Disney and the Patterson/Gimlin Film
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on April 15th, 2006
Just one of the many interesting conversations with Peter Byrne last weekend was regarding the Patterson/Gimlin film. Peter said that in 1973, he took the film to Disney and showed them the film. After viewing the film, the studio folks refused to believe that it was genuine. The reason? It was too good to have been faked on a low budget.
They insisted that it had to have been created by a foreign film studio, as the quality was so good. They refused to believe that it could have been done by two rodeo cowboys.
They stated that they could replicate it, but only with considerable time and expense, millions of dollars and a year’s worth of time. They wanted Peter to confess that it was made by some movie studio, not two cowboys by the name of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Who are the “they” at Disney? While an amusing story, that’s all it is.
They refused to believe it was genuine because it was too good to have been done on a low budget. Talk about circular reasoning. There sure have been a lot of old dogs chasing their tales trying to debunk the PG film for a long time.
The recent digitally stabilised Patterson footage has become available.
For many years I believed the footage was genuine. I now have serious doubts. The creature in the footage has an opposable thumb. This is a bit of a kick in the balls for an hypothesis of a real Sasquatch in the PG film.
I find it difficult to accept that Patterson & Gimlin knowingly hoaxed the footage, they had been searching for Bigfoot for too long. However, it is possible that they were hoaxed by someone else.
Huh? Why would evidence of an opposable thumb be unexpected in a Sasquatch? Old world monkeys, the great apes, AND humans all have opposable thumbs. I would expect that Sasquatch would too. Chymo- what recent digitally stabilized footage are you referring to?
I think the footage he is talking about was on x-creatures(I could be wrong)a show intent on debunking the footage. The suit they came up with to replicate the footage was extremely lame-and they claimed a match! The best thing around at the time(67′) was Planet of the Apes make-up, and it wasn’t even close IMHO. Ever see the gorilla soldiers without their vests? Just the fact that “Patty” had a human nose/face and short fur that clearly exposes the muscles in flexure takes this away from the realm of a possible hoax in that time of 67′. Even in this more modern era, I still have not seen a suit that has been offered up that even comes close. Yarri
My question is, why did Mr. Byrne take the footage to Disney in the first place? Not to knock the Disney folks, (Knowledgeable people, yes) but, how would they know what they were looking at? It just doesn’t seem like they would be well-versed in the field. (Cryptozoology). Was he simply seeking some sort of vindication? I think Disney would be the last place I would have went. Maybe Disney was just curious to see the footage after hearing about it perhaps?
Oh, and I completely agree with kidquid-I would be amazed if BF/Sasquatch had anything other than opposable thumbs. After all, from what I’ve read, these entities are much closer to humans than all the other “known” primates, no?
“Huh? Why would evidence of an opposable thumb be unexpected in a Sasquatch? Old world monkeys, the great apes, AND humans all have opposable thumbs.”
I should have been more specific: apes do not have opposable thumbs that can pinch between thumb and forefinger like a human, although their thumbs can cross their palms of course. There are significant differences in the structure of ape thumbs compared to humans. Humans have highly developed manipulative thumb & forefinger coordination that no apes possess. No ape can grip or manipulate small objects, such as a pea for instance, between thumb and forefinger. Most apes thumbs are not as highly developed as humans’, are set further back toward the wrist, and lack the muscle pad.
To posit both a very human-like thumb structure *and* bipedalism in an unknown hominid species is pushing it, imho. Two remarkable, unique features in a previously unknown primate, only found in one other species, man? Frankly, that’s not very likely. Bipedalism in Sasquatch explains a lot of things – its range, its presence in the North American continent, and ability to move out of an area quickly. A highly-evolved human-like hand is not necessary to explain any of Bigfoot’s behaviour. Occam’s razor comes into play here.
Postulating a close link between Sasquatch and Human is somewhat of an attempt to shore up possible conflicting evidence, imho. If they were closer to us than any other known primate, there would be an evolutionary link to Sasquatch that should have been more evident in the fossil record. Genetically, our closest relative is the Chimp, which doesn’t have true bipedalism or a sophisticated ‘pinching’ thumb like that of man.
No, it’s much more likely that Sasquatch is a more distant relative of man than Gorillas or Chimps, and thus won’t share many of the morphological features seen in man. Reports indicate the hip structure and gait are significantly different, for instance.
