Thursday, August 15, 2013


AUGUST 15th, 2013 Edition

The latest episode of my favorite podcast, SKEPTOID, by Brian Dunning, covers the PATTERSON-GIMLIN Bigfoot film.

Here is the link: 
Though I love this podcast (yes, I really do!), as I listened to it this time I couldn't help but feel that his answers to problems and refutations of issues were too facile, in the way of skeptical dismissal rather than true skeptical analysis. Yes, there is a difference, folks. Many of his points raised were actually based upon fallacies and misinformation. I re-read the transcript, cutting and pasting parts that I found to be erroneous. These are just off the top of my head, but based upon some ten years of studying the history of this film here in Willow Creek and doing extensive research in the Bluff Creek area.

So, for what it is worth, here are the points I found troublesome. Go to the transcription page for the podcast and read the whole thing for yourself. Can you find any more problems? Are there problems with the problems I have raised? Well, post them in the comments below. Documentation of these issues surrounding Bigfoot in Bluff Creek can be very tricky, as they have found scattered publication (no, Greg Long's book is not the end-all of information), and much of it is based upon oral history here in the local area. I'm open to additions, subtractions and corrections to the following list. Thanks!


* Bob Gimlin remained silent for 25 years
* he began speaking about it in the 1990s
* The original film no longer exists (unknown)
* no record of anyone ever having possessed the original print
* The original also would have included any other shots that were taken (we do have a copy of the full film roll, with all shots)
* Patterson covered his tracks very effectively (fallacious assumption of hiding the truth not following lack of records)
* full-time slacker (he did work, on his own projects, with determination)
* Few who knew him had anything positive to say about him (FALSE)
* lied about it (evidence?)
* knew everything better than anyone, and nobody could tell him a thing (not demonstrated by the accounts of his friends)
* DeAtley ... who provided money whenever it was needed ("whenever" is not true)
* Gimlin had developed a strong interest in Bigfoot (not before 1967, and at Bluff Creek he still wasn't a believer)
* they rented the movie camera (no, only Roger did)
* went off on horseback (they drove a truck)
* creature obligingly stepped out of the woods (no, it was by the creek)
* Gimlin chased it on horseback, lost it, but found its footprints (they never saw it again, only going up the creek where they thought it went, and only found a possible water mark on a stone, not a foot print)
* 5 kilometers back to camp (slightly high)
* drove 40 kilometers on rough fire roads back to Willow Creek (not the right distance, plus much of the way was on a real paved highway, and before that they were on forest service roads, not "fire roads")
* loaded their horses into the trailer (it and horses were left in camp)
* It was about 4:00 in the afternoon (NOT when they arrived in Willow Creek, but when they left the camp site... 6:15-6:30 apprx. arrival in W. Ck.)
* glaring impossibility of this timeline (NOPE, so far it is just about right, if they were quick about doing things)
* holes and contradictions in those stories. In the end, the version Patterson and Gimlin settled on (as in any telling of events, there will be inaccuracies, plus... how could they "settle" on a story if Gimlin "wasn't talking," and they always told basically the same story anyway?)
* the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded (not necessarily true if a willing pilot had been found, and there was a break in the weather)
* Since then, few serious researchers took Patterson and Gimlin's story seriously. (MANY have)
* Throughout the 1970s, Patty Patterson, Al DeAtley, Bob Gimlin, and a wildlife film company fought numerous lawsuits with one another over the rights to the footage (DeAtley was not in lawsuits, but there was one involving Patricia and Gimlin with Rene Dahinden. They wildlife film company was sued for using the film without paying for it. That isn't the film's fault.)
* Long... met face to face with all of these characters who were still alive (NOT Gimlin, though)
* American National Enterprises, turns out to have been pivotal (they were involved AFTER the film was shot)
* Patterson had been driving down to Hollywood a lot (I think three times total, not a lot)
* trying to sell the idea of a pseudo-documentary about Bigfoot (among many other projects, like his prop-lock and toy inventions, NOT just the idea of a Bigfoot film)
* based on Patterson's own self-published 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?  (NOT REALLY, as it was a fictional docudrama thing, but the book is written as non-fiction)
* It was with their money that Patterson rented his camera (NO, it was not)
* took some pre-production stills of his buddies allegedly on a Bigfoot hunt, but actually in Patterson's own backyard (not in his backyard, but in the hills outside of Yakima, and not "allegedly," but dressed in fictional character roles)
* ANE's movie was to be titled Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman. (BUT, that was NOT Patterson's film, but a later production idea)
* for a day's work on a film set (a day just in driving, a day there, and a day back, PLUS, it was not a "film set"  but a real wild location.
* He met with the men once or twice to try on a gorilla suit and make some adjustments (THIS MAY HAVE BEEN EARLIER THAT YEAR, as part of the docudrama project)
* Then one day, he drove down to Willow Creek (nope, that is TOO FAR, quite a ways  past the film site and Bluff Creek)
* 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. (NOT as Bob H. described it, with horse hide and such)
* they had recognized the suit when they saw Patterson's film on television (pure anecdote, plus the Morris suits are TOTALLY different)
* Patterson had asked their advice in modifying the suit (not necessarily the same thing as at Bluff Creek)
* 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. (Conflation FALLACY... the story about the football gear comes SOLELY from Heironimus)
* Patterson never paid Heironimus a dime (perhaps he didn't have to, if Bob H. is lying)
* nor ever spoke up about it to anyone (he bragged about it for years locally, in bars, to friends, etc.)
* ANE lost every penny of their investment (not involved)
* Patterson immediately abandoned their pseudo-documentary and, in essence, stole the film clip that was rightfully their intellectual property (TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS, the docudrama already had been abandoned)
* we now have a reasonably solid reconstruction of the film's complete history, with plenty of space in the gaps to fill (CONTRADICTORY, either it is solid or full of holes... which?)
* too lazy to take a regular job (no, he just didn't LIKE "regular" work... he was more the independent entrepreneur type)
* 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 (non sequitur in the extreme, rodeo was a part-time affair at best, and he loved his wife like any normal husband, and so what if he had big ambitions... that contradicts the "lazy" assertion)
* He was inwardly happy but outwardly grumpy (TOTAL ASSUMPTION, with no basis)
* while still being the rascal that he needed to be (bizarre assertion)
* Roger may have had a year left or five, and his thoughts were consumed with providing for his beloved wife (what is wrong with that? BUT... Roger expected to live, and said so constantly, while mass-consuming health foods)
* Nor was it with the deliberate mischief of a hoaxer. (But... you just called him a hoaxer repeatedly)
* He never paid his bills. (He was an ill man, struggling to make ends meet, and he paid the bills as he could.)
* But, then you claim he is totally rich: "The film had been a great success, and brought in a constant stream of money" ... surely if this were the case he could have paid his bills.
* He never sold hours of his life. (NOT TRUE. He did work jobs here and there.)
* He never sacrificed his lack of principles. (Nonsense sentence)
* Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made. (Really? It is just a minute and a half of a mystery creature, saying little more than that.)

Anyway, that is all for now.
When it comes to the PGF issues, the "Hoax Theory" feeds itself with its own presumptions, just as the "Believers Camp" feeds on its own wishful thinking much of the time. That is just the way it is, sadly.

No ANGRY BIGFOOT these days, sorry to say....