Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

feinman

Only human skeptics will be probed..
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
1,186
Points
159
Some hominids have light-colored soles and palms, and given the fact that in the video they seem to be opposite the sun which is illuminating them, and in a high-contrast video in a dusty area in October on a dry day.. Then there would be fact that you hope hoaxers capable of creating a suit like that would notice white soles..
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
4,003
Points
154
Some hominids have light-colored soles and palms, and given the fact that in the video they seem to be opposite the sun which is illuminating them, and in a high-contrast video in a dusty area in October on a dry day.. Then there would be fact that you hope hoaxers capable of creating a suit like that would notice white soles.
On review of the footage, there are a few frames when you can clearly see white soles.
 

feinman

Only human skeptics will be probed..
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
1,186
Points
159
Here are some stills from the slowed-down footage from here: Link

In this frame, the position of the bottom of the foot during the step is perpendicular to the light source (sun), thus appearing extremely light. The same thing occurs with brown grass and the trunk of the coniferous tree to the right, which has a brown local color (bark), but appears almost white in the direct light. The contrast is so stark it looks like there is snow on the ground.
You'll notice that the highlight on the top of the left shoulder (same angle as foot) almost appears white too --even with the hair, as some skin is showing through to reflect the light:

Foot6.png


A different frame in the step, and you can see the foot is not white, but the same local color as the rest of the flesh. Further --you can see a highlight still on the heel of the foot --it is still in position to reflect light:

Foot3.png


If it was a white sole, it would still appear white in the shadows in this position because of the reflected light:
Foot2.png


I can't believe that hoaxers would equip their great work with white-soled shoes... I don't think they did.
 

feinman

Only human skeptics will be probed..
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
1,186
Points
159
I just noticed something else rather amazing.. If you look at this frame, where the leg is being lifted, you'll notice that the whole pelvis shifts (if you draw a straight line between the iliac crests at the back) and the contraction of the left gluteus medius and internal oblique; this has to do with deep skeletal and muscular mechanics, and I can't see how that could be done with a suit easily even now. If it is real, one blow from it would certainly kill you.

Foot3.png
 

Attachments

feinman

Only human skeptics will be probed..
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
1,186
Points
159
In this frame from: LINK
One can see the edge of the hand and part of face also appearing white:

NBigfoot1.png

And here you can see the same parts without the highlights:
NBigfoot2.png


I'd also note that it appears to have wider hips (Species exhibits sexual dimorphism), as a female creature would.
 

michael59

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 10, 2017
Messages
989
Reaction score
2,434
Points
134
In this frame from: LINK
One can see the edge of the hand and part of face also appearing white:

View attachment 29834
And here you can see the same parts without the highlights:
View attachment 29835

I'd also note that it appears to have wider hips (Species exhibits sexual dimorphism), as a female creature would.
I do believe it to be authentic. Although, it does not look anything like the one I saw. The one I saw looked like half man, half orangutan, but much larger.
 

feinman

Only human skeptics will be probed..
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
1,186
Points
159
I do believe it to be authentic. Although, it does not look anything like the one I saw. The one I saw looked like half man, half orangutan, but much larger.
You saw one! Wow. Is there a thread on it here?
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
You thinking it's a man in a monkey suit is not good enough evidence to dismiss it either. Alan thinks that nobody of that period could have made a suit that good. John Chambers of Planet of the Apes fame said it was beyond him as did Disney studios. He thinks nobody could do practical effects that good today.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight. Just a casual interest. As I say, following the motives of humans in this case is far more explanatory than tracks and casts in the dirt. Besides. Bob Heironimous admitted he wore the suit and passed a lie detector test.
But again, I find it pretty strange that footage of a mystery animal, of which there is no physical record, fossil evidence or lineage of evolution or establishment in that part of the world is openly accepted as real, yet the guy who says it’s a man in a suit invented by a con man who actually drew a female Bigfoot in his efforts to gain funding for a film about Bigfoot beforehand is the odd guy out here.
Maybe the reason he chose to do tits on it and make it female is purely because if it was a male, today we would be discussing Bigcock.
 