“I think the footage he is talking about was on x-creatures”
Good god, no! I don’t believe any of that debunking rubbish. I’m talking about the digitally remastered, ‘de-shaked’ Patterson footage. Here are two .gifs of the footage (stolen shamelessly from Texas Bigfoot site). Warning: these are about 5 megs each and may take a while to load if you are on dial-up.
Here – that’s the main footage. Next, Patty with zoomed features and a close up of the hand, which appears to show the thumb moving briefly against the fingers.
Now compare with BFRO’s reconstruction of Bigfoot hand based on casts.
– it’s not consistant with what we see in the PG footage. So, either the casts are in error, or the creature in the footage is deviant, or a guy in a suit.
Now, again, I want to make it clear before I am jumped on as a knee-jerk skeptic: I am not a skeptic! I am convinced that Bigfoot exists. However, that doesn’t mean I want to believe every story that comes down the pike. We must maintain a very strict objectivity in order to learn what is really going on, and filter out garbage data from the real stuff. This is imperative.
Sometimes I look at the PG film and think, that’s a guy in a padded suit. At other times I note the more puzzling aspects of the animal shown, it’s musculature and arm length, and think it is an unknown primate. Unfortunately, at this stage we are not getting anywhere with the PG film and it is wasting research time. The only way now to verify it is to find a real Bigfoot and compare. Tentatively, at this point, I have to fall on the side of the debate that says it’s a fake, and move on. I do not, however, believe the Kiviat story about Bob Hieronimous or whoever it is supposed to be.
P.S., Loren, is HTML enabled in these comments?
Needless to say, the Patterson/Gimlin film has been and always will be (at least until a live or dead subject is retrieved)a hotly debated and controversial piece of film. We could probably go on for days on the subject. But, that’s great. At least it perpetuates discussion on BF/Sasquatch. I’ve reviewed the “enhanced” version of the film, I have to say that technology has provided a much better look at whats going on. I got into BF/Sasquatch at a young age, back in the ’70’s “heyday” for BF. I saw the P/G film for the first time on “In Search Of” back then, and found it very compelling, as I still do today. I have to say that I believe that whatever is walking across that sandbar, if it is a guy in a suit, I don’t think that P/G were in on it. I believe that what the footage shows is an unknown primate that exists in various parts of N.America/Canada and perhaps elsewhere. That’s the explanation that comes to my mind. If that’s not what is shown in the footage, then I look forward to the day when it is explained just exactly what is shown. Am I going on blind faith a little bit here? Perhaps. But, it seems that what is on the footage definitely is a darn good representation of what most folks describe when they see a BF. Also, the real kicker for me is that whatever is on the footage is unmistakeably a female. I just don’t believe that hoaxers would have even thought to “fake” a female BF. It is shame that the evidence for BF is so speculative at times. Film footage, video, stills, while quite compelling, are just no match for physical evidence. That’s where the casts and hair/dung samples come in. But even those aren’t going to do much good until a live or dead sample BF is retrieved. I look forward to that day also.
Oh, and I don’t believe that we should expect the hand/opposable thumb construction of the BF in the P/G film to conform to the BFRO reconstruction. Why? Because it is a RECONSTRUCTION. Can we assume that the reconstruction is perfectly accurate? It was done based on a cast right? What’s to say that the cast didn’t have discrepencies/imperfections?
Sorry to contradict Chymo but although I agree that apes in general have differently structured thumbs both Chimps and Banobos can and do use small intricate tools such as grass stems with which they fish for ants. I think as well a simple look at the phylogeny would indicate the expected evolution of a similar pinching mechanism. After all we don’t know ho long such an animal has had to diverge, and the fact that it is so humanoid would suggest some form of convergent or parallel evolution. Either way thumb structure would not be grounds for credit or discredit in my own opinion.
Good thoughts, all. Thankyou.
on the thumb…
Parallel evolution is common. I mean, shoot, just look at Australia. The thylacine is a marsupial, but ask my nephew what is in the picture, and he will say “dog”. Because it fills that same niche. It isn’t inconceiveable that opposable thumbs could develop in other species.
on the possibility of Gimlin/Patterson being victims of a hoax…
I want to meet the guys who packed up that heavy suit, followed these two men (who were on horseback btw) into the wilderness and risked being shot by spooked woodsmen just to pull a prank. The film was shot in 1967, and even 40 years later I wouldn’t do such a silly thing, for fear of getting a bullet in my guts from some spooked local.
On taking the film to Disney…
Why not? The Disney animators spend hours studying animals, particularly their locomotion, for the cartoons they make. Also those over 30 may recall all those great Disney animal specials they used to show on the Wonderful World of Disney. (I used to love those reruns when I was a kid.)
