FAMOUS
CASES
Bigfoot (The Patterson Film - Real or Hoax?)
We've all seen the famous Patterson film of a female Sasquatch ("Bigfoot")
walking carefully but quickly away from the camera...but the question still
remains: what exactly was it that was being recorded? That
24 ft length of film taken over 30 years ago remains one of the most
controversial pieces of "evidence" ever taken of a Bigfoot sighting.
How did this famous film come about? 2 men, Roger Patterson and Robert
Gimlin, went on an expedition to search for the elusive Bigfoot. On
horseback, armed with rifles and a 16mm hand-held Kodak movie camera, the
searchers explored the Bluff Creek area of the Six Rivers National Forest in
northern California. And, on October 20, 1967, during the early afternoon
hours, something happened...
A
female Bigfoot was sighted on the creeks' gravel sandbar. Patterson was
pinned under his horse briefly when the terrified animal reared in alarm, but
he was able to free himself and grab his movie camera. He ran toward the
creature, shooting the now famous footage, as she walked quickly but
watchfully away into the woods. Robert Gimlin stood by with his rifle ready
as he watched, ready to shoot to protect Patterson and himself should the
creature attack. Both men had agreed that self- defense would be the ONLY
reason they would shoot. Unwilling to continue chasing the creature into the
woods and causing a possible confrontation, neither man followed the
creature further. They had the evidence on film of the creatures' existence,
they didn't need to pursue her.
And what about the creature herself? It was judged to be female, because she
had large heavy breasts, which are clearly seen in the film. Her estimated height was 7 ft 3.5 in., her weight approximately 700
pounds. The footprints she left in the clay-like soil of the sandbar were
14.5 x 6 in. in size. She seemed unafraid as she walked away from the 2 men,
but she did turn back to see where they were as she moved towards the woods.
Controversy about the films' authenticity continues today. Is it actual
footage of a non-human creature, or a carefully constructed hoax? There are
good arguments for both sides. While one could argue that it was someone in
a suit, the build of the creature would belie this claim. The shoulders were
very wide, the arms very long, the hands well below the hips. There is no
apparent zipper or openings one would need to get into such a suit. A man
could not hang his arms down to swing them if he wore a suit constructed this
way...his shoulders simply would not be wide enough. Then, there is the way
the creature walked. Upright, but with an impossibly long stride, and full
swings of her arms. It would be extremely difficult for a man to maintain
this method of walking for any length of time or distance. There is no
evidence the film was tampered with in any way, such as would be found if it
were spliced, or edited to superimpose an image on the film.
However, Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek for the
purpose of searching for and finding evidence of Bigfoot. It is difficult to
gauge the height of the creature in the film--it could be a
tall man. There are the footprints, cast in plaster, but the original prints
could have been made with an artificially constructed foot. It could have
been a carefully constructed hoax.
The film has been exhaustively studied--and never
conclusively proven to be faked. If it was created by Patterson and Gimlin
for the purpose of making money, why was Gimlin cut out of the profits from
that film for several years? Why has no one come forward with their own
version of the Patterson film, reconstructed to show how the original could
have been contrived?
Roger Patterson died in January of 1972. He never wavered in his belief that
Bigfoot exists. Robert Gimlin lives in Yakima, Washington, and continues to
insist that Bigfoot is real. Their film has been studied throughout the world
by scientists. The scientists' conclusion about the authenticity of the film
and sighting claim? Divided...
-Webmaster.
