The Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot Film is Evidence for Skeptics, not Advocates

Phillip Morris and Bob Heironymous with Bigfoot Costume

"At the end of the day, there’s just too much dirt surrounding the Patterson film to use it as any reliable source for debate about the existence of Bigfoot..." --Micah Hanks; Mysterious Universe

In an article for MysteriousUniverse.org, Micah Hanks revisits the Patterson/Gimlin film after a new stabilization is offered on Reddit. The thread on Reddit uses the new stabilization to argue the weakness of the P/G film as evidence. While Mr. Hanks believes the snew stabilization does not offer anything new to either side of the argument, he does have issues of using the P/G Film as the Holy Grail of Bigfoot evidence.

(New stabilization from Reddit User)

His issues with the film are mostly based on John Napiers concerns with Patty's Anatomy (for those uninitiated, Patty is the name affectionately given to the subject in the P/G film), Read one of Napier's arguments presented by Mr. Hanks below.

For starters, the creature displays a sagittal crest atop it’s skull; however, the subject also, rather famously, appears to possess female mammary glands (breasts). Among the great apes, we have the sagittal formation that occasionally appears, primarily among the male members of the species (gorillas and orangutans), rather the females. Hence, it seems rather out of place that the prominence on “Patty’s” head so greatly resembles a sagittal crest formation, since “she” would be the least likely of the sexes to possess this trait.

There can be an argument made that the sagittal crest is not a marker of gender, and more of an indication of vegetation-chewing diet. There are multiple examples of modern and relict female primates that have sagittal crests. Female Paranthropus also had sagittal crests. Mr h

Mr. Hanks also draws attention to Napier's critique of Patty's belly--or lack there of. The argument is if patty has a the diet that comes with a sagittal crest than she should also have the large intestinal track or belly that come with it. These arguments about Patty's anatomy can go back and forth forever. Which perhaps underlines Mr. Hanks premise. His final argument about mismatched data does get interesting.

Finally, the individual footprint length used to estimate relative height of the purported animal, matched to the distance between tracks left in the sand (which were measured at the scene of the purported observation at Bluff Creek) are inconsistent with the proportional ratio for expected stride. Primatologists, like Napier, who observed the film have pointed this out, although it remains one of the least-discussed aspects of the the film’s investigation which argues strongly against the animal in the film being genuine. To this, he noted in his 1972 book Bigfoot that the manner in which the subject appears to walk in the film looks very exaggerated: “All three factors should be consistent with each other. Could it be that the ‘exaggerated’ walk of Bigfoot was designed to magnify the normal step length, an effect which, in the event, failed miserably?”

It would be interesting to see anybody take on this final argument of the mismatch of data. head over to the MysteriousUniverse.org website and read Micah Hanks entire article titled, "Maybe It’s Time We Forget About The Patterson Bigfoot Film".

WATCH: Bob Gimlin and Bill Munns Share New Insights into the Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot Film

Bob Gimlin was there when the most famous Bigfoot footage was
filmed and Bill Munns  has done the most signifivcant analysis of it.

Ahhh to be a fly on the wall when two of  the biggest contributors to Bigfoot research discuss the most iconic footage of Bigfoot. The video below is an candid spontaneous conversation between Bob Gimlin and Bill Munns recapping the events that must have happened when Roger Patterson filmed.

The most exciting thing about the video, in our opinion, is that both garner new insights from each other while discussing Bill Minns 3d representation of the events.

Watch the video they are referring to down below. You can also view the video at http://youtu.be/uYIFf7cL-Pk.

Today in Bigfoot History | May 17 2005 | Bob Heironimus Passes Lie Detector Test Claiming He Was Bigfoot

Decades later, the two that claimed they hoaxed the Patterson Gimlin Film
  failed to recreate the film despite haveing better materials, tools, and technology

Yakima Man Claims He's the Real Bigfoot
on PAX Television Channel 'Lie Detector' Aired May 17, 2005 8:00 PM ET/PT

Bob Heironimus, a 64-year-old retired man from Yakima, Washington, claims the famous 1967 Roger Patterson film of the legendary "Bigfoot" was all a hoax, on PAX TV's "Lie Detector," airing Tuesday, May 17, 8:00-9:00 p.m. ET/PT.

