• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Ah. Thanks for the links guys.
In all honesty I could probably have gone the rest of my life without knowing!
 
Michael Watson said:
SNAP,

Watched a programme a year or two ago, featured alledged sounds of bigfoot, very little puts the wind up me, but these sounds did, hairs on back of neck standing up now just thinking about it!.
Click to expand...
Again, SNAP! I saw that one too - and yeah, those noises got to me, too - really, genuinely unsettling - almost like they spoke more to your instincts than your mind (cos my body reacted to them way before my brain did) - imagine being the blokes recording them :eek:*...


* yeah, yeah presupposing they're genuine...
 
Me too, though it is very many years back, but if I heard that cry on a dark night I would remember it and be very worried.
 
From a MSNBC radio transcript:

OLBERMANN: Nobody ever exactly mistook it for the videotape of Neil Armstrong landing on the moon, nor even for the shots of Lindbergh touching down in Paris at Le Bourget Field after the first trans-Atlantic solo flight.

But our No. 1 story on the COUNTDOWN tonight focuses in on what is still a pretty famous piece of film and the man who says—yes, that‘s me. For almost four decades, these images known as the Patterson film were the very debatable best evidence of a half-man, half-ape missing-link, yeti kind of creature living in the Northwest called Sasquatch and Bigfoot. That was until a paranormal investigator by the name of Greg Long got in touch with a retired Pepsi bottler by the name of Bob Heironimus.

Bob is Bigfoot. Such is the claim in Long‘s book, “The Making of Bigfoot.”

Joining me now from Yakima, Washington, Bob Heironimus, and, from Los Angeles, Robert Kiviat, the owner of Kiviat Productions, which is currently in the preproduction phase of the television special on the Bigfoot legend.

Gentlemen, good evening.

Mr Heironimus, let me begin with you here. Why, after almost 40 years of keeping this a secret, have you decided to come clean now about you portraying Bigfoot in this thing?

BOB HEIRONIMUS, CLAIMS TO BE THE MAN BEHIND BIGFOOT: Well, after 35 years of watching this on television numerous, numerous, numerous, numerous times, I think it is time that people knew truth. I was the man in the Bigfoot suit.

OLBERMANN: How did that happen? How did you come to be there? And what was the purpose of it?

HEIRONIMUS: I was approach by Roger Patterson and offered some money to wear the Bigfoot suit in Northern California in 1967.

OLBERMANN: How much money did you ever get it?

HEIRONIMUS: He offered me
OLBERMANN: Nobody ever exactly mistook it for the videotape of Neil Armstrong landing on the moon, nor even for the shots of Lindbergh touching down in Paris at Le Bourget Field after the first trans-Atlantic solo flight.

But our No. 1 story on the COUNTDOWN tonight focuses in on what is still a pretty famous piece of film and the man who says—yes, that‘s me. For almost four decades, these images known as the Patterson film were the very debatable best evidence of a half-man, half-ape missing-link, yeti kind of creature living in the Northwest called Sasquatch and Bigfoot. That was until a paranormal investigator by the name of Greg Long got in touch with a retired Pepsi bottler by the name of Bob Heironimus.

Bob is Bigfoot. Such is the claim in Long‘s book, “The Making of Bigfoot.”

Joining me now from Yakima, Washington, Bob Heironimus, and, from Los Angeles, Robert Kiviat, the owner of Kiviat Productions, which is currently in the preproduction phase of the television special on the Bigfoot legend.

Gentlemen, good evening.

Mr Heironimus, let me begin with you here. Why, after almost 40 years of keeping this a secret, have you decided to come clean now about you portraying Bigfoot in this thing?

BOB HEIRONIMUS, CLAIMS TO BE THE MAN BEHIND BIGFOOT: Well, after 35 years of watching this on television numerous, numerous, numerous, numerous times, I think it is time that people knew truth. I was the man in the Bigfoot suit.

OLBERMANN: How did that happen? How did you come to be there? And what was the purpose of it?

HEIRONIMUS: I was approach by Roger Patterson and offered some money to wear the Bigfoot suit in Northern California in 1967.

OLBERMANN: How much money did you ever get it?

HEIRONIMUS: He offered me $1,000. I never saw a dime of it all these years.

OLBERMANN: Just another part of the hoax.

Mr. Kiviat, you produced a TV special, “World‘s Greatest Hoaxes Exposed.” In that, you had identified another man as being the man in the suit. What made you believe Bob Heironimus?

ROBERT KIVIAT, KIVIAT PRODUCTIONS INC.: Well, we were looking at all the evidence and there was one individual that had come out who had said he worked at a film company that exploited the film in feature films.

And when Bob Heironimus emerged after the airing and said, look, the guy you‘re pointing to or your informant is pointing to is wrong, but I am the guy, I thought there was a breakthrough either way. The point is, we were trying to get to the bottom of the story. We didn‘t know for sure if the informant was telling us the truth. And I really thank Bob Heironimus for coming out and finally putting this particular film to rest, I believe.

OLBERMANN: Mr. Heironimus, we‘ve received, since we advertised your appearance here, an extraordinary amount of e-mail, people who firmly believe that you could not possibly be the man in the film, either because they think it is somebody else or because they think it is really Bigfoot. How do you respond to them?

HEIRONIMUS: Well, if you read the book, the investigation that Greg Long done on this Bigfoot thing, there should be no surprises at all. I was the man in the suit.

OLBERMANN: Sir, when computers and film analysis came into being, a lot of people studied and restudied this film and said, hey, wait a minute, two things. Bigfoot is wearing a belt of some sort. And it looks like he has got sneakers on. Do you remember? Were you wearing a belt or a harness of some sort to keep this costume in place?

HEIRONIMUS: No, there was no belt. There were no slippers.

OLBERMANN: So were you walking on? Were there bare feet inside the costume or what was that?

HEIRONIMUS: I was walking in my stocking feet inside the costume. Yes, the manufacturer of the suit has some kind of a gorilla feet attached to the suit.

OLBERMANN: Goodness.

Mr. Kiviat, I guess the overarching question about all this here is, why would anybody make this film in the first place? And why do we buy it all, have we all bought it for so long?

KIVIAT: Well, the reasons why they made the film apparently were for money. But also, there appears to be a lot of evidence that there was a larger plan to really create a Bigfoot myth in that part of the country. Basically, at this point, I believe people have a belief in these kinds of mysteries.

