Is Roger Patterson a Hoaxer Scammer or a Genius? Regardless the patty film is FAKE!

Everyone has seen this tape shot in 1967.  If you haven’t,  watch it right here.  These images have become the staple for both Bigfoot believers and skeptics.  Some say this is obviously a man in a suit.  Others respond with the odd stride the creature has and how it can’t be replicated by a human.  Without this tape, believers wouldn’t have much to stand on, so they’ll defend it to the death.  Here are the facts about this tape and why it is nothing more than a hoax…

This video was shot with a 3 speed camera; this means that the film could be ran through the aperture at 3 different speeds and nobody knows what speed it actually was on at the time.  Have you ever seen an old black and white movie from the 1920’s where it looks like everyone is moving faster than a cocaine taste tester?  That’s because the

"A Non-Skeptic's View Of The PG Film"

 

 

(Editor note: Over the last few weeks, we have been presenting a skeptic's  point of views on this famous film taken in 1967. Now, here is a non-skeptic's point of view. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Rick Dyer, Frank Cali or Team Tracker members.)

 

 

I'm writing this to offer a "non-skeptic's" point of view on the infamous Patterson/Gimlin film of Patty. That's right, I'm a believer. That means I BELIEVE it to be a genuine film of a Sasquatch, I don't KNOW it is. Patterson and Gimlin are the only two people who can know that. Patterson's dead, but went to his grave saying the film was real, and Gimlin agrees.

 

This 1967 film has captured my imagination ever since I was a child. I grew up seeing the film on shows like "Unsolved Mysteries" and repeats of  "In Search Of" (my absolute FAVORITE show growing up) and reading about it in "Mysteries of the Unknown" and other similar books. I was captivated by this film and I still am. There's never been another film like it...that is until Rick Dyer's tent video.

 

There have been many things written about this film and is guaranteed to have many more things written about it. Some people swear this is a fake, a hoax and they can prove it. Bob Heironimus swears he was the one wearing the fake suit in the film. Other people say Heironimus is full of s**t and is just looking for a piece of fame. I happen to agree with that. He claims Phillip Morris made the suit he wore. Well, I've seen Morris' attempt to make another Patty suit and it looked ridiculous. I've recently heard a few things I want to clear up.

Bob Heironimus

 

One, that when Patterson's horse first saw Patty it flipped out and fell with Patterson in tow, falling on top of him and crushing him. And that somehow Roger was able to get up and run after Patty with his camera. This is just not true. Patterson's horse, upon seeing Patty, reared up, knocking Roger off it. That's all. So that is how he was able to still run after Patty. The horse reared up, it did not fall down and pin Patterson.

 

Two, that the original footage does not exist. All we have are copies and copies of copies. This is not true either. The original film DOES exist and has been owned by Patterson's wife Patricia since Roger's death in 1972. In 2008 Mrs. Patterson gave Bill Munns, a makeup artist, creature creator, and computer graphics professional, unprecidented access to the original film. He meticulously made a digital copy from the original, in the presence of Mrs. Patterson and a camera crew from National Geographic. I personally think the new digital copy is amazing.

 

Because until then all we had were copies of copies that became more distorted and grainy each time they were copied. But now we have a first generation digital copy. It's a lot clearer and cleaner, and Munns was able to do a lot with it, like make a 3-D model of the scene. For more information on this you can watch National Geographic's "The Truth Behind Bigfoot" (2010) and for more information on Bill Munns you can visit his website at  www.themunnsreport.com  or his youtube channel under the same name.

 

As time went by, new and advanced software has been developed that experts have used to study the Patterson film. Things like the creature's gait, bone structure, and musculature. All these things show me it's not a human in a suit. That a human's gait and bone structure and Patty's are not the same. These things take the argument for Patty's authenticity, beyond “it’s just is it a man in a suit”, or could a suit like that have even been made in 1967. I of course think the answer to that is no. And so do a lot of special effects creature makers.

But I'm not here to convince you the film is authentic. I am not an expert of any kind. I'm just a Bigfoot enthusiast who believes the film is authentic. And besides, by now you have already decided what you think about it. That it's real, fake, or you're just not sure. There are some things I think we can all pretty much agree on though. That it's one of the most controversial Bigfoot films of all time. It’s been 46 years later and the film is still sparking debate. And finally, that for many it was the film that first sparked our interest in Bigfoot.

"A Skeptic's View Of The PG Film Final Chapter"

 

 

Editors note: This is final in a series from a skeptics point of view in the PG film. These opinions do not necessarily express the opinions of Rick Dyer, Frank Cali or any Team Tracker member. Again, These are the opinions of a skeptic and his point of view of the PG film.)

