Page 20 - 2011 - The 'X' Chronicles Newspaper - January 2011

Is The Patterson Film Too Good A Hoax? Is The Patterson Film Too important, is the question of the extraneous Good A Hoax? details the image in the film exhibits. A cranial crest—a ridge of bone along the top of the skull common to large apes—is clearly evident, as are pendulous female breasts. While the addition of the crest might be a reasonably simple addition, breasts would not. They would be an unnecessary and complicated—and probably expensive—addition to an outfit that was going to be filmed for only a few seconds, especially when Bigfoot enthusiasts would have been equally content with a breast less Bigfoot. Additionally, naturalists have noted that the arms of the creature in the film are longer than those found in a human. Human hands come to about mid-thigh level, whereas the 0 2 ## % % # " hands of the creature in the Patterson film extend nearly to the knees. This could only be accomplished through the use of arm extenders One October afternoon in 1967, self- of some kind; again, another difficulty that has styled Bigfoot enthusiast Roger Patterson did It's a Guy in a Monkey Suit to be carefully integrated into the already what no "monster" hunter had managed to do ponderous suit. before or since. Using a small 16mm camera, he This is, for obvious reasons, the most And then there is that strange gait. As allegedly shot nearly 100 feet of color footage prevalent objection. It has to be a man in an Dr. Krantz correctly points out, the Patterson of the legendary Sasquatch (more commonly elaborate get-up because the alternative is creature doesn't walk like a man (or any known known as Bigfoot) as it crossed a dried creek clearly unacceptable. This seems to be the bed and retreated into the darkened woods near extent of the skeptic's rationale. primate, for that matter). It walks with a continually bent knee (as opposed to humans, Bluff Creek, California. In so doing, Patterson The problems with the man-in-a-suit who lock their knees while walking) and is started a firestorm of controversy that continues theory are many. Most obvious, of course, is the consistent with a creature having the type of to this day and likely will rage on for decades to sheer size of the animal. Frame-by-frame double-jointed foot evidenced by the plaster come. measurements have suggested the "creature" in Did Patterson really film the elusive the film had a height of nearly seven feet, a casts Patterson made on site. (Such double- creature, as Bigfoot proponents generally insist, chest circumference of over 80 inches (compare jointed-ness in the foot is frequently seen on the most reliable Bigfoot casts known, which are or did he perpetrate the greatest fraud in the to an average adult human male chest easily distinguished from hoaxed footprints that history of natural science, on par with the measurement of approximately 45-50 inches), are normally nothing more than oversized Cardiff Giant and the Piltdown Man? Certainly, and a weight in excess of 500 pounds (as human footprints.) So why the unusual, the footage looks convincing. It is reasonably gauged by the apparent depth of footprints left inhuman walk-a walk Dr. Krantz finds difficult clear, shot in bright sunlight, and provides a in the sandy creek bed, also shot by Patterson, and uncomfortable to mimic for any great copious amount of detail. It's definitely not a along with plaster castings). Even allowing that bear or any other known animal native to lens distortion and interpolation might reduce distance? Does this sound like the sort of detail even the most clever special effects artist would northern California. It's not a fluke of shadows these measurements by as much as ten percent, dream up? and light, nor is it a camera trick. It is either an even an unusually large man in a "monkey suit" While it's true such a gait would not be unknown primate of considerable size or a man would be unlikely to approach these impossible for a man to mimic, what would he in a very convincing suit. Patterson's film is dimensions, with the exception of height. clear enough that it leaves no other options. Of course, a man could wear a padded use as the basis or "model" for such a walk in the first place? If one were to mimic a gorilla, The scientific community-at least those undergarment designed to give the appearance for instance, it would be reasonable to study a few men and women willing to humor the of greater bulk, but then how does one account real gorilla in an effort to learn and duplicate it's crypto zoology community be looking at the for the greater weight? Five hundred pounds of movements as closely as possible. But what is footage-as a group generally considers it an flesh and bone (as well as latex, rubber, and fur) obvious fraud, though some will at least allow is a lot of weight to be hauling around in the the source of the Bigfoot "walk?" Obviously, since there are no "real" Bigfoots to study, it that it is a very good one. The few scientists wilderness. Surely a large man in a suit was invented out of thin air. Then, since the who take the footage seriously, most notably weighing in at around 250—300 pounds should University of Washington anthropologist have been sufficient for Patterson's purposes; so costumed man was going to get only one shot at this, he would have had to painstakingly Grover Krantz, sees it as too good to be a hoax. why the extra unnecessary weight (and, indeed, practice the gait until he could make it appear The animal's general physical dimensions are where did it come from?) natural. Difficult at best and an unnecessary too massive and untypical of human ratios, the Additionally, considering that complication for just a few seconds of hoaxed cranial crest, hair, and musculature too much Patterson's friend and fellow eyewitness, Bob like that of a real primate—even its gait is too Gimlin, was armed and at the ready in case the film footage. And this, of course, brings us to our second point. different from that of either a man or an ape to animal did something unexpected, it would be a hoax. seem hugely irresponsible at best and insanely (Continued on Page 21) So which is it, beast or fraud? While we dangerous at worse to don such a suit (unless, of may never learn the answer with any certainty course, Gimlin was in on the hoax, a point he (even demonstrating the existence of a real explicitly denies to this day). Even their verbal Bigfoot would not prove Patterson's animal was agreement not to shoot the creature in case of an real), it might be useful to look at the issue from encounter-an agreement often pointed to by the standpoint of a hoaxer and ascertain just debunkers as suspicious-would be no guarantee what it might take to duplicate Patterson's that Gimlin wouldn't fire in a moment of panic. efforts. I will examine each of the major No matter how well Patterson knew Gimlin, he objections commonly voiced by opponents of could never be absolutely certain how the man the Patterson film to see if they stand up would react in such a remarkable situation, and rationally. the consequences of "guessing" wrong would be catastrophic. It was simply too great a risk for Visit Jeff Danelek on the Internet either Patterson or the guy in the suit to take for www.ourcuriouswould.com any amount of fame or fortune. Further, and I think even more