And one of the things I‘ve tried to do in network programs is get to the bottom of them. And a lot of other producer for years had not really done due diligence trying to get to the bottom of it. And I just think we‘re finally getting to these great mysteries. And one way or the other, I think we need to get to the bottom of them and prove, one way or the other, if they‘re real or not. So...

(CROSSTALK)

OLBERMANN: Bob Heironimus, one last question and then we‘ll let you go. Are you happy that you were Bigfoot in this film or ashamed? Or don‘t you care one way or the other?

HEIRONIMUS: Well, at the time that I made the film, I didn‘t care one way or the other. I just wanted the money. Now it‘s time people knew the truth. It‘s time people knew the truth.

(CROSSTALK)

OLBERMANN: Bob Heironimus, the man behind the suit. And Robert Kiviat of Kiviat Productions, we‘re out of time. We thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you much, gentlemen.

KIVIAT: Thanks.

HEIRONIMUS: Thank you.
Click to expand...
,000. I never saw a dime of it all these years.

OLBERMANN: Just another part of the hoax.

Mr. Kiviat, you produced a TV special, “World‘s Greatest Hoaxes Exposed.” In that, you had identified another man as being the man in the suit. What made you believe Bob Heironimus?

ROBERT KIVIAT, KIVIAT PRODUCTIONS INC.: Well, we were looking at all the evidence and there was one individual that had come out who had said he worked at a film company that exploited the film in feature films.

And when Bob Heironimus emerged after the airing and said, look, the guy you‘re pointing to or your informant is pointing to is wrong, but I am the guy, I thought there was a breakthrough either way. The point is, we were trying to get to the bottom of the story. We didn‘t know for sure if the informant was telling us the truth. And I really thank Bob Heironimus for coming out and finally putting this particular film to rest, I believe.

OLBERMANN: Mr. Heironimus, we‘ve received, since we advertised your appearance here, an extraordinary amount of e-mail, people who firmly believe that you could not possibly be the man in the film, either because they think it is somebody else or because they think it is really Bigfoot. How do you respond to them?

HEIRONIMUS: Well, if you read the book, the investigation that Greg Long done on this Bigfoot thing, there should be no surprises at all. I was the man in the suit.

OLBERMANN: Sir, when computers and film analysis came into being, a lot of people studied and restudied this film and said, hey, wait a minute, two things. Bigfoot is wearing a belt of some sort. And it looks like he has got sneakers on. Do you remember? Were you wearing a belt or a harness of some sort to keep this costume in place?

HEIRONIMUS: No, there was no belt. There were no slippers.

OLBERMANN: So were you walking on? Were there bare feet inside the costume or what was that?

HEIRONIMUS: I was walking in my stocking feet inside the costume. Yes, the manufacturer of the suit has some kind of a gorilla feet attached to the suit.

OLBERMANN: Goodness.

Mr. Kiviat, I guess the overarching question about all this here is, why would anybody make this film in the first place? And why do we buy it all, have we all bought it for so long?

KIVIAT: Well, the reasons why they made the film apparently were for money. But also, there appears to be a lot of evidence that there was a larger plan to really create a Bigfoot myth in that part of the country. Basically, at this point, I believe people have a belief in these kinds of mysteries.

And one of the things I‘ve tried to do in network programs is get to the bottom of them. And a lot of other producer for years had not really done due diligence trying to get to the bottom of it. And I just think we‘re finally getting to these great mysteries. And one way or the other, I think we need to get to the bottom of them and prove, one way or the other, if they‘re real or not. So...

(CROSSTALK)

OLBERMANN: Bob Heironimus, one last question and then we‘ll let you go. Are you happy that you were Bigfoot in this film or ashamed? Or don‘t you care one way or the other?

HEIRONIMUS: Well, at the time that I made the film, I didn‘t care one way or the other. I just wanted the money. Now it‘s time people knew the truth. It‘s time people knew the truth.

(CROSSTALK)

OLBERMANN: Bob Heironimus, the man behind the suit. And Robert Kiviat of Kiviat Productions, we‘re out of time. We thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you much, gentlemen.

KIVIAT: Thanks.

HEIRONIMUS: Thank you.
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587385/
 
i before e except when its another Bob Hieronimus/Bob Heiron

March 24 - March 30, 2004


A Still From the Recently Created, er, Discovered "Patterson Park Footage" of a Hairy Man-Like Baltimorean.

Bob Bigfoot?

Bob Hieronimus is big into Bigfoot. As host and founder of 21st Century Radio, a sort of fringe-topic talk show heard evenings onWCBM-AM680, Dr. Bob has interviewed a bevy ofBigfoot researchers and believers about the legendary hairy humanoid (aka Sasquatch,Yeti, and the Nose's fave, Skunk Ape). But even out-there Bob is bowled over by the latest Bigfoot scuttlebutt. Allegations have surfaced that have some thinking that the diminutive radioman--size 8 1/2 shoes and all--is Bigfoot. Or, more specifically, that he spoofed being a Sasquatch for some pivotal film footage. Indeed, the Reliable Source column in the March 7 Washington Post says Bob Heironimus "donned a gorilla costume and appeared in the famous grainy film clip that helped fuel the Bigfoot craze in 1967." The fake fur flap has since bounced all over the Internet. Confused? Well, careful readers shouldn't be. The Post's Bob Heironimus is a retired Pepsi bottler from Yakima, Wash., and not to be mistaken with the Baltimore-based on-air Skunk Ape aficionado, Bob Hieronimus. But spellings be damned, our Bob says he's gotten "umpteen phone calls" about the Bigfoot brouhaha. E-mails have poured in, too.

"Some people right away say, 'It's impossible because you're only 5-foot-five," a chuckling Hieronimus says.

But i-before-e Bob takes Bigfoot--and the Bigfoot footage--seriously, branding Yakima Bob's confessions "bullshit."

"This is just to make money--to sell a book," Hieronimus says. "And Fox [television] will push it."

(As it turns out, the details of Heironimus' alleged faux film work are revealed in the recently released tome The Making of Bigfoot byGreg Long--a writer/researcher Hieronimus brands "not too reliable.")