Last edited:

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
In this frame from: LINK
One can see the edge of the hand and part of face also appearing white:

View attachment 29834
And here you can see the same parts without the highlights:
View attachment 29835

I'd also note that it appears to have wider hips (Species exhibits sexual dimorphism), as a female creature would.
Hips not quite as wide to actually meet the legs. What’s going on with that picture?.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
881
Reaction score
1,394
Points
164
Location
generally on the fringes
Bob H may have passed his polygraph, but apparently Roger Patterson took one at one point and passed that too:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0_vFkL6p5mEC&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false
I guess some people are better at lying than others... I understand those tests monitor signs of stress. So if you can lie without feeling stressed (if your brain is made that way, or you 'believe' your lie enough, or indeed if you don't actually think you're lying) then you can pass the test.
It sounds like it should be a good bit of evidence but maybe such a thing isn't as useful as we'd hope.

(And even if it is someone in a furry suit, by this token it doesn't mean it had to be Bob H).
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
949
Reaction score
1,825
Points
139
Maybe we all need to look at this thing from a fresh angle. Instead of trying to decide how authentic the photographic image is in terms of what it shows - how about asking how likely is the thing that it shows to exist... and proceed from there?

As an analogy: if someone were to show me a very convincing photo (let's imagine it's pre-CGI) of Santa riding his sleigh in the sky with airborne reindeers then I would assume it to be an example of trickery - and wouldn't really concern myself with the Hows and Whys of its fabrication.

So the Patterson-Gimlin footage shows what appears to be a Gigantopithecus-like primate wandering through the woodlands of North America.

Well, you've heard all the objections to the likelihood of such an animal being there before: there would need to be a breeding size colony of them, they would need to eat something (a lot in fact), they would die and leave bodies behind, they would leave waste matter - and so on. But after sixty odd years of active - if minority and underfunded - interest all we have are some intriguing witness reports and footprints to suggest the flesh-and-blood existence of any such thing in this part of the world.*

Most tellingly of all however: we don't even have anything like another Patterson-Gimlin film either (which is why we are still talking about the Patterson-Gimlin film all these decades later).

So if you see a convincing picture of a Bigfoot, then the question to ask is not does it provides evidence to back up the witnesses and footpriints - but rather whether the latter are enough to justify taking such a photo seriously.

When I watch a stage magicians they often produce effects that baffle me - but I don't lose any sleep over how they are done - because I know it to be a trick. Likwewise, I would suggest that our default option in approaching the Patterson-Gimlin film should be the same - until some serious physical evidence for such an extraordinary creature comes forth.

The other alternative is, is that we treat Bigfoot as some sort of paranormal manifestation - a tulpa/timeslip/ or interdimensional entity of some kind. I am actually open to this sort of stuff, but your average Footer wouldn't be (I suspect), and, as for the scientific community....

* I do draw a distinction between the North American Bigfoot and /Australian Yowie, on the one hand, and the Yeren and Alma of China, Central Asia and parts of Russia. I believe the latter - a smaller, more human-like primate in genuinely remote areas - to be far more credible.
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
6,616
Reaction score
1,504
Points
234
What makes all those footprints? A Bear?
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
694
Reaction score
1,380
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Maybe we all need to look at this thing from a fresh angle. Instead of trying to decide how authentic the photographic image is in terms of what it shows - how about asking how likely is the thing that it shows to exist... and proceed from there?

As an analogy: if someone were to show me a very convincing photo (let's imagine it's pre-CGI) of Santa riding his sleigh in the sky with airborne reindeers then I would assume it to be an example of trickery - and wouldn't really concern myself with the Hows and Whys of its fabrication.

So the Patterson-Gimlin footage shows what appears to be a Gigantopithecus-like primate wandering through the woodlands of North America.

Well, you've heard all the objections to the likelihood of such an animal being there before: there would need to be a breeding size colony of them, they would need to eat something (a lot in fact), they would die and leave bodies behind, they would leave waste matter - and so on. But after sixty odd years of active - if minority and underfunded - interest all we have are some intriguing witness reports and footprints to suggest the flesh-and-blood existence of any such thing in this part of the world.*

Most tellingly of all however: we don't even have anything like another Patterson-Gimlin film either (which is why we are still talking about the Patterson-Gimlin film all these decades later).

So if you see a convincing picture of a Bigfoot, then the question to ask is not does it provides evidence to back up the witnesses and footpriints - but rather whether the latter are enough to justify taking such a photo seriously.