Heironimus submitted to a lie detector test administered by leading polygraph expert Dr. Ed Gelb to try to prove that he was the infamous creature shot on film in Bluff Creek, California, wearing just a modified gorilla costume, which does not match the figure in the Patterson film. Not even close.

Hosted by Rolonda Watts, "Lie Detector" is a provocative series that examines the truth behind real-life stories ripped from the headlines, using the most powerful instrument to detect deception - the polygraph.

Heironimus took the polygraph on live television and passed the test according to Dr. Ed Gelb, proving once and for all that along with passed polygraphs by serial killers like Ted Bundy, Heironimus believes he was the man in the suit to the degree that he too was able to pass the polygraph.
Is it any wonder the polygraph is not admissible evidence in a court of law?

It is note worthy to mention that Heironimus is unable to produce the alleged costume with breasts he allegedly wore 38 years ago and he was unable to satisfactorly say why he waited all these years to make such an admission.

Additionally, Heironimus footprints do not match those left by the creature in the Patterson Film and he is unable to duplicate the locomotion of the creature filmed by Roger Patteron in October of 1967. The fundamental nature of Heironimus' statement is phoney. He lied and passed the polygraph anyway, just as serial killer Ted Bundy did all the way down death row to the electric chair.

After watching the video below you can read about Bill Munns project to definitively put the debate to bed.



Nadia Moore wrote on behalf of the Bigfoot Discovery Museum:

These pictures are from Bill's Discovery Day V presentation, as he discussed in great detail his recent work, made possible by a Grant arranged by Dr. Meldrum, in recreating the anatomy of "Patty" using live models for in depth comparisons between her movement and various natural versions of the human form, both male and female, in costume and sans clothing.  He also made several chest panels using various synthetic materials available in 1967, in order to try and recreate a costume which would duplicate the appearance of Patty and her movement.  The third branch of this project was the recreation of the "costume" described by Bob Heironimus in his claim that he was hired by Roger Patterson to be the object of Roger's film. Not only has Bob been unable to describe the actual location that the film was made, let alone how to get there, but the research of Mr. Munns has now proven once and for all that the "costume" as described by Heironimus is structurally, anatomically, and logistically incapable of portraying what is in the famous 1967 Film. 

We recommend you read her entire Bill Munns Presentation write-up. below are some of the photos Nadia Moore took that exposes some of the challenges Bob Heironimus would have to overcome based on how he described the construction of the suit.

Bob Heironimus described the head was attached to a football helmet.

A recreated head shows the angle of head tilt required.
Although to be fair, Patty is leaning forward, the  live person is leaning back.

Dr. Jeff Meldrum has said Bill Munns dissection is the most promising and extensive reseaerch done on the film and you help the research reach more people by funding Bill Munns's documentary at IndieGoGo.

Today in Bigfoot History | JAN 11 | "Zipper" Found on Patty "Bigfoot Costume"

Today, January 11, in 1999 the color plate of frame 352 from the Patterson/Gimlin film was carefully examined by imaging specialists at a color technology laboratory in Ventura, California. State-of-the-art scanners were used to magnify the image down to the color-point level.

All of this came about due to a press conference called by Cliff Cook and the supporting testimony of his associate Chris Murphy. Murphy claimed to of found a bell shape (aka zipper pull tab) within the grainy film image and even took the time to hand craft a pretzel-like, clay model of this bell shape.

The final image in the series shows the detail in question at approximately 1600% magnification. At this level of resolution the individual points of color are clearly visible.

Murphy's "bell-shaped object" is not readily discernible at any level of resolution. To the naked eye the "object" appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. At increasingly higher magnification this detail still appears to be a diffuse blotch of light reflecting off the fur. Several other parts of the bigfoot figure show similar blotches of light reflecting off the fur.