Chances are, if you've seen any TV show on Bigfoot, you've seen the clip in question. Known to cryptozoologists as the "Patterson Footage" (after Roger Patterson, who captured it at Bluff Creek, Calif.), it shows a female Bigfoot (or, some dude in a fur suit) power-walking into the woods--at one point looking over her (its? his?) shoulder at the camera. Patterson died in 1972, but associate Bob Gimlin, who was present when Betty Bigfoot did her stroll, patently denies the hoax claims. As does Hieronimus, who feels the 60 seconds of 16-mm film couldn't possibly be some schmuck in a monkey outfit. "You can see the muscle structure within the body of this creature," he says. "It's not a suit or a hairy costume."

Of course, when you're dealing with outside-the-box topics--from Bigfoot to the Loch Ness Monster to Mothman--this sort of controversy is par for the course. (An earlier effort to pooh-pooh the Patterson film said the hairy girl in question was really a getup designed by the costumer for the Planet of the Apes films.) And over the years, Bob Hie. has learned that his surname, which he's seen "spelled 13 different" ways, is no stranger to weirdness.

"There are at least three other Bob Hieronimi, and all of them do some peculiar things--like myself," he says. "One fella was running around taking underwear off of clotheslines in the general Maryland area."

No word on whether there's any footage of that Hieronimus at work.
Click to expand...

http://www.citypaper.com/current/nose2.html
 
Back in the 19th century was not a Bigfoot shot and killed somewhere in Alaska?

I seem to remember reading the story about this in some book or publication.There was a grainy photo of the creature loaded upon a railroad flatcar that had been printed in a village newspaper of the peroid.

I would think that these frontier types would be able to distinguish between a moose, bear,caribou or similar large native mammal and a large hairy primate.
 
Seminole said:
Back in the 19th century was not a Bigfoot shot and killed somewhere in Alaska?

I seem to remember reading the story about this in some book or publication.There was a grainy photo of the creature loaded upon a railroad flatcar that had been printed in a village newspaper of the peroid.
Click to expand...
Yep, there's a print of it in the Bords' "Bigfoot Casebook" IIRC, or possibly the ASSAP book "The Evidence for Bigfoot and other Man Beasts" (also J & C Bord) -have lost my copies of each :(. Tried googling for the image, no dice as yet.

And then there was Jacko, though these days it seems to be generally accepted that he was a chimp rather than a juvenile bigfoot - good, succinct write up of the story on cryptozoology.com.
 
March 28, 2004


Dispelling the myth of Bigfoot

For those who subscribe to the legend of Bigfoot, it must’ve felt like getting kicked in the solar plexus by, well, a humongous hairy foot.

But there it was, in black and white journalistic tracks across the Washington Post.

"It’s time people knew it was a hoax," Bob Heironimus told the paper earlier this month. "It’s time to let this thing go. I’ve been burdened with this for 36 years, seeing the film clip on TV numerous times."

Apparently the retired Pepsi bottler from Yakima, Wash., could no longer keep his secret bottled up: He says he was the man in the big monkey suit back in October 1967.

Bigfoot buffs went ape over the grainy 16 mm film shot that fall of an alleged Sasquatch caught in the buff alongside Bluff Creek, Calif.

The remote site is some 50 miles south of Happy Camp, where I spent the summer of 1968 setting chokers in the logging woods.

Advertisement


The 60-second film shows a hairy, hulking creature with a pointed head and flaring nostrils looking back over its right shoulder at the whirring camera.

The monstrous thing is estimated to have been about 7 feet tall and 3 feet across the shoulders. Plaster casts of the prints revealed a 14-inch foot.

Heironimus, 63, now insists it was all an act by folks with average size feet aping Bigfoot. His confession is also in "The Making of Bigfoot," a recently published book by paranormal investigator Greg Long.

The author even traces the ape suit to a North Carolina gorilla suit specialist, Philip Morris, who says he sold it for 5 to Roger Patterson, a former rodeo rider turned amateur filmmaker.

The fact Patterson, who died in 1972, was another Yakimanian is not missed by the oh-Yeti-of-little-faith crowd.

The whole monkey business must be related to the radioactive water percolating out of the nearby Hanford nuclear reactor, they snicker.

But the admission is an abominable blow to those of us who like the idea of an elusive, mysterious creature out there in the wilds, one that always appears to be one step ahead of housebroken bipeds.

Unfortunately, the wild ape legend of the Pacific Northwest was already slipping on the banana peels of plausibility.

When retired logger Ray Wallace of Centralia, Wash., died at age 84 late in 2002, his son, Michael Wallace, told the Seattle Times that his father was the father of the Bigfoot legend.

His family revealed that the lifelong practical joker had slipped on a pair of 16-inch carved wooden feet early one August morning in 1958 at a logging site where he was working in Humboldt County, Calif. He tromped around a bulldozer, then beat big wooden feet for the woods.

When the cat skinner arrived, he saw the monstrous tracks in the fresh dirt. So did a reporter summoned from the Eureka-based Humboldt Times newspaper. The paper went ape, publishing a front-page story about what it called "Bigfoot."

In journalistic parlance, the Bigfoot story had legs.

Backing up the family’s story was Mark Chorvinsky, editor of Strange magazine. Chorvinsky said the senior Wallace had told him the Patterson film was a fake, that he knew who was wearing the monkey suit.

But there remained the story before the film was shot about the huge creature leaving tracks and tossing an oil drum and a truck tire over the edge of a log landing on Bluff Creek.

That tale was still being told by local loggers when I arrived at Bluff Creek that summer in 1968.

The choker setting job offered by the Ring Brothers logging company paid .10 an hour. That was big bucks for a high school senior from the Illinois Valley.

Never mind I didn’t know a choker from a chaser on the landing. Two seasoned loggers, Indian brothers Eddie and Jim who were reared along the lower Klamath River, showed me the ropes.

Although they were reticent to talk much at first, they warmed up as we sweated away the long summer days.

Not long before I returned to school early in September, the brothers fessed up.

Bored one summer day after work in 1967, they made big foot prints on the dusty log landing. They also chucked an old tire and empty oil drum over the hill.

By the time the story went national, the empty drum bulged with 50 gallons of oil; the tire grew too big for four burly loggers to lift.

But they still swore the big furry fellow was out there.

Somewhere.
Click to expand...

