The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film - 'The Most Important Wildlife Footage Ever'

Rense.com

The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot
Film - 'The Most Important
Wildlife Footage Ever'
From Founders' America
foundersamerica@hotmail.com
3-8-4

Hi, Jeff:

Re: "Rebuttal To Patterson Bigfoot Hoax Claim Due On Monday" http://www.rense.com/general50/rebut.htm

Of course, it is POSSIBLE that that footage is a hoax, but HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

Please review my thoughts on the matter below.

Best,

-Richard

The Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot Film '...the most important piece of wildlife film, ever!'

By RBB December 23, 2001 ©2001

One, two, or even ten accounts of a hard-to-believe event may warrant dismissing the thing, but dozens or more of such testimonials make doubters appear as ignorant fools.

There exist thousands of accounts of Sasquatch, or bigfoot--the legendary ape-man of North America.

The extant records of testimonials about bigfoot sightings over the last 100 years, here and in Canada ((the records go back much farther)), are so extensive, that it is the doubter who appears to be the ignorant fool; and so-called scientists being the most ignorant of fools.

- - -

This is an analysis of Discovery Channel's "The X- Creature" program called "Bigfoot and Yeti" (2001): - narrated by Mike Pengra; - written by Chris Packham; - edited by Mark Fox; - produced by Jenny Ash; a BBC/Discovery Communications Inc. co-production.

- - -

I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION, in my humble opinion, "the most important piece of wildlife footage, ever!" [those are the words of the narrator of The X- Creature program, but in the context of dismissing the likelihood of such evidence ever being authentic].

I came into possession of the footage a couple of months ago, after my son handed a video tape to me containing, this scribbler believes, near-irrefutable evidence of the existence of the famed/legendary bigfoot creature.

It was a copy of that Discovery Channel presentation.

I'm 53, and over the past several decades I've seen still shots from frames of that footage in magazines and books, but not any copy of the running film itself.

My first reaction?: "That's an animal!" but, then, the narrator of the program had already been dropping negatively biased points of view, which had raised no doubts in me about authenticity, but had raised concerns about the inductive/deductive reasoning skills of narrator, writer and producer of that show.

Now why would the creators of that "documentary" plant doubts in the mind of viewers from the get- go?

The reason is given near the end of the segment:

Narrator:

"The bigfoot of legend runs contrary to primate philosophy and the fossil record."

Well, we can't have anything upset the apple cart of contemporary primate philosophy and the fossil record, can we?

Too many professional careers and opinions would need adjusting. And think of all the textbooks in need of revising or discarding.

- - -

My transcription of the Patterson/Gimlin bigfoot segment follows, with my analyses behind double brackets, and with any necessary clarifications about the presentation's contents put between single brackets:

Narrator:

It's a far-fetched story, men attacked and even injured by irate giant apes in the U.S.A. Yet, it was taken seriously, reported on the front page of the state newspaper along side the world news.

[[ That loaded comment follows reenactment of the Estacada, Oregon, miners' story, about being attacked by one or more of the critters, after one of the miners had shot one with his rifle.

[[ The narrator's intonation leaves no doubt about his intention to cast the story in a negative light.

[[ Read bigfoot researcher John Green's account in his book, "Bigfoot" ((1973)).

Narrator:

Could there really be a giant ape living in modern North America?

The pacific northwest is bigfoot country. These forests cover 21,000 square miles, from Alaska in the north all the way to California in the south . . .

[[ So begins the biased segment of the program dealing with bigfoot in North America, and which negative bias is made perfectly clear with these words:

"Yet, it [the story of miners being attacked by giant ape-men] was taken seriously."

Narrator:

How often do people come across bigfoot?

In British Columbia, John Green has logged many of the modern encounters, 3000 in the last 30 years. But he thinks these are only a fraction of the sightings that actually occur.

One of them has a piece of film attached, shot in California by the late Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in October 1967.

John Green:

[running Patterson film on his projector] This is the start of the role that they eventually got the picture of the creature on . . . riding their horses up the bed [see one horse rider leading another horse carrying supplies in a heavily wooded area] of Bluff Creek . . . There's Bob now, with the pack horse . . .

Narrator:

It all looks a bit like a home movie. And with just a minute left on the film, it changes dramatically [bigfoot is seen near the edge of the forest, walking from left to right while the camera shakes badly].

[[ Well, it is a "home movie"! But the comment was made for purposes of planting a doubt in the viewer's mind about any authenticity of the critter captured on that film.

Narrator:

Whatever your first impression of this footage, there is no in-camera trickery.

[[ This is a nice touch, to present an air of objectivity, after planting a strong doubt.

Narrator:

Examining the film shows that something really walked in front of Patterson's camera. And let's be clear on one thing, either this footage has to be a hoax, or it's THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WILDLIFE FILM, EVER [my emphasis]!

That's the footage. Here's the story that goes with it.

It was around 1 p.m. on October 20th, 1967. Patterson and Gimlin were riding north, up the Bluff Creek in California.

They rounded the bend and saw the creature. Patterson pulled out the camera from saddle bag and began filming.

