Vol3No6 - Bigfoot Discovery Project

40th Anniversary – Patterson-Gimlin Film
www.bigfootdiscoveryproject.com
Message from the Curator
Now that the famous film by Patterson and
Gimlin has reached forty years in age, it is
indeed ironic that it still is producing evidence
of its own authenticity and new insights into
the nature of the being it represents. What’s
sad is the fact that skeptics are still claiming
the film to be a hoax, even though new data
provided by high resolution prints and modern
image analysis prove the creature in the film is
composed of muscle and bone.
Recent work by M.K. Davis shows clearly the
muscle and skin articulation on the back, and
details previously invisible on the head and
feet as well as various other parts of the body.
This work is exhibited on a couple of DVDs
we recently acquired for the museum collection. The first is called One Step Beyond
Reality: Bigfoot, and the other is called
Spotlight on: The Patterson-Gimlin Film.
The first was produced as a pilot for a new TV
or Internet show called One Step Beyond
Reality. In spite of the strange format—they
use a tabloid newspaper office as the common
source of documentary video that is presented
in the piece, thus setting the stage for future
such treatments on other “paranormal”
material—the video includes well-done images
of Davis discussing his methods and showing
some of the results. It also includes the
opinions of a “psychic” and a Native American
on the existence of Bigfoot.
Seen in combination with the most recent
DVD, Spotlight on: The Patterson Gimlin
Film, we get a thorough sampling of the
evidence for the authenticity of the film, and a
detailed description of the methodology used
to bring out details never before seen in the
film. This part of the work is in my opinion
nearly undisputable, however they also include
some new theories as to just what the being in
the film might be. This is where the controversy begins.
M.K. Davis believes the creature in the film is
carrying some kind of “digging stick” and is
sporting a topknot with ponytail and braid.
This, combined with additional details of both
the ear and the lips, have convinced Davis that
the sasquatch in the film is “some kind of
October 20, 2007 Volume 3 Number 6
human.” Proponents of the bipedal ape theory
and the shape-shifter theories vehemently
disagree, and many have spoken out against
Davis for even presenting such a “preposterous
concept.”
Any of you who have been associated with our
museum for any length of time are aware that
I’m a firm believer in letting everyone state
their case, regardless of how ridiculous it
sounds to others who have already made up
their minds as to what bigfoot must be. Until
we have unequivocal proof, almost all
hypotheses to explain why people see bigfoot
should at least be heard, in my opinion.
Davis goes so far as to suggest the “sagittal
crest” (pointed head) exhibited by the P-G
bigfoot might be the result of deliberate
reshaping of the head, as shown in a number of
Amerindian tribes in both North and South
America. Because the bones in the top of the
skull remain soft and unfixed for a while in a
newborn baby, some Native American tribes
used special frames to shape the head as it
fused, causing a sort of cone-shaped or
elongated skull. Davis offers this as a counter
to the sagittal crest theory in the first DVD. By
the release of the second DVD he is less sure
of this interpretation, and tends more towards a
manipulated “hairdo” and wind gusts to
explain the elongated look of the skullcap.
I have been communicating with Davis directly
recently, and he has provided me with
enhanced images that to me do indeed seem to
indicate the possibility of both a “topknot” and
even a “braided ponytail” that seems to swing
free of the head in a couple of frames in the
film. This would of course tend to indicate a
“human,” in that most would agree that a
special hairdo would suggest self-awareness
beyond an ape’s capabilities.
Other sources that would seem to back up this
concept include stories of the Chehalis Indians in
Canada who were interviewed by a man named
Burns back in the 1920’s, They claimed that at one
time they “traded” with the Sasquatch, who spoke
in the “Douglas Dialect.” There are also modern
examples of witnesses who claim that the bigfoot
are capable of language and communicate in a
somewhat guttural version of several Native
American dialects.
1
Then there are tales of bigfoot type creatures
“mating” with humans, and also stories of
DNA tests done on suspected sasquatch spoor
(hair, poop) that tested out to be human! Of
course all of these stories are considered
apocryphal by most researchers, and are
typically cast off as popular mythology of
some sort. There are also stories (I know of at
least three) where folks claim that they have
killed a bigfoot, thinking it was a bear. Upon
approaching the kill to harvest the animal they
found the face, hands and feet to be so
humanlike that they either buried or abandoned
the body out of fear of prosecution. These
stories are generally shrugged off as folk tales.
But if any of this is true, it would serve to
substantiate the concept of bigfoot being more
of a hominid than a pongid (more of a
“human” than an “ape.”) That would also go a
long way towards explaining how they are
capable of staying “hidden” even in suburban
settings considered to be too populated to offer
proper hiding places for such large animals.
In another realm, I have taken on a new project
to illustrate “The Moment of Discovery” when
Patterson and Gimlin first laid eyes on the
bigfoot they subsequently filmed. It is now
represented by a photo mock-up using many
photos combined in Photoshop on the
computer. The resulting “photo” shows Roger
and Bob on horseback at the moment they
rounded a deadfall tree to discover the Bigfoot.
The viewpoint is from a spot behind the
creature, looking across the creek at the two
cowboys. I've sent copies off to a number of
“experts” including Bob Gimlin himself, to get
the picture as accurate as possible. Look on
page 4 for the current version.