With that kind of expertise at hand, why NOT exploit a resource like Disney?
I agree with your point, Jeremy. My point was that taking the film to Disney does absolutely nothing for the credibility of it. It would seem to have the contrary effect. Say that Disney lauded the P/G film as completely authentic–then what? Ok a major animation and film company says its genuine. Does that convince everyone that BF exists?….Unfortunately, I would have to say no. There would still be the believer/non-believer division. The non-believers would say, Oh, a cartoon studio says it’s authentic–Get the picture? Anyway, just want to say, Loren, I LOVE THIS SITE! And the opportunity that you provide for us BF/Sasquatch heads for discussion in this forum. Many knowledgeable people commenting here. KUDOS!
“Parallel evolution is common.”
Parallel evolution is not commonly seen in the branches of one genus or species! That is a rather unlikely explanation.
We’re not talking about precedent or commonality, we’re talking about likelihood. Positing *two* separate branches of the hominid line developing near identical oppositional thumbs without any connection to each other is highly, highly unlikely. We already have a rather unusual shared feature with Bigfoot – bipedalism – positing another shared trait with no direct link in order to explain away inconsistencies in our favorite evidence is shoddy theorising, and becomes far less likely. Develoment of bipedalism in Bigfoot is explainable in terms of evolutionary adaption and response to environment, an opposable human-like thumb is not.
“I want to meet the guys who packed up that heavy suit, followed these two men (who were on horseback btw) into the wilderness and risked being shot by spooked woodsmen just to pull a prank.”
Lots of assumptions in that statement. Well, both Patterson & Gimlin apparently talked openly about tracking Bigfoot in the town, before heading up to the site, and both agreed that they would not shoot it under any circumstances (which one must admit is very convenient).
All you need is a guy who knows the two, and knows this information. Where they were headed that day was no secret; they were following up on reports in the area.
Like I said before, we’re not gonna get anywhere arguing these footling points. Too much time has passed, and any objection can be countered with fairly reasonable counterpoints. Waste of time.
What the stabilised footage shows is *still* not possible to determine, but it definitely does *not* show features that could not be recreated by a *very well made* suit, irrespective of the alleged arm-length ratios. Talk to different anatomists or doctors and you get a different opinion.
In real Bigfoot footage, I expect to see features that are not vague, and that can’t be recreated by hoaxers. PG film has some very interesting features, but its clear from the stabilised footage that details of musculature and stride have been exaggerated in their supposedly definitive, non-human traits. As I said above, we won’t know ’til we have a carcass.
re # 14…
Agreed Voodoochild, nothing is going to convince a hardcore skeptic the film is real and nothing is going to convince a dyed-in-the-wool believer it is fake.
But say someone said “Joe Smith, an expert in animal kinesiology who works with the animators at Disney in their depictions of animals…” and then goes on to explain what they see in Patty’s movement?
Of course arguing “what ifs” gets us nowhere, but I would like to think that, phrased the correct way, most people would respect that a company like Disney hires knowledgable people… but then people continuously dissapoint me as a group…
re #15 from Chymo,
Good points. Maybe I was a bit hasty with my divergent evolution and not clear in what I was trying to get at. Yes we are bipedal, and we are unique among known species for that. But we also know this wasn’t always so from the fossil evidence (neanderthals, homo erectus, australopithecus… all bipedal). We do not know exactly where (or if) sasquatch or other unknown primates diverged from this tree, or if the developed altogether seperately and their superficial resemblance to us is just coincidence.
What I was trying to point out is that, without a specimen to study up close, researchers are like children in that, shown a picture of a salamander they have never seen before they will say “oh, that looks like a lizard” shown a thylacine, the response is “doggie”.
With stabilized footage, thumb positions etc. can be argued until the cows come home. Someone else is going to look at the footage and say what you are calling a thumb is something else entirely, especially if they aren’t inclined to believe in the film. Proponents of the film will point to these similarities to human structure and gait and say “it is to be expected,” especially if Patty’s relatives and ours ARE one and the same somewhere far down the line. I didn’t mean to be either contentious or to use shoddy science. I was just trying to speak in lay terms about the problems with studying any evidence other than an intact body, but suppose I should have been more explicit in my explanation.
ALSO
I still think it is rather dangerous to go strutting around in the woods in a sasquatch suit. Even if Patterson and Gimlin had promised NOT to shoot a sasquatch, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other people in those woods without such qualms.