Patterson showing foot size comparisons

Roger Patterson

 

In 1967, Roger Patterson was a young man, only 41 years old. He was strong and exuberant — an amateur boxer known for walking on his hands on the small town's main street — too lazy to take a regular job, too much in love with his wife Patricia, and too many stars in his eyes to stick within the confines of the even the flamboyant rodeo. He was inwardly happy but outwardly grumpy, frustrated with society's conventions that expected him to be less than he wanted to be.

But even at that young age, he was dying of cancer. Roger may have had a year left or five, and his thoughts were consumed with providing for his beloved wife while still being the rascal that he needed to be. When Roger put that film cartridge into his camera, it wasn't with the careful eye of a cinematographer. Nor was it with the deliberate mischief of a hoaxer. It was with the vivacity of a happy-go-lucky short cutter, a candle doomed to burn half as long, and desperate to burn twice as bright. His thoughts were on Patricia and with squeezing in one final success, a roll of the dice, a lottery ticket.

 

 



Patteron showing size difference comparison



 

If his Bigfoot movie failed, he would die as the obscure debtor as which he'd been cut out; but if he won, he'd be the flash in the pan that he needed to be to sustain his wife and justify his years of skylarking. Roger Patterson made the gamble he needed to make. The wheel of fortune spun, and as it does every once in a great while, it made Roger the winner. It turned Bigfoot into a real monster that walked across the clearing and into legend and permanence.

Just over four years later, Roger Patterson lay in bed and drew his final breaths. The film had been a great success, and brought in a constant stream of money unlike anything he'd ever known. Patricia securely owned enough of the film rights to sustain herself. When he finally closed his eyes, Roger went to that great Bigfoot pasture in the sky, without ever having compromising the eternal youth that was in his makeup to be. He never paid his bills. He never sold hours of his life. He never put in an honest day of someone else's work. He never sacrificed his lack of principles. He never gave up being untrustworthy and living his few years on his own terms. Yet, perhaps it was that insistence on being who he was that caused his film to outlive nearly everyone else of his day. Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made.

 

One final note. Back in 1966, Patterson made a sketch of his idea of what a Bigfoot should look like . Note in the sketch, Patterson has pendulous breasts drawn. Just one year later, Patterson would claim to have filmed a Bigfoot and by a miracle of fate, it also has the same pendulous breasts. 

I rest my case

 

 

 

 

 

References & Further Reading

Carroll, R. "Bigfoot." The Skeptic's Dictionary. Robert T. Carroll, 24 Feb. 1999. Web. 8 Aug. 2013. <http://www.skepdic.com/bigfoot.html>

Korff,K., Kocis, M. "Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax." Skeptical Inquirer. 1 Jul. 2004, Volume 28, Number 4: 35-40.

Long, G. The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 2004.

McLeod, M. Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

Patterson, R. Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Yakima: Franklin Press, 1966.

Smith, B., Radford, B., Stollznow, K. "Monster Talk: Suitable for Framing." Monster Talk. The Skeptics Society, 17 Feb. 2010. Web. 7 Aug. 2013. <http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/17/>

 

 

"A Skeptic's View Of The PG Film Part 3"

(Editors note: This is part 3 in a series from a skeptics point of view in the PG film.  These opinions do not necessarily express the opinions of Rick Dyer, Frank Cali or any Team Tracker member. Again, These are the opinions of a skeptic and his point of view of the PG film.)




Roger Patterson

The wildlife film company, American National Enterprises, turns out to have been pivotal. Patterson had been driving down to Hollywood a lot, trying to sell the idea of a pseudo-documentary about Bigfoot; based on Patterson's own self-published 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Studios wouldn't bite, but ANE did. It was with their money that Patterson rented his camera and took some pre-production stills of his buddies allegedly on a Bigfoot hunt, but actually in Patterson's own backyard. They included Bob Gimlin costumed up as a native American guide. ANE's movie was to be titled Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman.

Bob Heironimus was a sturdy, hulking 26-year-old laborer who lived a few doors down from Bob Gimlin. One day Gimlin told Heironimus that Patterson would pay him $1000 for a day's work on a film set wearing a costume. Heironimus readily agreed; that was a lot of money. He met with the men once or twice to try on a gorilla suit and make some adjustments. Then one day, he drove down to Willow Creek. He spent the night at their camp, and the next day they shot the footage.






Left "Patty", center Bob Heironimus circa 1960's, right

recreating the Bigfoot walk

ANE's money had also been used to buy the gorilla suit. It came from Philip and Amy Morris, established makers of gorilla suits for carnivals. Patterson called Morris and tried to pull the old "You send me the suit, if I like it, I'll send you a check" Morris fired back with "You send me the money and I'll send you the costume."

