me from my drawings just what I wanted the First Corpse to look like. I thought Bill was just showing me his zombie’s mechanics. That this was what he considered camera ready “finished art” was the farthest thing from my mind.
On the day of the shoot I discovered to my horror that what Bill showed me Bill thought was done. A lot of Bill’s First Corpse was perfectly pristine and clean — with few signs that this thing had just erupted from its grave. Many of the bones of its skeleton were pure, clean white. I was pissed at the lack of thinking that went into Bill’s version of the First Corpse — so angry that I didn’t even think of smearing some damn mud all over the thing. My bad.
As you’ll see, it got worse:
Here’s what Bill Munns’ version of the headless Yellow Man looked like:
“Seriously. I couldn’t believe it. I promptly demanded a do-over.”
Unfortunately, after fixing his Yellow Man work, Bill paid little attention to my boards and constructed what we needed on the wrong side, opposite to what I had boarded, destroying the scene’s visual continuity.
So this is the Bill Munns that Bigfoot believers like to tout as an expert. If you ever watch Return Of The Living Dead and notice all of those really sub-par zombie masks in the background….yeah, that’s Bill’s work.
Anthropologists generally dismiss the existence of such a creature, citing inconsistencies with primate behavior and the lack of compelling biological evidence. Reports of Bigfoot's omnivorous, nocturnal, and solitary habits contradict established primate norms.
Specimens purported to contain Bigfoot DNA have consistently been debunked as misidentified animals or hoaxes. No physical remains of Bigfoot have ever been discovered, undermining claims of its evolutionary lineage or existence as a distinct species.
In an interview featured on the MonsterTalk podcast, Dr. Todd Disotell, a prominent figure at the New York University Molecular Anthropology Laboratory, debunked the notion that Bigfoot could be a recent primate ancestor, as suggested by the DNA results in the Ketchum study. He emphatically stated, "If such a primate were so closely related to humans, separated from us merely 15,000 years ago, it would essentially be human." Dr. Disotell elaborated, "Considering the extensive genetic diversity observed even among individuals of European descent, reflecting over 50,000 years of shared ancestry since our migration from Africa, the idea that a divergence from our lineage could yield a creature as distinct as Bigfoot is scientifically implausible."
The Ketchum Bigfoot DNA study, once anticipated to revolutionize our understanding with its purportedly robust scientific evidence of Bigfoot's existence, has ultimately proven to be false. Instead, it serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of pseudoscience, offering more insights into the pitfalls of sensationalized claims and shedding light on the contrived tales of fictional beings. While scientists are unlikely to find merit in such speculative endeavors, this revelation may hopefully prompt reflection among Bigfoot enthusiasts, by illuminating the ability to distinguish between credible scientific inquiry and fantastical narratives.
Believers should exercise caution and respect if encountering a purported Bigfoot, recognizing that it may not be a nonhuman primate but rather a human seeking solitude. Advocating for harm or aggression towards such entities contradicts ethical considerations and scientific classification.
Lastly, the scientific process demands objectivity and impartiality, devoid of preconceived agendas or biases aimed at confirming predetermined beliefs.
These points highlight the need for critical evaluation and empirical scrutiny when examining claims related to Bigfoot, emphasizing skepticism and adherence to scientific principles.
So what do I mean by this?
Simply put, if I conduct an experiment on a
specific subject and conclusively determine that it is not one thing, it doesn't
automatically imply that it must be the opposite or something entirely
different. It merely indicates that it is not that particular thing. It does not
affirmatively establish its identity as something else; it simply rules out one
possibility.
I find it challenging to believe that the 97,012 residents of
Yakima, Washington, who are familiar with these individuals and have been aware
of this hoax since its inception, are all deceiving about it. I consider that
scenario to be even less plausible than Roger Patterson filming a scene
identical to what he had previously plagiarized in a sketch, creating a
play-by-play replication of the incident he found captivating, and being the
sole individual in history to accomplish such a feat.
On a lighter note, it's
amusing to observe Bob Gimlin seemingly concealed in the bushes beside Bob H as
he strolls in the suit.
For comedic effect, here's the amusing discovery someone
claims to have made in the film just before Bob H performs his famous turn. I'll
leave "Gimlin-In-A-Bush" for you to search for, along with "Elf-On-A-Shelf," so
you can decide on that one for yourself. It's quite intriguing and undeniably
humorous, no matter how you look at it—pure comedy gold!
Note: Additionally, in
the image below you can very clearly see the outline of the football shoulder
pads, the loose area of fabric immediately below the shoulder pads before the
arm extensions start which is where the shoulder pad ends and the arm and
shoulder protrude downwards but causes an area that is covered with suit fabric
but there is no filler material helping to bulk up this area.
You also see the
foot, which is obviously fake and in keeping with the clown shoe type footwear
which is used for such suits. The fabric near the ankle is a tell-tale sign as
it doesn’t make up an organic ankle but instead you can clearly see that is is
merely suit fabric coming down over the footwear.
I have seen the images of toes
on one of the feet and it is quite possible to achieve with the incorporation of
Ray Wallace style hoax feet underneath the suit. However, the heel on this side
of the subject in this still is very revealing. The heel is not organic, the
sole is not organic, the ankle is very revealing of being a suit, the shoulder
pads are obvious and the arms protruding from under the shoulder pads is in
keeping with a suit where the individual inside is wearing shoulder pads and arm
extensions.
In short everything matches up with it being a Chambers/Morris Suit.
If that truly is "Gimlin-In-A-Bush" then it would actually make sense because he
would likely be positioned there to assist Bob H. in the event that Bob needed
some help.