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2004/0328/local/stories/16local.htm
 
The 1967 home movie footage (filmed by Roger Patterson) was revealed as a hoax by the hoaxers in a book called "The Making of Bigfoot". Thirty Six years after it was filmed 63 year old Bob Heironimus has come forward and admitted he was the man in the suit. He alleges that Patterson said he would pay him a $1000 to wear the suit and be filmed but Heironimus says, "I was never paid a dime for that, no sir," and adds, "Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it."
The book is by no means conclusive and a lawyer in Minneapolis representing Bob Gimlin (associate of the now dead Patterson) said "I'm authorised to tell you that nobody wore a gorilla suit or monkey suit and that Mr. Gimlin's position is that it's absolutely false and untrue."
 
nimrods son said:
The 1967 home movie footage (filmed by Roger Patterson) was revealed as a hoax by the hoaxers in a book called "The Making of Bigfoot". Thirty Six years after it was filmed 63 year old Bob Heironimus has come forward and admitted he was the man in the suit. He alleges that Patterson said he would pay him a 00 to wear the suit and be filmed but Heironimus says, "I was never paid a dime for that, no sir," and adds, "Sure I want to make some money. I feel that after 36 years I should get some of it."
The book is by no means conclusive and a lawyer in Minneapolis representing Bob Gimlin (associate of the now dead Patterson) said "I'm authorised to tell you that nobody wore a gorilla suit or monkey suit and that Mr. Gimlin's position is that it's absolutely false and untrue."
Click to expand...

From what I remember, he isn't the first man to come forward and claim that he was the guy in the suit.

Maybe a few extra details, like how they got such realistic muscle movement, arm length etc... would be helpful. But I'm sure you need to buy the book to find out ;)
 
Maybe a few extra details, like how they got such realistic muscle movement, arm length etc... would be helpful. But I'm sure you need to buy the book to find out
Click to expand...

Listened to the Rense prog...that is what I was thinking.

If its fake them pros made it with a proper film set suit
 
bigfoot in america

BIGFOOT COSTUME MADE IN NORTH CAROLINA! So very bored of the latest 'revelation' re the Patterson film; what most ( if not all ) the various media fail to mention is that this is just the most recent hoaxing claim by the same parties for admitted financial gain. Similar claims were put forth by the very same individual behind the latest 'confession' ( a television producer ) a few years back, who was claiming then that he had finally nailed the lid shut on the case for the sasquatch ( I failed to receive my invitation to the funeral; and, in any case, where would you find pallbearers for such a thing? Yeti, Almas, and Chewbacca probably ). He even produced a TV special which featured 'FOR THE FIRST TIME...EXCLUSIVE FOOTAGE'...of the man who was wearing the 'monkey' suit in the Patterson footage. Clearly, this seems a case of 'throw (bull)shit at the wall and see what sticks'. I want to see the suit. I want to know who made it, how it was manufactured, where it is now, and, please be so kind as to recreate the 'suit' for the credulous who actually believed they were seeing a living, breathing whatsis. ( this last should be fairly easy what with the advances in make-up, spfx and costuming ). However, I feel fairly confident in stating that It Ain't Gonna Happen. To date, and to my knowledge, there have been at least SIX different individuals all claiming to be the bigfoot in the Patterson fim ( and how does this latest 'revelation' square with Mark Chorvinsky's charge that 'it is a well-known fact' in the hollywood special effects community that the sasquatch 'suit' was made by award-winning and well-respected special effects maestro, the late John Chambers, who went to his death maintaing that he had nothing to do with the 'suit'). Here is my suggestion - perhaps all six men were wearing the suit at the same time! this is only slightly less ridiculous than the claims currently being paraded about in the news media. 'Take that, sasquatch!' indeed.
 
Apr. 4, 2004. 01:00 AM


Debunking book stomps on Bigfoot footage


JAY INGRAM

Most of the time I write about science, but sometimes I write about "science."

"Science" topics have a scientific veneer, but a little scraping and sanding reveals there's nothing underneath. UFO's, crop circles and the Loch Ness monster are all perfect examples, but my favourite is Bigfoot, although this man-ape of the Pacific Northwest has just taken a shot that might put him down forever.

A man with a skeptical bent, Greg Long, has published a book, The Making Of Bigfoot — The Inside Story, in which he claims to have found not only the man who wore the gorilla suit in the famous 1967 film of a female Bigfoot but also the guy who supplied the suit.

There is no doubt that the film has been the best — although not the only — piece of evidence for the animal. It is about 60 seconds of hastily shot footage of a female Bigfoot ambling across a clearing in northern California. Two men, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin, claimed to have stumbled across the creature as they wandered through the woods.

The odds against acceptance of the film should have been pretty high. After all, the two men had announced in advance they were out looking for a Bigfoot and no other convincing visual record of the animal has turned up since. But even though there were plenty of people who immediately dismissed it as a hoax, the film is still taken seriously by many.

This is where the "science" comes in: An endless number of self-proclaimed experts has analyzed the film (each asserting that his analysis has been "frame-by-frame," each using the latest technology) and found evidence that the creature in the film must be the real thing.

The movements of the muscles underneath the skin can be seen clearly, something that would be impossible for a man wearing a loose-fitting suit.

The timing and length of the strides are not human; the rotation of the torso as the animal glances back at the camera couldn't be accomplished with a suit; the arms are too long to be human — the list goes on and on.

These analyses have been muddied by the fact that Patterson wasn't sure whether the camera was set to film at 16 or 24 feet per second.

One of the best studies, decades ago, claimed that at 24 feet per second, the movements were human, but that at 16 feet per second, they couldn't be. How handy for the perpetuation of the story that there was this uncertainty!

Nonetheless, had this been a subject with no passion involved — something that didn't feed what some have called the "Goblin Universe" — the film would be gathering dust in somebody's basement by now.

But with stories like these — "science" stories — belief precedes evidence.

When things are in that order, believers can see muscle movements in what might be the loose folds of a costume or analyze stride length and somehow make the results come out on the non-human side.

Author Long argues that the man in the suit, Bob Heironimus, just walked like that. He claims to have taped Heironimus, put that tape side-by-side with the Patterson film, and they matched.

Admittedly, there are inconsistencies in Long's account. Heironimus remembers the suit being a three-piece affair, while the man who purportedly made it and supplied it, claims it had six pieces.

Why the breasts, which didn't come with the suit? Why did Heironimus remember the suit having a terrible smell when it was an off-the-shelf gorilla suit? What eventually happened to the suit?

All these questions, however incidental to the story, will of course allow believers to soldier on. (If you don't believe me, check out the customer reviews of the book at http://www.amazon.com). Remember, it's belief before evidence, not the other way around.