The detail in question has no clear edges, and has no visible "artificial" shape. The lab tests demonstrated that a clear magnification of the color plate does not reveal anything like the pretzel-like object displayed at Crook's press conference. The image analysts stated that Murphy seems to be relying on some "highly imaginative, Rorschach-like interpretations of fuzzy details in enlargements of the color plates."

It is important to note The Oregonian on this same day had a headline "BIGFOOT PROOF CALLED 'MAN IN MONKEY SUIT'" The article was released by United Press International and begins with these two paragraphs...

BIGFOOT PROOF CALLED 'MAN IN MONKEY SUIT'
PORTLAND, Ore., Jan. 11 (UPI) _ Two longtime trackers of the legendary creature Sasquatch say grainy film footage that allegedly proves the existence of the beast also called Bigfoot shows nothing more than a ``man in a monkey suit.''

The Oregonian newspaper reports today that Bigfoot trackers Cliff Crook and Chris Murphy have determined that four magnified frames from the so-called ``Patterson-Gimlin Film'' show tracings of a bell-shaped fastener on the creature's waist, indicating that the image is likely that of a human being wearing a costume.

The Associated press chimes in as well with this report reprinted below...

CLAIMS AGAINST BIGFOOT FILM SET ENTHUSIASTS AT ODDS
By JOHN M. HUBBELL
Associated Press

BOTHELL, Wash. (AP) - In the hearts and minds of true believers, Bigfoot's existence has long been enshrined in a single minute of jerky, grainy footage of a startled sasquatch retreating into the upper California woods.

But two enthusiasts of the legendary being are alleging four magnified frames of the 16 mm footage show tracings of a bell-shaped fastener at Bigfoot's waist. They say the creature in the so-called Patterson-Gimlin Film can finally be dismissed as a man in a monkey suit.

"It was a hoax,'' said Cliff Crook, a longtime Bigfoot tracker who devotes rooms to sasquatch memorabilia in this suburb north of Seattle. "How can an artificial, manmade object end up on a Bigfoot?''

The film, purportedly showing a female Bigfoot fleeing a stream-bed, was taken by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin on Oct. 20, 1967. It has largely withstood independent scrutiny and, for many steeped in the lore of the man-beast, has become bedrock evidence of its very existence.

"There's no way of really detracting from it,'' said Ray Crowe, president of the Western Bigfoot Society in Portland, Ore. The image captured in the footage "has a fluid motion. It's a wild creature of nature.''

The film is important because many Bigfoot believers compare all plaster casts of telltale footprints against those made by Patterson the day he purportedly filmed the creature slinking across a sandbar in the Six Rivers National Forest.

Discredit the footage, experts agree, and the gold standard for Bigfoot tracks will be washed away.

Crook bases his assertion on computer enhancements performed by Chris Murphy, a Bigfoot buff from Vancouver, British Columbia, who maintains he discovered an aberration in the footage in 1995 while helping his son Daniel prepare a class project.

Murphy declined to be interviewed, instead supplying a written narrative detailing his discovery.

According to that account, the Murphys used a color photocopier to duplicate a frame of the Patterson film. Zooming in again and again, Chris Murphy became suspicious.

To him, something geometric - vaguely the shape of a bottle opener - seemed to take shape at Bigfoot's waist. Murphy maintains that four sequential computer-scanned frames of the film show the object in different positions, as if it were swinging. He theorizes something is cinching the sasquatch costume in place.

Murphy made a clay model of the object and in October gave that and the enlargements to Crook, a charter-bus driver transfixed by sasquatch stories since 1957. That's the year he made a camping trip with teen-age friends on Washington's Olympic Peninsula that ended with telltale signs of a sasquatch encounter: a rustling of brush, a throaty growl and an ever-worsening hallmark musk.

Decades later, at 58, spare rooms in his home are dubbed "Bigfoot Central,'' stuffed with photos, plaster casts and maps dotted with push-pins that chart sasquatch sightings.

Now his hoax assertion is giving rise to a howl that would make a Bigfoot proud. Longtime enthusiasts smell a deserter.