When I watch a stage magicians they often produce effects that baffle me - but I don't lose any sleep over how they are done - because I know it to be a trick. Likwewise, I would suggest that our default option in approaching the Patterson-Gimlin film should be the same - until some serious physical evidence for such an extraordinary creature comes forth.

The other alternative is, is that we treat Bigfoot as some sort of paranormal manifestation - a tulpa/timeslip/ or interdimensional entity of some kind. I am actually open to this sort of stuff, but your average Footer wouldn't be (I suspect), and, as for the scientific community....

* I do draw a distinction between the North American Bigfoot and /Australian Yowie, on the one hand, and the Yeren and Alma of China, Central Asia and parts of Russia. I believe the latter - a smaller, more human-like primate in genuinely remote areas - to be far more credible.
I'd suggest Daegling's book. Meldrum hated it but he hates all solid evidence against his pet idea. But that probably means it's good evidence. It's a good idea not to look at the phenomenon from just the PGF perspective. And, it's good to look at each claim specifically, not collectively. There is a habit of paranormalists to link items together to make it look like their preferred explanation is stronger than it is. When you examine the links in the chain, you often find they are all very weak.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
Bob H may have passed his polygraph, but apparently Roger Patterson took one at one point and passed that too:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0_vFkL6p5mEC&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=false
I guess some people are better at lying than others... I understand those tests monitor signs of stress. So if you can lie without feeling stressed (if your brain is made that way, or you 'believe' your lie enough, or indeed if you don't actually think you're lying) then you can pass the test.
It sounds like it should be a good bit of evidence but maybe such a thing isn't as useful as we'd hope.

(And even if it is someone in a furry suit, by this token it doesn't mean it had to be Bob H).
This is a problem. All the credulous believer has to do is look at the footage and believe it. Anyone posing a different view suddenly has to justify the millions of possibilities outside that view. From the lack of physical evidence, fossil record or any DNA samples, a name and address of the maker of the costume to the veracity of actual confession and lie detector tests. This allows Bigfoot believers to constantly shift the goalposts while holding onto the ‘true proof’ of the PGF film.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
Maybe we all need to look at this thing from a fresh angle. Instead of trying to decide how authentic the photographic image is in terms of what it shows - how about asking how likely is the thing that it shows to exist... and proceed from there?

As an analogy: if someone were to show me a very convincing photo (let's imagine it's pre-CGI) of Santa riding his sleigh in the sky with airborne reindeers then I would assume it to be an example of trickery - and wouldn't really concern myself with the Hows and Whys of its fabrication.

So the Patterson-Gimlin footage shows what appears to be a Gigantopithecus-like primate wandering through the woodlands of North America.

Well, you've heard all the objections to the likelihood of such an animal being there before: there would need to be a breeding size colony of them, they would need to eat something (a lot in fact), they would die and leave bodies behind, they would leave waste matter - and so on. But after sixty odd years of active - if minority and underfunded - interest all we have are some intriguing witness reports and footprints to suggest the flesh-and-blood existence of any such thing in this part of the world.*

Most tellingly of all however: we don't even have anything like another Patterson-Gimlin film either (which is why we are still talking about the Patterson-Gimlin film all these decades later).

So if you see a convincing picture of a Bigfoot, then the question to ask is not does it provides evidence to back up the witnesses and footpriints - but rather whether the latter are enough to justify taking such a photo seriously.

When I watch a stage magicians they often produce effects that baffle me - but I don't lose any sleep over how they are done - because I know it to be a trick. Likwewise, I would suggest that our default option in approaching the Patterson-Gimlin film should be the same - until some serious physical evidence for such an extraordinary creature comes forth.

The other alternative is, is that we treat Bigfoot as some sort of paranormal manifestation - a tulpa/timeslip/ or interdimensional entity of some kind. I am actually open to this sort of stuff, but your average Footer wouldn't be (I suspect), and, as for the scientific community....