In the end, that's what makes stories like this so fascinating. It's not the big, undiscovered primate that somehow continues to elude discovery in the Pacific Northwest — it's the people who still search for it.

And you know, a little part of me goes with those people.

I confess to disappointment that the whole Bigfoot saga seems to have come down to some guys wanting to make a lot of money from a gorilla suit. It's so unromantic.

Jay Ingram hosts the Daily Planet show on the Discovery Channel.
Click to expand...

link

stu edit - fixed link from someone who really should know better :roll:
 
There is no doubt that the film has been the best — although not the only — piece of evidence for the animal.
Click to expand...
This, to me, is the crux of the whole controversy. The Patterson film has for ages been used as leverage by both the skeptical and believer sides to either prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot, despite being only one piece of evidence among a whole slew of others.

Is it genuine? I don't know. I'd like to think it's genuine, but as a Fortean I can only conclude that there is definitely a film that purports to show a Bigfoot. I doubt seriously it will ever be proven now to be a fake or not, so will continue to polarise beliefs.

Ultimately, though, for me I'd still believe in the objective existence of Bigfoot whether or not the film existed - whatever it's true nature, there's clearly something out there - too many people have seen, heard and smelt it for it to be mistaken identity or confabulation in all cases.
 
stu neville said:
This, to me, is the crux of the whole controversy. The Patterson film has for ages been used as leverage by both the skeptical and believer sides to either prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot, despite being only one piece of evidence among a whole slew of others.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised the Myakka photos aren't more discussed. Although it's not a video, the image of the creature is a lot clearer to my eyes than the one in the patterson footage. You can make out more detail in this; texture of the hair, reflective eyes, shape of the teeth, ect. Any idea why this isn't more discussed? Or is it and I'm just oblivious? Personally, I find it more striking than the Patterson video, even though it's just a static image.
 
bigfoot misconception

The worse argument ever for the patterson film is that it dident attack or run away.

I have seen Gorillias approched or watched by humans Simply look over their shoulders and calmly walk away.

Only if the human came close or followed the gorllia did it frighten off the human.It dident attack just put on a big fiecre show.

Animals are not completely dumb a bigfoot would quickly size up a human as being a non threat because of its size if it followed the bigfoot or came to close it would act like any other primate and scare you off.

The "it dident attack or run away" theory falls apart when you look at other large primate behavior

Which no one has apprently

Was trying to post as a reply but it kept failing
 
Re: bigfoot misconception

blairsden said:
Was trying to post as a reply but it kept failing
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of the "session timed out". ;)
You'll probably find that replying will work now. It seems to be an occasional, though extremely annoying, problem with the way the board works. In fact there is a thread more or less devoted to the issue on "web site issues." :)
 
stu neville said:
This, to me, is the crux of the whole controversy. The Patterson film has for ages been used as leverage by both the skeptical and believer sides to either prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of Bigfoot, despite being only one piece of evidence among a whole slew of others.

Is it genuine? I don't know. I'd like to think it's genuine, but as a Fortean I can only conclude that there is definitely a film that purports to show a Bigfoot. I doubt seriously it will ever be proven now to be a fake or not, so will continue to polarise beliefs.

Ultimately, though, for me I'd still believe in the objective existence of Bigfoot whether or not the film existed - whatever it's true nature, there's clearly something out there - too many people have seen, heard and smelt it for it to be mistaken identity or confabulation in all cases.
Click to expand...

If ever a live 'bigfoot', which bore a striking resemblance to the entity in the Patterson film, was captured, wouldn't that go some way towards proving the film to be genuine..?
 
Bannik said:
I'm surprised the Myakka photos aren't more discussed. Although it's not a video, the image of the creature is a lot clearer to my eyes than the one in the patterson footage. You can make out more detail in this; texture of the hair, reflective eyes, shape of the teeth, ect. Any idea why this isn't more discussed? Or is it and I'm just oblivious? Personally, I find it more striking than the Patterson video, even though it's just a static image.
Click to expand...

When I originally saw the photos in FT, I didn't think much of them, but looking at the larger images in the link you provided, I noticed the long arm... :eek!!!!:
 
Bigfoot - is he real?

06:26 AM MDT on Tuesday, May 4, 2004

By JOHN STOFFLET / Evening Magazine

Do you believe Bigfoot exists? If you do, it might be because of the famous film two Yakima-area men shot in Northern California in 1967.

But now, another Yakima man says he was there and the whole thing was a hoax.

Bob Heironimus says the film that many Bigfoot believers consider proof the creature exists is big-time phony.

"I could have spilled my guts 30 years ago… but I kept it quiet because I promised I would... But I think after 35 years, the truth should come out," he said.

Heironimus says Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin asked him in 1967 to wear a type of gorilla suit for their film and promised to pay him
Bigfoot - is he real?

06:26 AM MDT on Tuesday, May 4, 2004

By JOHN STOFFLET / Evening Magazine

Do you believe Bigfoot exists? If you do, it might be because of the famous film two Yakima-area men shot in Northern California in 1967.

But now, another Yakima man says he was there and the whole thing was a hoax.

Bob Heironimus says the film that many Bigfoot believers consider proof the creature exists is big-time phony.

"I could have spilled my guts 30 years ago… but I kept it quiet because I promised I would... But I think after 35 years, the truth should come out," he said.

Heironimus says Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin asked him in 1967 to wear a type of gorilla suit for their film and promised to pay him $1,000 after the job was done.

He then traveled to Northern California where he met with Patterson and Gimlin.

"I was nervous to heck, of course, of being shot [by a hunter]," he said.

Patterson allegedly asked Heironimus to take the gorilla suit with him and mail the film back to Yakima. According to Heironimus, Patterson and Gimlin stayed behind to make fake Bigfood tracks around the film site.

Roger Patterson's Bigfoot film was instantly in the media spotlight, and he charged audiences to see the movie and companies to use it for commercial purposes.

Heironimus says he never got paid for the job.

When author Greg Long of Mill Creek, Wash., heard Bob Heironimus' story, it didn't surprise him. After all, he spent years researching Roger Patterson before writing the book, "The Making of Bigfoot."

"He would cheat people and he would lie, and he would steal. And this is just not one person who told me this, this is dozens of people in Yakima who have told me the same story – that Patterson simply was not an honest man," he said. "He was a con artist who persuaded people to invest in his schemes, he never paid them back, they never got any money out of it."