One recent e-mail was typical of the incredulity Crook's allegation of a costume fastener is up against.

"Cliff, Cliff, Cliff,'' it scolded. "That's matted feces.''

"There are two witnesses (and) there are footprints,'' said Rene Dahinden, a Richmond, British Columbia, researcher who shares the film's copyright. "We've never had anything like it previously, and anything like it since.''

Dahinden, 68, discounts Murphy as an amateur. "He wasn't involved in this until 1993,'' Dahinden said. "He couldn't spell the name 'sasquatch' before that.''
Grover Krantz, a Washington State University anthropology professor and Bigfoot expert, also believes firmly in the old footage.

"I fully accept the Patterson film,'' Krantz said. "If there was a fastener, it could not be seen in an enlargement. The film grain is such that it cannot hold an image of something that small.''

The truth of the Patterson-Gimlin film remains as elusive as Bigfoot itself. Enthusiasts such as Krantz and Crowe see the film as a building block for their faith. And the faiths of Crook and Murphy endure in spite of it.

Crook knows that, in dissent, he and Murphy are "far outnumbered.''

"There's a few broken friendships because of this,'' Crook said. "I just figured, 'This is a search for the truth. When it becomes something different, that's when it should stop.'''

Maybe a Bigfoot will one day view the film, Crook figures, and offer its own disapproving grunt.

"There's just too much evidence that these creatures do inhabit certain areas out there,'' Crook said, ever sanguine. "Even though the Patterson film is a hoax, it doesn't mean Bigfoot doesn't exist.''

Celebrities Joe Rogan and Chael Sonnen Debate Patterson/Gimlin Film

UFC Middleweight contender Chael Sonnen debates P/G film with Joe Rogan

It is always a treat when folks outside the day-to-day "community" talk about Bigfoot. Especially when they are celebrities. these types of conversations always allow insight into the embedded avid Sasquatch conversation. this is especially special due to the contrasting views of of the Patterson/Gimlin film.

In case you don't know the Patterson/Gimlin film (also referred to as simply the Patterson film) is a famous short motion picture of an unidentified subject the film makers purported to be a "Bigfoot", that was supposedly filmed on October 20, 1967, by Roger Patterson (February 14, 1926 – January 15, 1972) and Robert Gimlin (October 18, 1931).

In the most recent edition of the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast, Joe Rogan calls [baloney] on Patterson Gimlin after UFC Middleweight contender, Chael Sonnen brings it up as evidence. In the end, they both agree that Sasquatch is a likely possibility and Joe credits Jane Goodall for his reason in belief. Also in the episode, Joe brings up Bigfoot call recordings and Les Stroud.

Thank you to the www.thebigfootreport.com for sharing this video.

PART 1

PART 2

Ghost Hunting Theories: Patterson-Gimlin Revisited

The now-famous Patterson/Gimlin Film (PGF) is etched into the psyche of american pop-culture. It probably universally recognizable. In Bigfooting circles it is somewhat a sacred cow. Opinions we have heard in private would never be shared publicly; from those who support or dispute the film.

Fortunately, for us, we are not in the business of proving Bigfoot, or proving the value or authenticity of Bigfoot evidence. Not often anyway. Mostly we want to learn as much as we can by sharing all things Sasquatch and hopefully like cosmologist do with the universe, we can build a better "model" of Bigfoot until we discover the big guy.

So we need to hear from all voices, yesterday we posted opinions from a palaeozoologist, today I am proud to say we are sharing the opinions of a Ghost Hunter and pshycic. If you have never visited Ghost Hunting Theories you are missing out. Even how she tackles PGF, is a delight:

This film is definitely polarizing.

One thing I talk about extensively in my upcoming book “Was That a Ghost?” is taking the context into account when looking at your encounter; taking into consideration your belief system and your explanatory style when evaluating an encounter. I am going to try to do the same here with the film.

Belief: I do believe in Bigfoot, not sure if I believe in the film (partially objective)

Context: I will review the context in which the film was taken (below).