* I do draw a distinction between the North American Bigfoot and /Australian Yowie, on the one hand, and the Yeren and Alma of China, Central Asia and parts of Russia. I believe the latter - a smaller, more human-like primate in genuinely remote areas - to be far more credible.
I too have considered the possibility of The Cowboy’s Tulpa in this case.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,585
Reaction score
9,686
Points
294
I really don’t have a dog in this fight. Just a casual interest. As I say, following the motives of humans in this case is far more explanatory than tracks and casts in the dirt. Besides. Bob Heironimous admitted he wore the suit and passed a lie detector test.
But again, I find it pretty strange that footage of a mystery animal, of which there is no physical record, fossil evidence or lineage of evolution or establishment in that part of the world is openly accepted as real, yet the guy who says it’s a man in a suit invented by a con man who actually drew a female Bigfoot in his efforts to gain funding for a film about Bigfoot beforehand is the odd guy out here.
Maybe the reason he chose to do tits on it and make it female is purely because if it was a male, today we would be discussing Bigcock.
Really??
 

feinman

Only human skeptics will be probed..
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
1,186
Points
159
Patterson passed the test too. Here is a discussion about Bob Heironimus and lie detector tests:
https://bigfootforums.com/topic/8474-the-self-contradictions-of-bob-heironimus/page/23/
There will always be a doubt in my mind now about the veracity of the video. I don't know if polygraph tests are useful, unless there are multiple witnesses taking the test. In this case it just makes the case more unsolvable --or it is a hoax as Analogue Boy suggests.
 

Aether Blue

Fresh Blood
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
7
Reaction score
37
Points
13
So far the discussion seems to limit the possibilities to two: Either

A) P-G knowingly filmed a human in a costume (the "Fake" scenario)

or

B) P-G filmed a genuine cryptid (the "Real" scenario)

People seem to be taking the view that, if "real," then everything in depicted in the film may must be real, and likewise for the "fake" scenario.

What about mixed scenarios?

Now to be sure, some we can exclude pretty easily. For example, the left half of the figure is 100% genuine bigfoot, while the right half is human in a costume.

But some mixed scenarios might be worthy of consideration.

Example 1) P-G unknowingly filmed a proto-cosplayer. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that a human with the unusual proportions cited can exist; that the costume was a labor of love for which this talented individual was willing to make extraordinary sacrifices that no professional makeup artist would consider, such as gluing hair directly to the skin; but that this outsider artiste was unwilling to admit in public that he or she wandered about in the wilderness dressed as an ape.

Evaluation: The only speculative science involved here is whether a person with the stated proportions can exist. Otherwise, the scenario is unlikely, but possible.

Example 2) There exists a natural force that can produce apparently real phenomena in response to strong emotions. P-G really wanted to film bigfoot, and the natural force obliged.

Evaluation: This hypothesis calls for the existence of a previously unknown, unprecedented, and paradigm-shaking physical process that potentially explains all fortean phenomena, makes hash out of religion, and in general has profound implications for humanity's place in the universe. Ockham's razor seems to weigh in against it, but hey, look at that explanatory power!

Other mixed scenarios may be possible, and potentially more useful.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
41,642
Reaction score
31,566
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Evaluation: This hypothesis calls for the existence of a previously unknown, unprecedented, and paradigm-shaking physical process that potentially explains all fortean phenomena, makes hash out of religion, and in general has profound implications for humanity's place in the universe. Ockham's razor seems to weigh in against it, but hey, look at that explanatory power!
....The Matrix....?
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
7,585
Reaction score
9,686
Points
294
So far the discussion seems to limit the possibilities to two: Either

A) P-G knowingly filmed a human in a costume (the "Fake" scenario)

or

B) P-G filmed a genuine cryptid (the "Real" scenario)

People seem to be taking the view that, if "real," then everything in depicted in the film may must be real, and likewise for the "fake" scenario.

What about mixed scenarios?

Now to be sure, some we can exclude pretty easily. For example, the left half of the figure is 100% genuine bigfoot, while the right half is human in a costume.

But some mixed scenarios might be worthy of consideration.

Example 1) P-G unknowingly filmed a proto-cosplayer. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that a human with the unusual proportions cited can exist; that the costume was a labor of love for which this talented individual was willing to make extraordinary sacrifices that no professional makeup artist would consider, such as gluing hair directly to the skin; but that this outsider artiste was unwilling to admit in public that he or she wandered about in the wilderness dressed as an ape.