Morris told Greg Long that they had recognized the suit when they saw Patterson's film on television, and that Patterson had asked their advice in modifying the suit to make the arms longer. They'd even shipped him extra synthetic fur, made from a material called Dynel. They also advised him to put a football helmet and shoulder pads on the suit wearer to make him look enormous. Not surprisingly, when Greg Long asked Bob Heironimus about the suit, he also mentioned that he wore a football helmet and shoulder pads inside of it.

Bob Heironimus then went home, where his mother and two brothers also saw the suit, and waited patiently for his $1000. In accordance with his character, Patterson never paid Heironimus a dime. When he saw the film hit it big, Heironimus feared prosecution for fraud for his role in its production, and so made no further efforts to collect, nor ever spoke up about it to anyone. A groundless fear perhaps, but very real for an honest and innocent young man. Years later Heironimus passed a lie detector test

Heironimus taking a lie detector test

The camera store had to file charges for theft against Patterson to get him to finally return the camera. ANE lost every penny of their investment; Patterson immediately abandoned their pseudo-documentary and, in essence, stole the film clip that was rightfully their intellectual property. It was only 30 years later that Greg Long was able to piece together the entire story by talking to all of those involved. Holes still remain; for example, Al DeAtley claims to have no recollection of where or when he supposedly developed the film, or how he received it from his brother in law. The October 20 timeline is clearly impossible as given, but no evidence could be found to provide actual dates for when the film was actually shot or developed. With much credit going to Greg Long, we now have a reasonably solid reconstruction of the film's complete history, with plenty of space in the gaps to fill with anything more plausible than the Patterson-Gimlin claim of the world's luckiest Bigfoot hunt.

(More coming in the final installment next)

"A Skeptic's Look At The PG Film Part 1"

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin

 

 

(Here's a skeptic's point of view regarding the famous Patterson-Gimlin film. These opinions do not necessarily express the opinions of Rick Dyer or any Team Tracker member. Again, These are the opinions of a skeptic and his point of view of the PG film.)
 

You've seen it a hundred times: the iconic picture of Bigfoot striding heavily through the clearing, arms swinging, head and shoulders turned slightly toward the camera. This famous image is frame 352 of a 16mm silent color film shot in 1967 in northern California by rancher Roger Patterson, accompanied by his friend, Bob Gimlin. The impact that this film has had on Bigfoot mythology is inestimable; and correspondingly, so has its impact upon paranormal, cryptozoological, and pop culture mythologies in general. I might well not be doing this if the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film had not turned legend and fancy into concrete, tangible, see-it-with-your-own-eyes reality.


Whether or not Bigfoot exists is one question — the answer to which has not exactly whitened the knuckles of science — but the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film is something else. If Bigfoot were known to be a real animal, an investigation into the authenticity of the film would make sense. If Bigfoot were known to not exist, then it would be logically moot to study the film at all; it must be a fake. But for today's purpose, we're going to brush aside the larger question (which should never be done in real science) and focus only on this detail. We'll assume that the existence of Bigfoot is an open question (a big assumption), and just for fun, let's see what we can determine on whether this famous film clip is a deliberate hoax, or whether it shows a real animal, or whether there might be some other explanation. Maybe it's a misidentification, or an elaborate film flaw, or an unknown third party hoaxing Patterson and Gimlin. There are many possibilities.


Roger Patterson died of cancer only a few years after the film was shot, and never offered any clue other than that the film was genuine. Bob Gimlin remained silent for 25 years, and ever since he began speaking about it in the 1990s he has firmly stated that he was unaware of any hoax, but allowed for the possibility that he may have been hoaxed himself. Nobody else is known to have participated, and so the only two people whom we can say for certain were present when the film was shot are both stonewalls. So we must look elsewhere.


The original film no longer exists (only copies), and there is no record of anyone ever having possessed the original print. We don't know why, but we're left without the original film's leader, which would have included the date when it was developed. Thus, we have only Patterson's word for when it was developed, so we can't verify that the film was shot and developed on the days he claims it was. The original also would have included any other shots that were taken, such as possible alternate takes. If these were ever seen, we'd know for a fact that it was faked. So that's one more line of evidence that is unavailable to us.


No one has ever produced documentation like receipts showing when and where the film was developed. We know when and where Patterson rented the camera, but that's not really in dispute. He had it in his possession for plenty of time before and after the alleged date of the filming. So that's yet another dead end. Patterson covered his tracks very effectively (no Bigfoot pun intended).

 

 

(Part two to be contined)