Explanatory style: In comparing the pros and cons, I will try not to interject any belief system and keep myself objective (below).

The truth is, we must judge on just this case and not anything else. You might believe in ghosts, but each hunting case has to be handled very objectively. You know you believe in ghosts, but that does not have to mean that everything that happens is ghostly. Same here. I believe in BF and that will remain whether or not this film proves to me to be authentic.

This film, in other words, will not be the only thing that makes or breaks my belief.

I thought I should step away from a strange gut feeling that it's authentic when my head says it can't be. I figured I'd break down what bugs me about the film and what intrigues me about it and play “good guy/bad guy” with it. Read the rest of Patterson-Gimlin Revisited. It is thorough and refreshing.

EXTERNAL LINKS
Patterson-Gimlin Revisited
Bigfoot: My Furry-Butted Relative

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
2010 Countdown, 10 days of Appreciation: Day 06 Whales and Ghosts

M.K. Davis to Bigfoot Lunch Club, You Got It Wrong

M.K. Davis contacted us last week and was concerned we were perpetuating rumors. That's the last thing we want to do. We made a correction to an earlier post and apologized for over generalizing a sensitive subject.

For those who don't know, M.K. Davis is famous for stabilizing the Patterson/Gimlin featuring the Sasquatch affectionately known as Patty. Regardless of any rumors, there is no doubt M.K.Davis has made a great contribution to the Bigfoot community.

We pride ourselves on being responsible and respectful to all members of the Bigfoot community. We believe, all of us, truly want to discover, if not understand, Bigfoot. Pollyanna-ish? Naive? We don't think so, we just like people.

We would like to take the opportunity to reintroduce M.K.Davis to fans of this humble web site.

We exchanged several emails with Mr.Davis and recently talked to him on the phone. After all these exchanges, it became very apparent M.K. was passionate about analyzing the Patterson/Gimlin Film (PGF). It was all about the film. The film itself had new information with every new viewing, like a mine you could continue to prospect if you were careful and patient enough. We didn't find a man who saw some anomalies and built a whole story around them, we found a man who saw anomalies and openly pondered what could have caused them. We heard several possibilities for each odd shape, motion, or color.

We would like to share some of the of the things M.K. Shared with us. First Let's get one thing straight, M.K. is absolutely convinced that, Patty, the Sasquatch in the film is absolutely authentic. He emphasized this over and over, this film is the best evidence for Sasquatch and should have been enough to convince the skeptics.

One of his animations shows Patty able to move her head and rotate her neck, with quite a range, without having to move her shoulders. This is interesting


Heres some amazing isolated back muscle movement as well as some great glut definition.


Finally some stills of the backside, these are particularly interesting, because they almost show a baldness on the "cheeks"




We would like to thank M.K.Davis for sharing his research.

External Links
Bigfoot Books had a great Interview with M.K. Last year
Bigfoot Encounters PGF page with a few of M.K.Davis's enhancements
Cryptomundo's coverage of one of M.K.'s last presentation

Thom Powell Week: On the heels of PG film Anniversary

This week we celebrate Thom Powell, the contemporary researcher and author of the Bigfoot research book, "The Locals". On November 3rd he will be speaking at an event sponsored by the Oregon Sasquatch Symposium and University of Oregon. There are rumors he will provide a peak of his new book, "Shady Neighbors"

Please Note: The following reprinted content was before MK Davis's assertions of the Bluff Creek Massacre and although most disagree with MK's assertions (we do anyway), this post is more about the Patterson/Gimlin Film and Thom Powell's ponderings of the possible human-ness of Sasquatch.

On the heels of the anniversary of the Patterson Gimlin film (OCT 20) We found this insightful remark from Thom Powell on Cryptomundo. It is a response to an M.K. Davis Presentation at Don Keating’s Ohio Bigfoot conference on May 17th, 2008.



There is no doubt M.K. Davis has made his mark in the Bigfoot Community, for better or for worse. Most would say for the worse. Once heralded as one of the greatest contributers to analyzing the Patterson/Gimlin Film, his theories became controversial when he began to assert he had evidence for a Bluff Creek Massacre.

