hoaxmaterial - Hancock House Publishers

HOAX ALLEGATIONS – GREG LONG AND ROBERT HEIRONIMUS
The material provided in this discussion has been primarily reprinted from a part
of the supplement I prepared for The Bigfoot Film Controversy (Hancock House
Publishers, 2005). This book provides a direct reprint of Roger Patterson’s book,
Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?, which was published prior
to his filming of a bigfoot creature at Bluff Creek, California on October 20,
1967. The supplement I added was an update of events since that time.
To fully understand Roger Patterson and his search for bigfoot, readers are
encouraged to obtain The Bigfoot Film Controversy and review Patterson’s
personal material, which includes his own intriguing artwork. Beyond a doubt,
this is the first book one should obtain in any study of the Patterson/Gimlin film.
It was Patterson’s prior experiences and knowledge that prepared him for the
events of October 20, 1967.
Over the years there have been several allegations that the creature seen in the Patterson/Gimlin film was a
fabrication. All such claims have been thoroughly researched and totally dismissed. In March 2004, a new
claim surfaced in a book by Gregory Long entitled The Making of Bigfoot, The Inside Story (Prometheus Books,
2004). While the book indicates a significant amount of research, no hard evidence, or reasonably hard
evidence, is presented to support Long’s arguments. My analysis of Long’s conclusions follows.
In his book, Greg Long tells us that Patterson made a bigfoot costume using horse hide and/or possibly a
gorilla suit he obtained from Philip Morris Costumes. We are not really clear here as there are two scenarios
(discussed later). Whatever the case, we are told that for the sum of $1,000 Patterson contracted a Yakima
resident, Robert Heironimus, to wear the suit for the film sequence.
All of Long’s arguments (save several erroneous film observations) are based on circumstantial evidence,
mainly testimony as to Roger Patterson’s integrity, statements from people who believe the film was fabricated
and Heironimus’ confession that he definitely did wear the suit. We are told that Heironimus passed a liedetector test in this regard.
As to Patterson’s integrity, we come to the age-old adage, “what’s this got to do with the price of tea in
China?” That the man was irresponsible is well document. Patterson himself knew this. In talking to René
Dahinden about the filming, Patterson stated, “You know, René, I’m the worst possible guy this could have
happened to.” To conclude that Patterson was morally capable of a fabrication is hardly evidence that he
actually did fabricate the Bluff Creek sighting. Even reinforcing the issue with a motive (Patterson was dying
and needed money to support his family) does not significantly alter things.
Circumstantial evidence related to what people saw or heard is impossible to address unless one has hard
evidence to counter the claims made. In essence, all such evidence boils down to a stalemate between Robert
Heironimus and Robert Gimlin who was definitely with Roger Patterson when he filmed the creature.
Heironimus states that Gimlin took part in the conspiracy; Gimlin claims that this is totally untrue. Gimlin
further claims that what he saw was a natural creature.
With regard to the lie-detector test, Roger Patterson was also subjected to and passed such a test. It was
arranged by an editor from National Wildlife magazine in 1970 1.
One claim made by Heironimus is impossible to accept. If he had been to the film site, he would surely
remember that the site is some twenty difficult, twisting miles in from the highway, not about four or five miles
as he states. It is a dirt road with many pot-holes. Whatever the case, one would have to be very courageous to
take an ordinary car down that road which Heironimus is claiming occurred.
1
See article On the Trail of Bigfoot, by G. H. Harrison in National Wildlife, Volume 8, Number 6, October-November 1970.
1
In any situation where there are opposing arguments, the final decision must be made on the hard evidence,
or reasonably hard evidence, one produces to support his or her stand. Ironically, the Patterson/Gimlin film
issue is a reflection of the entire sasquatch or bigfoot question. Scientists want a body before they will
recognize the creature; bigfoot believers what a costume before they will recognize that the film is a hoax. No
matter how much circumstantial evidence one gathers, such is still not hard evidence.
What I am presenting here is the reasonably hard evidence, in support of the film. The possibility of a hoax
is beyond question, as the saying goes, anything is possible. The same is not true of probability. Here one must
go far beyond hearsay and truly judge evidence on its own merits.
DIMENSION CONSIDERATIONS:
In the following illustration, a tracing of Bob Heironimus is compared with frame 310 of the
Patterson/Gimlin film. The tracing was made from an actual photograph of Heironimus2. I have registered the
film frame with the tracing (made them both the same height) in order to compare arm lengths, leg lengths and
other features.