Long said he uncovered arrest warrants issued for Patterson, alleging the didn't return the very rental camera he used to shoot his Bigfoot film.

In addition to Heironimum' confession, Long also came across Phillip Morris, a North Carolina costume maker who told Long he sold a gorilla suit to Patterson earlier.

Bob Heironimus' mother, Opal, and others reportedly saw the suit when Heironimus returned to Yakima in 1967.

Patterson died in 1972 at age 38.

Evening Magazine tried to give his widow, Pat Patterson, who reportedly still makes money selling her late husband's footage, a chance to answer the accusations, but she had "no comments."

So what about the other Yakima man – Bob Gimlin?

His wife, Judi, said he doesn't talk to the media, but Evening Magazine did receive a late fax from Gimlin stating, "I was the only person with Roger Patterson when he filmed the creature. I have always believed what I saw was real and not a man in a suit. My belief has been supported by countless hours of research and scientific studies."

He went on to say he has never profited from the film and said "Greg Long's book is a crudely written fantasy account of Bob Heironimus' attempt to make a few dollars and enjoy his 15 minutes of fame."

Heironimus claims Gimlin told him something quite different when Heironimus said he was going public about the alleged hoax.

So who is lying?

Researcher and retired journalist John Green knew Roger Patterson, has studied the film and Bigfoot for decades, and says that's no man in a monkey suit.

"He can't be the man in the suit, because he's in the first place not big enough, not tall enough, in the second place, his arms are too short and his legs too long. It's physically impossible," he said.

Green sent Evening Magazine a long list of what he believes to be inaccuracies in Long's book and holes in Heironimus' story.

He said Heironimus is lying because he " hasn't got a clue in the world about where that movie was made."

Green is angry that author Greg Long focuses so much on film maker Roger Patterson in his book and so little time analyzing Patterson's film.

"He had this strange idea of his own that the film could be proven fake by attacking the character of the person who held the camera," he said. "That he failed to pay some of his bills? That's not untrue. That he failed to return a camera? That's not untrue. That he was a thief and a con man? That's totally ridiculous."

In that faxed statement from Bob Gimlin, he says the book is "an ugly character assassination of a man no longer alive to answer the accusations."

"The Patterson film is really for Bigfoot believers a religious icon. That's the way I look at it. They worship this film. It is the single-best piece of evidence for Bigfoot," said Long.

Green says when he hired an expert to run a computer analysis of the Patterson film, results showed the creature could not have a human skeleton. That it's much wider and deeper and would have to belong to an unknown primate.

The only other explanation?

According to the study it was a sophisticated special effects machine that couldn't have been made in 1967.

Heironimus wouldn't demonstrate "the exaggerated Bigfoot walk" because talks are under way to make his story and Greg Long's book into a TV special, one in which Heironimus' walk would be scientifically compared to the "ape walk" in the film – for which he, of course, wants money.

We at Evening Magaszine wondered what it would look like if we tried to make a Bigfoot film of our own, the way Long and Heironimus say Roger Patterson made his. We picked up a gorilla suit and made no modifications to it. We used a 16 mm film camera roughly like Patterson's. The results were amazingly similar.

"Every effort by Hollywood to make a Sasquatch of their own falls short of this film," said Green, "for the very simple reason the people in the suits don't have the right arms and legs."

We haven't heard the end of this story. Lawsuits and legal action could be coming from both sides in a dispute that could grow bigger than Bigfoot himself.
Click to expand...
,000 after the job was done.

He then traveled to Northern California where he met with Patterson and Gimlin.

"I was nervous to heck, of course, of being shot [by a hunter]," he said.

Patterson allegedly asked Heironimus to take the gorilla suit with him and mail the film back to Yakima. According to Heironimus, Patterson and Gimlin stayed behind to make fake Bigfood tracks around the film site.

Roger Patterson's Bigfoot film was instantly in the media spotlight, and he charged audiences to see the movie and companies to use it for commercial purposes.

Heironimus says he never got paid for the job.

When author Greg Long of Mill Creek, Wash., heard Bob Heironimus' story, it didn't surprise him. After all, he spent years researching Roger Patterson before writing the book, "The Making of Bigfoot."

"He would cheat people and he would lie, and he would steal. And this is just not one person who told me this, this is dozens of people in Yakima who have told me the same story – that Patterson simply was not an honest man," he said. "He was a con artist who persuaded people to invest in his schemes, he never paid them back, they never got any money out of it."

Long said he uncovered arrest warrants issued for Patterson, alleging the didn't return the very rental camera he used to shoot his Bigfoot film.

In addition to Heironimum' confession, Long also came across Phillip Morris, a North Carolina costume maker who told Long he sold a gorilla suit to Patterson earlier.

Bob Heironimus' mother, Opal, and others reportedly saw the suit when Heironimus returned to Yakima in 1967.

Patterson died in 1972 at age 38.

Evening Magazine tried to give his widow, Pat Patterson, who reportedly still makes money selling her late husband's footage, a chance to answer the accusations, but she had "no comments."

So what about the other Yakima man – Bob Gimlin?

His wife, Judi, said he doesn't talk to the media, but Evening Magazine did receive a late fax from Gimlin stating, "I was the only person with Roger Patterson when he filmed the creature. I have always believed what I saw was real and not a man in a suit. My belief has been supported by countless hours of research and scientific studies."

He went on to say he has never profited from the film and said "Greg Long's book is a crudely written fantasy account of Bob Heironimus' attempt to make a few dollars and enjoy his 15 minutes of fame."

Heironimus claims Gimlin told him something quite different when Heironimus said he was going public about the alleged hoax.

So who is lying?

Researcher and retired journalist John Green knew Roger Patterson, has studied the film and Bigfoot for decades, and says that's no man in a monkey suit.

"He can't be the man in the suit, because he's in the first place not big enough, not tall enough, in the second place, his arms are too short and his legs too long. It's physically impossible," he said.

Green sent Evening Magazine a long list of what he believes to be inaccuracies in Long's book and holes in Heironimus' story.

He said Heironimus is lying because he " hasn't got a clue in the world about where that movie was made."

Green is angry that author Greg Long focuses so much on film maker Roger Patterson in his book and so little time analyzing Patterson's film.

"He had this strange idea of his own that the film could be proven fake by attacking the character of the person who held the camera," he said. "That he failed to pay some of his bills? That's not untrue. That he failed to return a camera? That's not untrue. That he was a thief and a con man? That's totally ridiculous."

