Patterson-Gimlin Film: Fake or Fact?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 7th, 2014
From Andrew May:
The subject of Bigfoot – the existence or non-existence thereof – is a complex and thorny one. It’s also a highly emotive subject, as last week’s BBC documentary demonstrated. It’s an emotive subject in Bigfoot’s home territory of North America, anyhow. The strongest reason for believing in something is having seen it with your own eyes… and thousands of Americans say they’ve done just that. People who haven’t seen Bigfoot – and that includes most people on this side of the Atlantic – are more likely to be skeptical: “If you can’t produce physical evidence, then it doesn’t exist.” Personally, though, I prefer to keep an open mind.
Of the few things that come close to providing “physical evidence” of Bigfoot, the Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF) from 1967 is among the best known and most thoroughly analysed. I just read a new ebook on the subject – Patterson-Gimlin Film: Fake or Fact? by Larry Jaffer. I hadn’t come across Larry Jaffer before, but he’s written several of these short ebooks under the general heading of “Cryptid Casebook”.
I found Patterson-Gimlin Film: Fake or Fact? to be intelligently written and thought-provoking. The title, of course, goes right to the heart of the matter. While many of the other video clips purporting to show Bigfoot may have innocent, down-to-earth explanations (e.g. a bear), that simply isn’t the case with the PGF. The footage either shows an unknown bipedal primate, or it shows a human being dressed up in a costume.
There’s an awful lot that Larry Jaffer could have put in his ebook but didn’t, presumably for reasons of space. There’s only a brief mention of the numerous detailed analyses of the video that can be found on YouTube and elsewhere. There’s nothing at all about the various claims, made long after the film itself, by people who allegedly helped Patterson and Gimlin stage a hoax. So if you’re looking for a complete, up-to-the-minute account of the entire PGF saga then this little ebook is going to fall short of your expectations. The author’s aim is more limited than that – but what he does do, he does very well.
Essentially this is a book about circumstantial evidence in and around the “scene of the crime”. It doesn’t concern itself with things people may have said decades later, or with state-of-the-art image processing techniques. It just looks at the facts of the case as they unfolded at the time, and asks “Is it likely that things would have happened this way if Patterson and Gimlin had set out to perpetrate a hoax?”
I don’t like giving out spoilers, but I was sufficiently surprised by Larry Jaffer’s conclusion that I’m going to repeat it here: “So far as this writer is concerned the circumstantial evidence surrounding the Patterson-Gimlin Film indicates that it is not a fake nor a hoax, but is a genuine film of a Bigfoot.”
What makes him say that? You’ll have to splurge 99 cents ($2.99 currently) on his book if you want to find out!
~ Andrew May
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.
The thing that clinches the authenticity of the P-G film for me is one thing -the look back at the camera, and not for what she looks like, but what she does. Here’s why.
You can see in the film the riverbed strewn with large rocks, branches and other debris. if Patty was someone in a suit, whose feet would have to be in unwieldy boots or other footwear several sizes too large so as to look “authentic”, there would be no way one could look back at the camera while still walking forward, with that steady gait, not being able to see your own feet, on that uneven terrain, without a spectacular face-plant in the dirt.
Have you ever worn a full-body gorilla or other creature or animal costume with larger feet? You have to stare at your feet just to walk up or down a few steps and tripping is likely even on level ground, much less covered with obstacles. Patty has a confident, purposeful stride which shows no slowing when she turns and throws her crusty back at Patterson. To me, that indicates a creature that is suited to and comfortable in its environment and is aware of the movement and placement of its extremities enough that looking backward is not going to affect its direction.
Even if it was a costume and they “rehearsed” several times on the same route I still don’t believe they could get across that wide riverbank in one take without at least stumbling.
So, authentic for me. Yay for bigfoot exists!