After about 11 seconds, he began to run closer. And as he did, Bob rode closer still, within 60 feet of the creature, covering Roger with his rifle, until the creature walked away.

Using a computer, we've stabilized the footage. It looks like a man in a suit, but so would the bigfoot of legend.

The question is, which is it?

[[ Does a gorilla look like a man in a suit? Gimlin reported that his first reaction to it was, 'that is an animal.' So bigfoot researchers/believers take two hits here: 1) "It looks like a man in a suit," 2) "[B]ut so would the bigfoot of legend."

[[ In other words, because all sightings appear to be men in suits, they are ALL MEN IN SUITS.

Narrator:

From what we can see, the fur is pretty convincing. It flows correctly down the back.

[[ Yes, and if one looks closely at the enhanced footage, one sees - to put it coarsely - the creatures butt crack defined by its hair pattern, as well as the spinal column and more.

[[ But something not mentioned is how oily the "suit" appears to be.

[[ That's one glossy critter, as sunlight reveals a highly glossy sheen reflecting off the critter's hair, which is strong evidence of sebaceous glands at work--evidence of skin glands secreting sebum to coat the hair.

[[ No suit would appear so animal-like--such as how, say, the black hair of a teen-age boy would appear if he hadn't washed it for a couple of days.

Narrator:

And in some places you can apparently see muscles moving under the skin.

[[ The narrator fails to inform the viewer here, or anywhere else in the segment, that moving/pendulous breasts are clearly visible when the creature turns its upper torso to glance at Patterson and Gimlin ((in the enhanced - or magnified - version of the film clip)).

[[ This oversight, purposeful or not, is a major one!

[[ Why would that not be mentioned? Well, what hoaxer would go to the trouble of fitting an ape-man suit with pendulous breasts while a successful hoaxing would depend so much on NOT providing a too-close and too-detailed filming of a suited man? Such an effort would be a waste of time and money if not clearly seen on film, keeping in mind that the narrator makes a point ((later on)) that shaky camera work and distance were used to fool the viewer.

Narrator:

Reacting to men on horse-back by just strolling off is very strange behavior for a shy, wild animal.

[[ Actually, the creature is not strolling but moving at a near-clipped pace, as if in a purposeful hurry. So the narrator continues to distort and/or omit facts.

[[ To say that that is "very strange behavior" is a very strange exaggeration, as animals often just turn and go off in another direction when seeing a human in their habitat.

Narrator:

Film is one thing, but animals leave traces. And there were footprints in the creek sand.

They were deeper than the ones left by Bob's horse when he rode along side the trail.

[[ Those tracks, and their apparent depth, are an important clue to the authenticity of the sighting.

Narrator:

Their combined weight was almost 1500 lbs. The depth of the prints suggest the creature was even heavier. Yet the average weight for a male gorilla is 400 lbs.

[[ How many gorillas have a standing height of over 6'5"? The critter on the film appears to be massive--a gigantic ape-man.

[[ So, allowing for a margin of error here, resulting from misjudgment and mismeasurements, it's not unreasonable to put the creature's weight at 800 pounds or more.

[[ In his book, John Green gives these dimensions:

"No precise measurements are possible, but taking as a standard the length of the foot, which is known from the track to be about 14 1/2 inches, the creature measures about seven feet in height and not much less than three feet in width across the shoulders. This is half again as wide as a heavy-built man, and other dimensions are proportionately heavy. Her thigh is as big as a normal man's chest, her ankle as big as his thigh. Her arms are long enough to span close to nine feet; two feet more than her height, but her body is also very long, so that her arms do not appear to hang very low. Her legs are shorter than those of a normal man. These dimen- sions . . . add to the problems for those who would like to dismiss the film as a hoax."

Narrator:

Roger reloaded his Kodak and filmed them [footprints]. Then they took plaster casts. Some measured 15 inches.

John Green:

[he's shown displaying one of the Bluff Creek footprint casts] This is perhaps the best of those casts.

You have to remember the track is not the shape that the foot makes, necessarily. It's the shape that the foot made in the ground.

This one, for instance [he points to one in a display case], it looks as if it had stepped on something. But, in fact, that's the way it drove the heel in and shifted the weight to the front of the foot.

Narrator:

The tracks are varied but very natural, and with the dynamics of a flexible walking foot.

But the depth suggests that the weight of the creature was over three times the weight of a gorilla the same size. And Patterson's film of them has vanished.

[[ So the creature must be a man in a suit because there are no gorillas the same size?

[[ No doubt, that film had been stolen by someone wishing to possess an important piece of evidence pointing to the existence of bigfoot.

Narrator:

So, is there more biological evidence about these creatures?

These forests stretch south from British Columbia, through Washington State and Oregon, to California. And John Green has investigated many stories from the Sixties and Seventies.

Seventy years of stories about bigfoot have failed to produce a single, credible photograph, let alone a body. So we're back to footprints.

[[ How many still photos are there in that film footage? Maybe "seventy years" of stories about bigfoot have produced 300-plus photo frames con- nected in a movie strip, presenting us with THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WILDLIFE FILM, EVER!