In that faxed statement from Bob Gimlin, he says the book is "an ugly character assassination of a man no longer alive to answer the accusations."

"The Patterson film is really for Bigfoot believers a religious icon. That's the way I look at it. They worship this film. It is the single-best piece of evidence for Bigfoot," said Long.

Green says when he hired an expert to run a computer analysis of the Patterson film, results showed the creature could not have a human skeleton. That it's much wider and deeper and would have to belong to an unknown primate.

The only other explanation?

According to the study it was a sophisticated special effects machine that couldn't have been made in 1967.

Heironimus wouldn't demonstrate "the exaggerated Bigfoot walk" because talks are under way to make his story and Greg Long's book into a TV special, one in which Heironimus' walk would be scientifically compared to the "ape walk" in the film – for which he, of course, wants money.

We at Evening Magaszine wondered what it would look like if we tried to make a Bigfoot film of our own, the way Long and Heironimus say Roger Patterson made his. We picked up a gorilla suit and made no modifications to it. We used a 16 mm film camera roughly like Patterson's. The results were amazingly similar.

"Every effort by Hollywood to make a Sasquatch of their own falls short of this film," said Green, "for the very simple reason the people in the suits don't have the right arms and legs."

We haven't heard the end of this story. Lawsuits and legal action could be coming from both sides in a dispute that could grow bigger than Bigfoot himself.
Click to expand...

http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/stories/NW_050304EMbigfoot.1884c5333.html
 
Disturbingly familiar, that bit about the magazine going out with a "standard" gorilla suit and making its own "Patterson film" that (they claim) is "amazingly similar" to the Patterson film.

Haven't we all heard that one before?

I remain open-minded on the subject of the Patterson film's authenticity, but (my naivete showing here!) I would have thought, by now, that even the media wouldn't be so condescending as to think that the film wouldn't have been utterly repudiated if it indeed showed nothing more sophisticated than some guy in a "standard" gorilla suit running across a clearing. I have the gut feeling that this piece of footage has been more closely examined than any this side of the Zapruder film, and if it IS a fake, it sure isn't of the sort that could be slapped together by a couple of guys using an off the shelf Halloween suit...

Shadow
 
patterson

This contadicts everything weve heard before, To my knowledge Patterson never tried to make a dime off the video.

Could be just another guy trying to make a buck(Which he is) Off the contrversy.

Remember its the detail of the muscle moving under the fur that was impossiable to create as a costume at that time.

This will trun outto be well wheres the suit oh I lost it or something----always the most crucial piece of evidence mysteriously disappers
 
I have been hiking in the North West forests, I mentioned in a thread the other day about how big the Redwoods were.

I hiked to the top of a place called Tillamook Head, near Astoria Oregon. I had to have a half hour bear evasion lesson before we went up. ( towards the end of our 15 mile hike I thought someone was doing monkey impression ahead of us but slightly off the trail, as I got nearer I spooked the monkeys :) turns out it was a shagging couple :) anyways I digress)

When I looked back inland I could see for miles, uninterrupted forest, I know that that forest is at least 1000 miles in length, and for sure theres places there where no one has ever been and something like big foot could probably remain mostly undetected.

My brother ( who lives in Seaside Oregon ) introduced me to his friend ( cant remember his name but could find it out ), this guy swears blind that he saw a juvenile bigfoot, not sure how he reckoned it was juvenile, he even went so far as to say he had informed the FBI or whoever and that they had investigated his claim.

Well he was sincere, I believe that he believes, whether he actually saw anything is anyones guess but he was telling what he believed to be the truth.

I didnt find him to be the least bit loony, seems he was in the right place at the right time I guess.
 
Posted on Tue, May. 11, 2004


Bigfoot just a big hoax?

Charlotte costumer claims to have made gorilla suit

TONYA JAMESON

Pop Culture Writer



Philip Morris may own one of the nation's largest wholesale costume retailers, but in his heart the 70-year-old is still a suave magician and storyteller.

Now, one of Morris' stories has put him at the center of a debate over one of America's most enduring legends -- Bigfoot.

Since starting his Charlotte business in the early 1960s, the entrepreneur has built Morris Costumes into an empire, whose costumes have appeared in big Hollywood films. Some 10,000 businesses buy his costumes, props and other stage products. On Friday he'll hold court at his Monroe Road store to host a dinner and tour of its haunted house for HauntCon, a trade and convention show for the amusement industry at the Adams' Mark this weekend.

Although a giant in his field, the tale of one of his gorilla suits is generating buzz outside the amusement industry and has some Bigfoot believers stomping mad.

In "The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story," (Prometheus Books) published in March, author Greg Long devoted a chapter to telling Morris' alleged connection to the famed Bigfoot film shot by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. The film, which has aired on TV specials, shows a grainy image supposedly of Sasquatch walking in a Northern California national forest in October 1967.

Morris says the Patterson-Gimlin film depicts a man wearing a gorilla suit, which had been hand-sewn in the basement of his Kistler Avenue home.

When he started his costume business more than 40 years ago, Morris, a Michigan native, was a touring magician who recruited his wife and her friends to help make gorilla suits from their Charlotte house.

In 1967, a man called, identified himself as Roger Patterson and said he was a rodeo cowboy who wanted to buy a gorilla suit for a gag, Morris recalled.

Morris Costumes was one of the few companies making relatively inexpensive gorilla suits. The suits were in demand because of the popular carnival trick in which a woman morphed into a crazed gorilla and sent patrons screaming from fair tents. Patterson paid 5 plus shipping and handling for the suit.

"I didn't think it was a real big deal," said Morris. "It was just another sale."

Patterson later called asking how to make it more realistic, Morris said. Use a stick to extend the arms, brush the fur to cover the zipper and wear football pads to make the shoulders bigger, Morris told him.

He never heard from Patterson again.

Sometime in October 1967, Morris was in his living room when he saw the now-famous Bigfoot footage on TV.

Even after what would become known as the Patterson-Gimlin film became a disputed piece of Bigfoot evidence, Morris said he never heard from Patterson. Morris told friends and relatives that the creature shot with a 16 mm camera was actually someone wearing his gorilla suit.

He says he refrained from going public because he didn't want to undermine the still-popular girl-to-gorilla trick, or expose a fellow illusionist.

"In my mind it was a magic trick," he said.

Morris never met Patterson, Gimlin or Bob Heironimus, the man identified in Long's book as the wearer of the suit.