Evaluation: The only speculative science involved here is whether a person with the stated proportions can exist. Otherwise, the scenario is unlikely, but possible.

Example 2) There exists a natural force that can produce apparently real phenomena in response to strong emotions. P-G really wanted to film bigfoot, and the natural force obliged.

Evaluation: This hypothesis calls for the existence of a previously unknown, unprecedented, and paradigm-shaking physical process that potentially explains all fortean phenomena, makes hash out of religion, and in general has profound implications for humanity's place in the universe. Ockham's razor seems to weigh in against it, but hey, look at that explanatory power!

Other mixed scenarios may be possible, and potentially more useful.
I think Patterson was told to go and look around Bluff Creek by Ray Wallace as he was desperate to get his project off the ground.

But I also think he bought a monkey suit, however, I think Bob Heironimus is full of shit.

I think the boys were out location scouting and spotted a real cryptid, whether physical or something else who knows and filmed it.

For me, this is the way the Cosmic Joker works - the irony of it. Poor Roger spent the rest of his short life going, "No we really filmed it!"
People were like, "Roger you are full of shit, we know you bought a suit", etc.
 
Last edited:

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
Do we now have to prove the existence of ‘The Cosmic Joker‘ to make this work? That’s stretching things.... ridiculously.
 

Analogue Boy

The new Number 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,679
Reaction score
9,630
Points
309
More on this and the Wallace connection. Notice how the second illustration shows a Bigfoot with breasts.

 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
4,003
Points
154
I really don’t have a dog in this fight. Just a casual interest. As I say, following the motives of humans in this case is far more explanatory than tracks and casts in the dirt. Besides. Bob Heironimous admitted he wore the suit and passed a lie detector test.
It is easy enough to defeat a lie detector by taking valium. Then when they ask you "Have you taken any drugs or alcohol recently" before you take the test you answer "no". In fact psychopaths, who don't feel guilt, generally pass lie detector tests with ease. I put it to you that Bob Heironimous simply isn't tall enough to fit the bill, yet he has cashed in on his purported hoax with a big ol' book deal, which indicates poor bona fides. Also, where is the ape suit now? And how has he retained the same posture and gait for over 30 years? Too much missing evidence. Also the story has multiple points of inconsistency in the so-called confession. For example, sometimes we are told the suit was made from horse hide, while at other times we are told it was from a synthetic fibre, plus nobody can agree on the way it was made, sucha s where the zippers were, etc. Plus the whole notion that he didn't come forward because he was scared of being charged with a hoax, well, do we really believe that? Why come forward at all if that was seriously the case? In any case, this doesn't account for the thousands of other people who have also seen sasquatches in the wilderness of North America, and increasingly the not-so-wilderness, as bigfoot comes foraging for scraps from our bins and the fruit from the trees in our yards.
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,188
Reaction score
2,854
Points
169
I really don’t have a dog in this fight. Just a casual interest. As I say, following the motives of humans in this case is far more explanatory than tracks and casts in the dirt. Besides. Bob Heironimous admitted he wore the suit and passed a lie detector test.
But again, I find it pretty strange that footage of a mystery animal, of which there is no physical record, fossil evidence or lineage of evolution or establishment in that part of the world is openly accepted as real, yet the guy who says it’s a man in a suit invented by a con man who actually drew a female Bigfoot in his efforts to gain funding for a film about Bigfoot beforehand is the odd guy out here.
Maybe the reason he chose to do tits on it and make it female is purely because if it was a male, today we would be discussing Bigcock.
Putting tits on it would make the costume more expensive. Also known, knuckle walking apes have fairly flat or droopy breasts unlike the full chested thing in the PN film. Larger breasts would counter balance the large buttock muscles in upright walking hominins, including humans. I don't think they would have known this.
 

feinman

Only human skeptics will be probed..
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
1,708
Reaction score
1,186
Points
159
I think Patterson was told to go and look around Bluff Creek by Ray Wallace as he was desperate to get his project off the ground.

But I also think he bought a monkey suit, however, I think Bob Heironimus is full of shit.

I think the boys were out location scouting and spotted a real cryptid, whether physical or something else who knows and filmed it.