Patterson and Gimlin were looking for a sasquatch, but imagine if the person in that suit accidentally startled some hunter? That’s a pretty big risk to take.
If it was a man in a suit, it was a pretty stupid thing to do unless they waited until right before the duo showed up to put on the suit then immediately disappeared into the underbrush, disrobed and somehow avoided detection.
I consider myself a skeptic, but there sometimes comes a point when rationally explaining away encounters with cryptids requires a leap of faith larger than that required to accept the POSSIBILITY that real cryptids are out there and are sometimes seen by people.
The film of Patty is one case where, me being one of those logical heathens, I have to say that I don’t have faith in science to explain everything away.
It doesn’t mean that I’m 100% convinced the film is real. It means that, as of yet, I haven’t had it proved false to my satisfaction.
Sensibly said, Jeremy. Another point that seems to be skipped over is not the motive, but opportunity. OK, say someone overhears them, knows they won’t shoot, and wants to give them a good shock. What, they just pull on their carefully padded, articulated gorilla suit with huge, pendulous breasts that they just happen to have lying around? Or even less likely, try to make one before heading off to intercept them? I’m sorry, but I think we can rule out the “Patterson and Gimlin were hoaxed” theory pretty conclusively. What we’re left with is that it’s either real, or that one or both of them hoaxed it.
As for discussion of the thumbs, the film is simply too grainy to say anything other than the fact that it probably has them, not exactly how they are placed. Once again, the film eludes definitive proof of falsehood.
Just read this 2006 thread, and had to make a 2008 comment on this:
“Parallel evolution is not commonly seen in the branches of one genus or species! That is a rather unlikely explanation.”
Um, well, not sure what’s being said here. “Branches” of a species? All members of a species have evolved pretty much in total synchronicity; they’re about as parallel as one can get. And as to genus, parallels are why species in one genus ARE in one genus; they are recognizable as very similar in almost ALL particulars. In other words, despite their evolving distinct characters, they have evolved almost precisely parallel to one another. I can guarantee you that every species in our genus has (had) an opposable thumb and bipedalism. And it’s our own parochial view that those features are so unique and special. They don’t have to go with the brains that got us, um, into the fix we’re in. (They could go with a better brain, one that could have told us if we would have listened that technology was gonna be trouble.)
Let’s just say this: the sasquatch is the kind of animal we would expect, given what we know about all other primates. It’s what I call a “median ape.” WE’RE the weirdos in the primate tree, not Patty.
Many other bipedal primates – most all of them extinct (or believed so, anyway) – back me up on this. The sas could have bipedalism and an opposable thumb; in fact it seems to me weird that only one species would. Really successful body plans tend to evolve multiple times. (Just ask bats, birds and insects. Or whales, dolphins and fish.) And wouldn’t you know? Just like us, the sas appears to be a very adaptable critter (and pretty durn successful, if staying so neatly out of our way is a criterion). Bipedal locomotion and free hands undoubtedly have much to do with that.
As to “Positing *two* separate branches of the hominid line developing near identical oppositional thumbs without any connection to each other is highly, highly unlikely.” I’d have to say, um, no; in fact that’s a hallmark of all so-far identified members of the hominid line (the clear “connection to each other” being why they ARE members of the “hominid line.”
In other words: parallel evolution is common, within species, within genus, and across totally unrelated species and totally unrelated genus. In other words, common.
As to “Develoment of bipedalism in Bigfoot is explainable in terms of evolutionary adaption and response to environment, an opposable human-like thumb is not.” All I can say is: um, why not?
And as to the comments that Patty was hoaxed: some people’s minds just won’t be changed. Not ’til we have proof, and P/G is too poisoned a piece of evidence now to serve as that.
The visible thumb movement is interesting. If Patty was an actor than that actor should have had very long arms, because his/her hands were all the way down into the suit-hand in order to move the ‘suit-fingers’. Do people exist with arms this long relative to the body? If so, then the actor was definitely way out of normal proportion.
The Disney people believed it was a big budget hoax, of course without any change for making a profit. Who is willing to pay millions for a hoax, and for what reason? I can’t think of any motivation for spending millions on a very realistic bigfoot simulation. If it was to debunk the claim that bigfoot is real, then one should be able to show the creature in the film is an actor. Then why spending millions for simulating bigfoot so realistically? Maybe there is another motive? My first thought was patty is for real watching the Patterson film for the first time.