"I wasn't there when they shot the film," Morris said. "I didn't know they were going to do that."

Morris didn't start speaking publicly about the Bigfoot suit until Patterson died in 1972. Even then, he mostly told his story at trade conventions. By then, his white gorilla suit appeared in the James Bond movie "Diamonds Are Forever." His masks were used in the movie "Point Break," starring Keanu Reeves.

Long, a Washington state-based writer, found Morris after a Bigfoot researcher sent him an e-mail about a Morris interview on a Charlotte radio station in 2002.

When Long called Morris, he had finished most of his book. After interviewing Morris four times last November, the writer believed the Charlotte costume maker because many of his comments corroborated things Heironimus said about the suit.

"I couldn't see any motive beyond that he wanted to tell the truth," Long said. "This was just a good story that he decided to tell."

Bigfoot researchers say Morris' claim is just that -- a story.

"For him to suggest that is just wishful thinking on his part," said Jeff Meldrum, an associate professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University, who's studied the Patterson film. "Everyone in the film industry wishes they can do something as compelling as the Patterson film, but no one has."

Bigfoot researchers save most of their venom for Long, who they say assassinates Patterson's character in the book. Still, on the Internet and in interviews, they question Morris' motives and dissect his statements about why the creature moves the way it does in the film.

Among other things, they say the bend of the human elbow debunks Morris' theory that a stick extended the arms because the creature's elbow joint is proportional to its body, its fur looks real and its torso is longer and wider than an average person's.

"Morris' costumes are fine for circuses, fine for movies, but the hair doesn't lie down in the same way as the hair shown on the Patterson Bigfoot, on the live creature," said researcher Loren Coleman, author of "Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes In America."

Morris ignores the skeptics.

"You're interfering with their belief system," he said, with his wide grin. "It's like telling a child there's no Santa Claus."

Or Bigfoot.

Morris Costumes

1962 Begins manufacturing gorilla suits from his house on Kistler Avenue. Ships an average of one suit every month or so.

Late '70s Bought national costume distributors House of Drane in Chicago and House of Humor in Los Angeles.

Early '80s Built retail store on Monroe Road in Charlotte to separate retail from distribution.

1999 Branched into the amusement park industry; provides costumes, props, Halloween attractions.

2004 Ships about 5,000 costumes to stores during Halloween season.
Click to expand...

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business/8637087.htm?1c
 
Now there seems to be a different "hoaxer" claiming to have faked it for every day of the week!

In my mind's X-Files office, thee is a poster of the famous Paterson Film closeup with the banner "I Want To Believe"....:D
 
I think we can pretty much discount this latest 'revelation' as being about as credible as the rest. If the Patterson footage was hoaxed, then I look forward to seeing proof of that fact - something more than conflicting anecdotes and circuitous logic which goes something like "well, I don't really need any proof, see, 'cause this guy says it's true, so, even though he can't back up his claims, well, see, he says it's true, so, therefore, it must be". Amazing that while the scientific community discounts eyewitness anecdotes and demands physical evidence before they are willing to accept the existence of the sasquatch ( and rightly so ) they are, however, more than willing to accept the purely anecdotal claims made by author Long and his two main 'witnesses'. Ultimately, what the scientists and press ( who all jumped up and said "Aha! we told you so!" upon the publication of Long's book ) fail to realize is that even if the footage was faked it has absolutely no bearing on the fact that people have been seeing 'bigfoot' for at least the past 200 years and will continue to do so...
 
Posted on Sun, May. 23, 2004



Bigfoot's Achilles heel


Some call it Sasquatch. Some call it Yeti. Some call it Bigfoot. Some call it a guy in a gorilla suit.

Bob Heironimus, to be exact. Heironimus of Yakima, Wash., says he wore a gorilla suit to help make America's most famous Bigfoot film. North Carolina costume maker Philip Morris says he made the suit and sold it to Roger Patterson, who made the movie.

Bigfoot made it big in the movie, called the Patterson-Gimlin film. Patterson and Bob Gimlin reportedly shot it in 1967 in northern California, where they said they happened upon a voluptuous hominid that hiked briskly away, turning back toward Patterson's 16-millimeter camera for only a Janet Jackson flash.

Then it was gone -- but we can't say "never to be seen again," because we've seen the movie countless times in "what if" TV specials.

Now it's being panned as a big hairy hoax in "The Making of Bigfoot," a book by Greg Long, and in a Washington Post report on Heironimus' claims, and in a Charlotte Observer profile of Morris.

Bigfoot fans greet this with customary skepticism, saying Heironimus and Morris lack the credibility to impugn the late Patterson's integrity.

The rest of us can't disregard allegations the film's a fake. We must consider local implications: If California's Bigfoot gets the boot, what hope have we of holding onto a Florida skunk ape or Troup County Bung-A-Dingo?

Soon skeptics could be stomping on our Bigfoots. We had one sighting in 2000, at Rood Creek Park on the Chattahoochee River south of Florence Marina.

When I wrote about that, an area UFO investigator e-mailed me regional Bigfoot reports dating to the 1950s, when some Troup residents reported the Bung-A-Dingo. In the late '70s, Coweta County folks reportedly saw one called the "Belk Road Bugger."

Most dramatic was an early '70s sighting near Wadley, Ala. A farm worker said a Bigfoot crossed in front of his pickup, in which he had about eight hunting dogs. He loosed the hounds; they treed the Bigfoot. But then it jumped down, threw one dog at the others and screamed. The dogs ran back to the truck. The Bigfoot ran into the woods.

Good tales aren't hard evidence. If such hairy humanoids roamed our woods, there would be many more obvious signs, such as Bigfoot scat, nests, carcasses, bones and marks of hunting or gathering. And let's face it: If these hairy critters had been dashing about during deer season, one would have turned up at a taxidermist's by now.

Some Bigfoot fans say there's no better evidence because Bigfoot comes here from another dimension and goes right back. So he never dies or uses the restroom here.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy. So many Bigfoot stories have gone around so long, and with such similar descriptions, that you'd think people must have seen something. Maybe it was a guy in a gorilla suit.

And he was more than 7 feet tall and weighed about 500 pounds -- unless the witnesses just exaggerated.

Anything's possible.
Click to expand...

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/8734523.htm
 
Oh, that was just Bob H. - the guy who wore the Patterson Bigfoot suit. It is a book tour, y'know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top