Now I would like to add the exact account from Roe because you will see by my notes contained within it that this is what served as the script and that not only is the sketch an exact duplicate of what is in the film:
But the very script and the source of the idea for the hoax can be found in Roe’s statement:
I had been working on the highway near Tete Jaune Cache for about two years. In October, 1955, I decided to climb five miles up Mica Mountain to an old deserted mine, just for something to do. I came in sight of the mine about three o’clock in the afternoon after an easy climb. I had just come out of a patch of low brush into a clearing when I saw what I thought was a grizzly bear, in the bush on the other side. I had shot a grizzly near that spot the year before. This one was only about 75 yards away, but I didn’t want to shoot it, for I had no way of getting it out. So I sat down on a small rock and watched, my rifle in my hands.
I could see part of the animal’s head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw it was not a bear.
(This is exactly what the subject in Patterson's film did, Bob H was instructed to crouch down like this and wait until Roger gave the signal)
This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly toward me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide, and probably weighing somewhere near three hundred pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was female.
(This is something Patterson was obsessed with the female breasts aspect of the tale which is what gave the idea and inspiration to put these anatomically incorrect features on his hoax costume)
And yet, its torso was not curved like a female’s. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man’s arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees.
(Exactly like the arm extensions used in the Patterson hoax)
Its feet were broader proportionately than a man’s, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.
(Patterson wasn't able to replicate this and didn't think anyone would see the soles of the feet. The footwear, heel and ankle are very obvious signs of the fakery)
It came to the edge of the bush I was hiding in, within twenty feet of me, and squatted down on its haunches. Reaching out its hands it pulled the branches of bushes toward it and stripped the leaves with its teeth. Its lips curled flexibly around the leaves as it ate. I was close enough to see that its teeth were white and even.
The shape of this creature’s head somewhat resembled a Negro’s. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of its face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of this hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human’s ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear’s. And its neck also was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man’s I had ever seen.
(This is the description that Patterson and Deatley had provided to John Chambers at Desilu Studios in regards to his viewing of the STAR TREK Episode 14 - THE Galileo Seven episode creatures and Chambers altered the mask and brought in the old werewolf suit from Space Croppers a LOST IN SPACE episode for the shorter hair and coloration similarity)
As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor, made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more, I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.
Finally the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four short steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come.
(Exactly as Patterson had instructed Bob H. to do and exactly what is seen on film)
For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.
(The famous turn seen in the Patterson film and this is what gave inspiration for those actions within the film)
The thought came to me that if I shot it, I would possibly have a specimen of great interest to scientists the world over. I had heard stories of the Sasquatch, the giant hairy Indians that live in the legends of British Columbia Indians, and also many claim, are still in fact alive today. Maybe this was a Sasquatch, I told myself.
(This is due to a particular community which had drummed up publicity by offering a reward for a sighting of the supposed legendary creature that they had invented at the time)
I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away, again turning its head to look in my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature “it”, I felt now that it was a human being and I knew I would never forgive myself if I killed it.
As you can see, not only does the sketch of this alleged incident that Patterson had plagiarized in his 1966 book look exactly what was shown on the film but the very description and dare I say dubious report of this unverified incident which Roe had reported is an exact play-by-play of the Patterson - Gimlin film. So if you ever wonder why it looked and behaved that way...well here is the script that Patterson used and the sketch is the storyboard that he used. I the portion of this account that gave Patterson the idea can be found in the portion in which Roe questions whether or not a movie was being made at the time. This is what sparked the idea and added as the catalyist for the entire hoax. So let's look at it again:
As I watched this creature, I wondered if some movie company was making a film at this place and that what I saw was an actor, made up to look partly human and partly animal. But as I observed it more, I decided it would be impossible to fake such a specimen. Anyway, I learned later there was no such company near that area. Nor, in fact, did anyone live up Mica Mountain, according to the people who lived in Tete Jaune Cache.
(Voila! This is what sparked the very idea for the hoax to begin with)
Unless of course you believe that it’s possible that Roger stole a sketch of an incident and somehow magically filmed the exact same thing with the exact same sequence of events in an absolute play-by-play way 12 years later in a different location with an anatomically incorrect specimen. That’s not possible in any realm of rational thought.
So there you have it.
Suit debunked and truth behind it exposed
Inspiration and script for the hoax film exposed
Storyboard for the hoax exposed
back story of hoax exposed
false narrative exposed
inaccurate accounts of technological capabilities exposed
everything on all levels completely and thoroughly debunked.
Case closed
Sincerely and Best Wishes
Case closed
Sincerely and Best Wishes
Jason Brazeal, Lead Engineer of Artificial Intelligence/Deep Learning/ Neural Networks
#pattersongimlindebunked #pgfilm #pattersongimlinfilm #pattybigfoot #bobgimlin #rogerpatterson #bigfoot #sasquatch #bigfootdebunked #bigfootfilmdebunked #pgfilmdebunked #billmunnsdebunked #billmunns #jeffmeldrum #johngreen #yakimawashington #johnchambers #startrek #galileoseven #apesuit #phillipmorriscostume
@pattersongimlindebunked @pgfilm @pattersongimlinfilm @pattybigfoot @bobgimlin @rogerpatterson @bigfoot @sasquatch @bigfootdebunked @bigfootfilmdebunked @pgfilmdebunked @billmunnsdebunked @billmunns @jeffmeldrum @johngreen @yakimawashington @johnchambers @startrek @galileoseven @apesuit @phillipmorriscostume