The relevant lengths of the right arm and knee to ground of the legs are the most revealing feature in this
comparison. In the first instance, Heironimus’ arm is too short. In the second instance, his lower leg lengths
are too long.
ARM CONSIDERATIONS: It might be reasoned that Heironimus’ arm had an extension for the purpose of a
fabrication. If this were the case, then the hand would be fixed. In other words he would not be able to move
the fingers or close the hand. In the Patterson/Gimlin film, the creature’s hand is seen in both a semi-open and
closed position, fully indicating a natural hand.
LOWER LEG LENGTH CONSIDERATIONS: The knee to ground length of Heironimus’ legs is a major
discrepancy. While one’s legs can be made to appear longer, it is impossible to make them shorter. In other
words, for Heironimus to have been the creature in the film, it was necessary to make the length of his legs
(knee to ground) shorter. I cannot think of a way one would be able to do this, other than photographically. On
this point, there is absolutely no indication of any alterations in the film frames.
Mathematically, it can be determined from these images that the length of the creature’s lower right leg is
about 23.4% of its walking height. For Heironimus, the figure is about 31.3%. While the camera angle has not
2
The actual photograph was taken by Pat Long, Greg’s wife. It is shown on page 361 of Long’s book. Mr. Long would not give me
permission to use the actual photograph for this presentation.
2
been taken into consideration in these figures, it is highly unlikely such “fine tuning” would justify a
discrepancy of 7.9%.
It needs to be stressed that I have made the creature exactly same height as Heironimus in the previous
illustration. If I make the creature’s lower (knee to the bottom of the foot) right leg length about the same as
that of Heironimus and let the rest of the image fall into place proportionately, the following is the result.
Note: The creature’s
right foot is
embedded in the
soil, so a slight
adjustment upwards
for the right leg is
needed.
We can immediately see that the amount of “padding” to get Heironimus to the creature’s size would be very
significant. However, even if this problem were overcome, Heironimus would be far too short to see through
the eye holes of the alleged headpiece as he claims.
THE CREATURE’S FACIAL FEATURES
THE CHEEKS: In frame 352, the creature turns to look towards the camera. In doing so, it
turns its head as far as possible and at the same time turns its body. Remarkably, when it
turned its head, its right cheek pushed out. This fact indicates that it had flabby skin/fat on its
face – like an old man’s jowls.
On the left is an enlargement of the clear portion of the head as
seen in frame 352. On the right is a pastel enhancement. Note
that in the actual frame, the head is bent forward slightly; I made
it perpendicular for this study. The pushed-out cheek is clearly
seen.
While I cannot totally discount that a part of this anomaly is
not just a matter of light and shadows, it is evident to varying
degrees on all of the clear film frames that show the turned
head/body. To achieve this effect with a fabricated head, there
would have to be a loose skin covering. It is extremely doubtful
that the headpiece described by Heironimus had this feature.
THE RIGHT EYE: The creature’s right eye also presents a
problem. While this detail is definitely below the credibility
level for the film, it does appear to me that an eyeball can be
marginally seen in the corner of the eye.
We are told that Heironimus lost his right eye early in life and
wore a prosthetic eye (i.e., glass eye). At the time he alleges he
3
wore the costume for the film sequence, he had a spare glass eye with him3. We are told he gave the eye to
Patterson who implanted it in the headpiece right eye socket at the last moment. The eyeball we possible see is
in the corner of the creature’s eye, in the absolute right spot for the creature to appear to be looking directly at
the camera. I have a lot of trouble rationalizing that Patterson planned this. Given he did, I am amazed at the
perfect job he did in affixing the eye to socket. I would think that such would be a little tricky. However,
Patterson accomplished the task in a few seconds with a wad of clay. I will note here that even as late as 1999,
prosthetic eyes had fixed eyeballs (i.e., simply looked straight ahead). Dr. Richard Holt, Johns Hopkins
Medical Institutions, states: “The next step is developing a technique that allows the prosthetic eye to move in
sync with its companion for a more natural look.” A final note – prosthetic eyes are very expensive. Would
you allow one to be used in the way presented here?
THE MOUTH: As can be seen in the previous photographs, the creature’s mouth is
partially open. Indeed, examination results of frame 352 by researchers at Yale University
state that teeth can be seen inside the mouth. I have also observed this and also what might
be a pinkish tongue. Again, however, such details are beyond the film resolution
credibility level so cannot be relied upon as facts.