Days before he announced the "massacre", at Don Keating’s Ohio Bigfoot conference on May 17th, 2008, MK presented other less controversial assertions. These assertions supported the more human-ness of the figure of the Patterson Gimlin film, including the possibility of a top-knot and ponytail.

Although there was the back and forth that can be emblematic of our Bigfoot community, we like Thom's response to the presentation in general. Instead of entering the fray of whether or not Bigfoot is human or ape, capable of braiding its hair or not. Thom provides the sanity of context and asks us not be afraid to look past our assumptions.

To all,
I was fortunate to hear MK Davis make this presentation in Portland OR recently. He showed the audience various enhancements and how he accomplished them. He was able to identify numerous features and elements in the PGF that almost everyone is unaware of.He showed us that there is a great deal of useful and interesting information in that short clip. The short quotation that is taken out of context and published above does not come close to doing justice to the whole subject of enhancing the PGF. Davis provides compelling but admittedly inconclusive film data to support the following conclusions:

1. the creature shows a number of hair stylings like a top-knot. He concludes it’s not a saggital crest on the subject. It is a top-knot of hair. He shows his detailed analysis that supports this view and it is more compellling than most realize.

2. There is also evidence of braids and a ponytail in the head hair. These are utilitarian hair styling that are commonly used in modern and ancient tribes to keep hair cleaner and out of the way. On this basis Davis asserts that the PGF subject is closer to a vestigal member of a Native American population, not an ape. This is the essence of the assertion that the film shows a human being.

3. He presents data that supports the view that the creature is holding a stick, which could be for digging (hence the whole digger-indian thing.)

4. Most reproductions of the PGF have been darkened in the reporduction process. The closer one gets to the original film, the lighter the creature appears and the thinner the hair appears to be. This shows better views of the body outline beneath the hair/fur. Enhancements Davis performed show the breasts and facial features more plainly and definitely. His enhancements show more ‘humanish’ facial features than the animalistic features that other researchers contend are shown in their respective analyses of available copies of the PGF.

There are other interesting points about the subject and the surroundings that Davis presented. It is an excellent talk and if you haven’t seen it, you have no accurate basis to judge it. Roger Knights was at the same talk I attended so I submit that Roger’s assesments of the infromation presented are more accurate than most.

Hopefully Marlon Davis will publish an monograph so more people can get an informed view of his data and conclusions. Davis is a very skilled technician and his conclusiona are fairly sound.

A final note:
Here in the greater Portland area there is a lot of sasquatch activity in the surrounding forests. The patterns that emerge from analysis of dozens if not hundreds of unpublished accounts does, in my view, strongly support the view that at least some of these creatures are intelligent enough to qualify as human, i.e. vestigal Indians. With this body of locally available information in mind, MK Davis’ assertions are really nothing shocking. If anything, his assertions validate something that has been argued by others for a long time: that at least some of these creatures are some form of human.

Yet, the ‘ape’ paradigm still holds sway elsewhere on the continent and indeed some of these being may indeed be ape, but they probably are not all apes and I think Davis compellingly shows that the one in the PGF is not the ape that Dahinden argued, but the rather intelligent creature that Ivan Sanderson asserts. So, we’re back to the old Danhinden vs. Sanderson debate about the true nature of these creatures. Perhaps they are both correct: The bigfoot phenomenon represents multiple taxonomic grouping, as Colemen has long argued.
Best to all,
Thom Powell
May 20th, 2008 at 3:25 pm

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
November 3rd Event
Thom Powell Week: To true believers, Bigfoot lives
Thom Powell Week: The Contemporary Researcher
Thom Powell Week: Peer Review
Shady Neighbors Book Cover

EXTERNAL LINKS
Thom Powell's book the Locals
Cliff Barackman talks about the Chehalis Project, investigated by Thom Powell

Stabilized Patterson Film at Bigfootencounters.com

You have to see this stabilized version of the Patterson footage at http://www.bigfootencounters.com click here to see it.