For me, this is the way the Cosmic Joker works - the irony of it. Poor Roger spent the rest of his short life going, "No we really filmed it!"
People were like, "Roger you are full of shit, we know you bought a suit", etc.
There are sometimes strange coincidences that surround sightings of various kinds; some of it is pareidolia, but sometimes I think circumstances are shaped by subconscious precognitive knowledge, or both.
 

Zeke Newbold

Carbon based biped.
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
949
Reaction score
1,825
Points
139
Maybe the reason he chose to do tits on it and make it female is purely because if it was a male, today we would be discussing Bigcock.
Whoa! That may have been an offhand joke - but I do believe that Analogue Boy may just have provided a valid explanation of why Patty is female - despite the silliness of doing it that way and the extra expense it would have incurred. The femaleness of Patty has long bothered me - and I believe it still constitutes a major reason as to why so many sane people still insist on the picture showing the real deal.

Think about it in local and contemporary cultural terms.Had Patty been male then it woulkd have needed the correct appendages to be believable to zoologists - which would have meant a visible, and probabaly quite large, penis. Now in 1967 such a thing would have been quite `ooer missis` and would have lead to the the circulation of the film being restricted(it would not have been showable to minors, for example, and would never have been broadcast on TV). The only way round the censorhip and restricted viewership that a male bigfoot would have been subjected to would be to make the creature a female of the species. All very shrewd - and perfectly understandable withtin the cultural context of its time.

What about mixed scenarios?



But some mixed scenarios might be worthy of consideration.

Example 1) P-G unknowingly filmed a proto-cosplayer. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that a human with the unusual proportions cited can exist; that the costume was a labor of love for which this talented individual was willing to make extraordinary sacrifices that no professional makeup artist would consider, such as gluing hair directly to the skin; but that this outsider artiste was unwilling to admit in public that he or she wandered about in the wilderness dressed as an ape.

Evaluation: The only speculative science involved here is whether a person with the stated proportions can exist. Otherwise, the scenario is unlikely, but possible.
A more probable variation on this `mixed scenario` is simply that Gimlin was/is sincere and was not in on the hoax that had been set up by Patterson. Gimlin is by all accounts a quiet spoken credible man, quite apart from the his more shady associate, and has only recently has crept into the limelight. There is at least one written interview with him - damned if I can find it now - where he does concede the possibility that he himself has been the unwitting stooge of a prank all these years.

I think Patterson was told to go and look around Bluff Creek by Ray Wallace as he was desperate to get his project off the ground.

But I also think he bought a monkey suit, however, I think Bob Heironimus is full of shit.

I think the boys were out location scouting and spotted a real cryptid, whether physical or something else who knows and filmed it.

For me, this is the way the Cosmic Joker works - the irony of it. Poor Roger spent the rest of his short life going, "No we really filmed it!"
People were like, "Roger you are full of shit, we know you bought a suit", etc.
Why conjure up such a complicated universe? I am not an Occulms Razor kind of a guy (you could have never predicted Quantum mechnics, for example with Occulms razor) but there are times when it has its uses - and this is one of them! From the late fifties onwards reports of The Abominable Snowman in the Himalayas had been filtering through from the press. The idea of this appeals to a certain type of post-war romantic frontiersman who otherwise could not afford to travel to the Far East. A localised variant on the same phenomenon was needed in sensation loving North America. Nature abhors a vacumn - and lo and behold -a wheeler-dealer type shows up in a relatively inhabited part of rural California (where a hoaxer has earlier been making fake footprints) and manages to capture an unprecedented film of a large man ape lumbering around in the forest. We don't know how he (they) did it, and can speculate endlessly - but balance of probability, guys, balance of probability...!

Evaluation: This hypothesis calls for the existence of a previously unknown, unprecedented, and paradigm-shaking physical process that potentially explains all fortean phenomena, makes hash out of religion, and in general has profound implications for humanity's place in the universe. Ockham's razor seems to weigh in against it, but hey, look at that explanatory power!
I am open to the Tulpa/thought projection theory to explain ALL Fortean phenomena, but it must be stressed that mainstream science is definetly not - and is nowhere near even so much as approaching the concept. I think scientists would be happier with a flesh and blood Sasquatch - or a nuts and bolts UFO. before they would consider any such possibility.Amyway, here someone applies this approach to UFOs:

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=315213
 
Last edited:
Top