In another film frame (frame 339) the creature’s mouth is shut tight as seen in the frame
head detail shown here. With a headpiece, it is impossible to control the mouth, yet
Heironimus tells us he definitely wore a headpiece. If so, he therefore accomplished the
impossible.
Further, the fact that the face is flexible allows the creature to show “expression.”
Such, of course, results from control of facial muscles. In the last clear frame (frame
364, head detail shown here) I believe the expression seen is one of annoyance or
perhaps fear (at the very least, concern). For certain, a fixed headpiece would not allow
expression ability.
LEG TENDONS AND CALF MUSCLE
What appears to be a tendon is seen on the back of the leg in frame 72 and down the side of the right leg in
frame 352. There also appears to be a bulging calf muscle. The following illustrations show a human leg on
the left compared to the creature’s leg as seen in the film.
Finger tips
Also noteworthy in this photo is that the tip
of the creature’s fingers is close to the top
of the tendon, indicating very long arms.
3
Heironimus brought a spare glass eye with him to the film site because he anticipated that it could be used to provide a more realistic
creature appearance. He reasoned that the two eye holes in the costume head piece would be seen as just dark spots, detracting from
the film’s credibility.
4
It is reasoned that the details seen here would not be apparent if the creature were a man in costume unless
the costume were extremely skin-tight (expandable in two directions) over a naked body. Heironimus tells us
he wore his own clothing inside a costume. It would be absolutely impossible for this kind of detail to be
visible under two layers of coverings. To even consider that Patterson was able to mould some kind of leggings
made of horsehide or anything else that would provide such details goes beyond reason.
There are many other details showing the creature’s musculature. Mr. Long’s recent statement that the
costume was “skin-tight” over Heironimus clothing, thus presumably explaining the details seen, is absurd.
Clothing would distort the natural body lines. Moreover, even if this were not the case, the most extreme bodybuilder would not be large enough to meet the creature’s muscular dimensions. Finally that the costume
Heironimus wore was expandable in two directions, as would be necessary, goes beyond reason.
THE HEEL AND FOOT IMPRESSION DEPTH
There are two other observations associated with this photograph of the
creature’s heel/foot seen in frame 72 of the film. Firstly, the heel is very
natural in appearance. There is absolutely no indication here of “foot ware.”
Secondly, the sole of the foot is completely buried in the soil. I would say
that the foot is implanted at least 1-inch/2.54cm deep.
During a visit to the film site in September
2003, I took the following photograph of the
soil. Many people were tramping through the
area and you can see their footprints. I believe it would take a very heavy person to
penetrate the soil to the depth indicated by that seen in the film frame. Bob
Heironimus tells us his current weight is 219-pounds/99.2kg, although I don’t
believe he would have weighed this much in 1967. Nevertheless, he further tells us
that the costume he wore weighed about 25-pounds/11.3kg. His total weight in the costume was therefore 244pounds/110.5kg. I do not believe this weight would be sufficient for his feet to penetrate the soil to the depth
indicated.
THE HERNIA AND FLESH MOVEMENT
THE HERNIA: There is a curious lump on the creature’s right leg (circled here) that
disappears and reappears as the creature walks. It has been reasoned that the lump could
be a hernia. Athletes are known to develop a similar lump.
FLESH MOVEMENT: In conjunction with observations of the creature during
movement, the flesh (or fat) in its midsection is seen to ripple or fold outward
(surface plasticity). What is shown here is a close-up of the breasts and
midsection (frame 352). It is seen that the hair in this area is very thin. As a
result of this condition, we are able to see movement. Certainly, horsehide would
not allow such movement, even if the hair were removed (shaved off). Again,
keep in mind that Heironimus was fully clothed inside the alleged costume. Moreover, we really have to
wonder if Patterson, or anyone for that matter, would actually make a costume with a midriff of this nature.
5
THE FOOT AND THE CAST
Seen here is the creature’s foot as it appears in frame
61 of the film together with a cast made from one of the
footprints. It has been confirmed beyond a reasonable
doubt that the foot seen did make one of the footprints
that resulted in the cast. According to Heironimus, he
did not make the footprints. We are given to believe
Patterson and Gimlin planted the prints after Heironimus
left the film site. We can only conclude that Patterson
and Gimlin used the costume fabricated feet to make the
prints. Heironimus, however, says he took the costume
with him when he left the site. He does not mention
leaving the feet.