Recent acquisitions for the library:
Legend Hunters: Bigfoot by Partners in
Motion Films, Canada DVD
On Bigfoot’s Mountain by Dick Criswell
DVD
Spotlight on: The Patterson-Gimlin Film by
M.K. Davis & John Johnsen DVD
-- Michael Rugg
It Was Forty Years
Ago Today…
Celebrating the 40th
Anniversary of
Patterson-Gimlin Film
By Tom Yamarone
“No matter how the Patterson-Gimlin
Film is analyzed, its legitimacy has
been repeatedly supported. The size
and shape of the body cannot be
duplicated by a man, its weight and
movements correspond with each
other and equally rule out a human
subject; its details are just too good.”
– Dr. Grover Krantz, Big Footprints.
“This film remains among the most
compelling evidence for the existence
of sasquatch, detractors and skeptics
notwithstanding. Innovative modern
techniques of image analysis have
revealed new details lending further
corroboration to the film.” – Jeff
Meldrum, Sasquatch: Legend Meets
Science.
The Patterson-Gimlin Film was taken
40 years ago on a sunny October
afternoon on Bluff Creek in the
Six Rivers National Forest.
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin
emerged from those woods with the
most amazing wildlife film ever taken.
To this day it remains the standard by
which all other photographic evidence
is measured. We’re celebrating with a
small event in Willow Creek, CA this
Saturday and the occasion will also
be marked with a similar event in
Moscow, Russia. The Bigfoot
Discovery Museum will also commemorate the event with special
exhibits and the unveiling of a special
work of art by Michael Rugg.
There have been recent analyses of the
film in the last several years that
bolster the authenticity of the film and
the subject captured on those 28 feet of
celluloid. Certainly the best reviews of
these are in Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s book,
Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.
Other publications are well worth
reading on this subject including the
treatment in Dr. Grover Krantz’s
book Bigfoot Evidence (the first
publication was entitled Big
Footprints), Chris Murphy’s Meet
the Sasquatch and The Bigfoot Film
Controversy and Daniel Perez’s
Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. Those who
consider the skeptical arguments
against the authenticity of the film have
not taken the time to read these books
and publications that explain the
reasons why the subject of the P-G film
is the genuine article.
I recently acquired a copy of a book
published in 1997 entitled America’s
Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction by Dmitri
Bayanov, a Russian hominid researcher
and one of the P-G film’s most outspoken proponents. It is an excellent
summary of the review and analyses
done on the film in Russia after Rene
Dahinden brought a copy over there in
1971. Whereas the film was met with
skepticism here in the U.S. and
Canada, the Russian researchers
worked diligently to analyze the
film subject.
2
The most compelling reaction to the
film was from Dr. Dmitri Donsky, a
professor at the USSR Institute of
Physical Culture. He stated that “the
movement of the creature was
absolutely natural and showed the
subject’s difference from a man.
Though being very heavy and strong,
the filmed subject moved with the
minimum expenditure of energy.”
Another landmark determination was
made by Igor Bourtsev, a colleague
of Bayanov’s at the Darwin Institute,
who determined the film speed, an
unknown and very important aspect
of the event. The film speed
determined whether the subject in
the film could be a person in a
costume or outside the range of
human locomotion. To quote from
the book: “By taking the vacillations of the images on the film
(during the shaky portions) and
relating them to Patterson’s steps
and movements, it was possible to
determine not only the filming
speed, but also to describe, in a
strictly objective manner, how
Patterson was shooting the film.”
The Bigfoot Discovery Museum has
a special display about the film and
therein we honor the men who were
responsible for it.
The Russian scientists concluded,
“The Patterson-Gimlin film is an
authentic documentary of a genuine
female hominoid, popularly known as
Sasquatch or Bigfoot, filmed in the
Bluff Creek area of northern California
not later than October 1967.” And
Dmitri Bayanov also points out that
they had lots of information on relict
hominoids but they remained
inaccessible to the investigators’
sense of vision.
Dmitri Bayanov at Willow Creek in 2003
This is a sentiment echoed in many
circles. We finally got to actually
see one of these creatures! That is
truly the greatest aspect of the film.
A subject that was known through
footprint casts, footprint photographs and eyewitness accounts up
to that point was now a color
moving image. It affected many
people interested in the subject
then and continues to affect those
who see it to this very day.
Roger Patterson’s dedication to the
pursuit of better evidence and the
capable assistance of Bob Gimlin on
that fateful trip to Northern California
in 1967 are an inspiration to those
We’re going to celebrate this
anniversary, the film and the men
behind it this weekend.
who aspire to research this subject and
search for more evidence. That is
something not to be forgotten on this
anniversary – the men who made that
film. They have never received the
recognition they deserve due to the
continual, unfounded skeptical
arguments against the authenticity of
the film. This is something pointed out
by Dmitri Bayanov in a letter to the
celebration this weekend.
Bob Gimlin with casts in 2005
3
Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson with casts in 1967
Certainly, it’s not the only evidence
for the existence of these creatures.
It’s merely the best and the most
dramatic because it was an amazing
set of circumstances and was also
properly documented by Patterson
and Gimlin on film and with plaster,
and by Bob Titmus, Lyle Laverty,
John Green, Rene Dahinden, Jim
McClarin, Peter Byrne and others. It
hasn’t been duplicated since then for
a variety of reasons, which are very
well explained at the website of the
BFRO. Indeed, they (Patterson and
Gimlin) got lucky on Bluff Creek that
day, and so did we because we got to
see a living bigfoot walking tall and
free. Roger and Bob went down in
history!
Do you have a subscription
to our newsletter yet?
Why not? It costs as little
as $25 a year... see the web
site for more information.
4