One observation made by Greg Long on the creature’s actual foot as seen here is that it appears the arch of
the foot is on the outside instead of the inside (remember, we are looking at the right foot). In native human
populations where people go bare-foot, the forefoot (front part of the foot) can spread resulting in more
curvature on the outside of the foot. It is very reasonable to apply this condition to sasquatch creatures. Long’s
observation is therefore one he has made and reported without professional guidance. Whatever the case, it is
highly unlikely Patterson or anyone else would make a mistake of this nature.
Long’s further observation that the creature’s foot seen in frame 323 of the film does not
have an arch, is strictly the result of the camera angle as is the impression of a “rectangular”
foot (which Long states looks like a slipper). Here again we have to ask if anyone would
fabricate feet that appeared like slippers.
Nevertheless, to the untrained eye, I must admit that the creature’s
foot in several film frames does look odd. However, chimpanzees
have feet that are almost identical to the feet of the creature seen
in the film. The image shown here on the left is that of a
chimpanzee; the image on the right is from frame 310 of the film.
While the creature in the film is certainly not a chimpanzee, it is a
higher primate so would reasonably have similar feet.
Anthropologists are fully aware of the shape and appearance of
primate feet and take it for granted that most people are also
aware. For this reason, there has never been any mention of “strange looking feet” in reports on the film
prepared by professionals. In other words, anthropologists have absolutely no problem with the appearance of
the creature’s feet seen in the film. In studying the chimp’s foot shown here, I am certain one could take a
photograph of such a foot at a certain angle that would reasonable duplicate the creature’s foot seen in frame
323.
As to Long’s other observations (possible - sagging backside, boot and glove), professional film analysis
would not have missed such obvious details. One might note that the chimp’s leg shown above has the
appearance of a boot – I assure you this is not the case.
In reflecting upon Long’s observations, it is essential for non-professionals to seek professional opinions
before going public with findings – be it this subject or any other subject. I learned this lesson the hard way as I
am sure will be the case with Mr. Long.
6
ABOUT THE ALLEGED “COSTUME”
We are given to believe that the bigfoot costume Bob Heironimus was asked to wear was made of horsehide
to which Patterson had attached/glued fur from an old fur coat. It had a headpiece (apparently built on a helmet
of some sort), a body piece (including breasts) and leggings (including feet, like hip boots). There were no
metal fasteners. String ties were used to hold everything in place. Nevertheless, after documenting this
information, Greg Long learned that the costume maker Philip Morris had allegedly sold a gorilla suit to Roger
Patterson. Morris emphatically claims that what he sees in the film is one of his suits except for the creature’s
face (mask) and the breasts. He also claims that the feet were provided with the suit and that the foot seen in the
film was definitely made by his company, the only difference being that the soles of the feet his company
provided were black. The soles of the feet seen in the film are very light in color. Here, it was concluded that
Patterson painted the soles or they picked up the light colored soil in the area.
As to the face (mask) it is speculated that Patterson made a sculpture
and from that produced a mould and thereupon made his own mask. A
reference is made to a sculpture Patterson created. I have seen this
sculpture. It is about 4.5-inches/11.4cm high. When I visited Patricia
Patterson in 2003, she placed the sculpture on a little step ladder outside
and I took this photograph. I repositioned the sculpture several times to
get a decent angle. The following photograph shows the best I could do.
Roger Patterson’s concept of the creature’s appearance as indicated by the
sculpture is far removed from the creature he filmed. Nevertheless, even if it
were similar, we still have the issues I have raised regarding the eye, cheek and
mouth movement. As to the gorilla costume, Philip Morris’ claim cannot be
justified. Then again, according to Heironimus the suit was made of horsehide
with attached/glued fur, so justification is out of the question. I requested
permission from Philip Morris to show a photograph of the gorilla suit he claims
he sold to Roger Patterson. Morris flatly denied permission and copied his
attorney in the reply. Really, all we have is a convoluted mess of information on
the alleged costume. At this point in time, I have not seen the type of feet Morris
supplies with costumes. However, certainly Long would have provided images if
there were any substance to Morris’s claim.
As to all of the testimonials and circumstantial evidence Long presents, I have
only one comment: paper does not refuse ink.
7