[[ We're to ignore the movie strip of bigfoot, to dismiss it because there has been no "single" photograph of the critter in the past?

Narrator:

In 1969, near Bossburg, Washington, there were a staggering 1,009 of them [foot- prints] left in the mud and snow--the tracks of a very long-legged creature. But, curiously, also a crippled one.

It's right foot had twisted toes and mis- placed bones, something that would be unusual but very natural.

[[ The "very natural" remark is strategically placed at the end of the description, to have the viewer dismiss the inhuman-like long stride between foot- prints. Those long-legged footprints - barefoot in mud and snow, and with one crippled foot - point away from human categorization and toward the legendary bigfoot, as the extant record of such bigfoot prints is extremely large and compelling.

Narrator:

At Washington State University, the prints have been studied by primate anatomist and bigfoot author Grover Krantz.

Footprints are just dents in the ground, but they can tell an expert about the foot that made them.

Grover Krantz:

From the position of these bulges [he displays plaster cast of a Bossburg print, with line drawings outlining the relative position of bones producing the bulges] I was able to deduce some of the key bones in the center of the foot and reconstruct all the bones of the foot-- and found, most interestingly, that the center of weight of the angle was substan- tially forward of where it is for a human.

If we had an erect biped 8-feet tall, and it was going to walk in a human manner, how much farther forward would the ankle have to be placed?

I did some simple arithmetic calculations on that - got an exact answer - and, then, went back and measured my reconstruction. It was exactly correct.

That was enough for me to be absolutely sure that those feet [prints] were made by a living creature.

[[ Krantz ought to have been bold here and used "bigfoot creature" not "living creature" since a man on stilts fitted with the chopped-off feet of a giant/crippled human cadaver could also have made those prints. No?

Narrator:

Is there no way that these could be hoaxed?

Grover Krantz:

If the Bossburg tracks of a crippled individual were made by a hoaxer, there are several considerations.

One is that he had to know human anatomy with great detail; he had to be able to devise distortions of the anatomy; and he had to calculate exactly how an enlarged individual would have to be constructed in order to walk properly.

That requires an elaboration of thought and knowledge that I don't think anybody in the world has.

Narrator:

John Green was the first to investigate the [Bluff Creek] bigfoot film.

He reconstructed the event just 9 months later.

This is Jim McClarin [shown walking the Bluff Creek river bed where bigfoot was filmed by Patterson], 6'5" tall, walking the same route as the bigfoot.

He'd been to Bluff Creek when the tracks were still plainly to be seen. So he knew the route it took.

With a digital-effects device, we can pre- cisely match the two separate pieces of film, and show that the creature was only a bit taller than McClarin. And definitely bulkier.

[[ The creature may have been three to four inches taller, given the difference between how far McClarin's weight drove his shoes into the river bed and how far bigfoot's feet sank.

Narrator:

But the footprints make it 4-times heavier.

The movement has always been controver- sial, as well. Grover Krantz thinks the gait of the creature is definitely in- human.

Grover Krantz:

The Patterson subject walks with the body leaning forward [Krantz is shown imitating the gait of bigfoot], and knees largely bent, so that when it takes a step it supports the leg with a bent knee--and keeps both feet on the ground for an un- usual length of time. It also lifts the foot very high behind each step, like so [he demonstrates].

In addition to all those things, it also swings the arms, which is very difficult to imitate, like this [he demonstrates, as a child laughs off camera].

Well, this is something I can do for a few steps, rather poorly, but the Patter- son subject did it for over 300 feet. I doubt that any human being can be trained to do that.

[[ Krantz did not mention doing that while one is carrying 800 pounds of extra weight, to drive the feet into the ground.

Narrator:

Is seems that everything about bigfoot leads to that footage, so what about the location, Bluff Creek, in northern Cali- fornia? Because if this was a hoax, it was a good one. And details about the right location would be essential to its success.

[[ So, credit is given when credit is due: "[I]f this was a hoax, it was a good one." And "everything about bigfoot" DOES NOT lead to that footage, as the evidence for the creature's existence was convincing to all but those misinformed, uninformed and/or deaf and blind critics.

Narrator:

So what are the options?

[Option #1] Roger and Bob are innocent, hoaxed by a separate party in a suit.

But how could they guarantee a meeting in a suitable spot and, more important- ly, be sure not to get shot?

Both men were armed. And remember, only a body will satisfy science.

[[ This last line is very telling - and true! - as it presents the crux of the matter of why extant testimonials/materials are ignored by orthodox science.

[[ Because testimonial/material evidence ((sighting reports and footprints)) A-R-E compelling, it MUST be rejected as near-perfect proof, because the existence of such a creature necessarily rewrites the primate orthodoxy and fossil record.

[[ In other words, so-called scientists don't want their comfy boat rocked.

Narrator:

[Option #2] Could Roger and Bob set the whole thing up themselves and made the suit?

Well, Roger was a resourceful man with lots of contacts. But the suit is too good, which suggests professional special-effects design.

[[ This is a critical admission.

[[ A too-good suit might cause a viewer to see an actual ape-man, rather than a man in a suit posing for Patterson and Gimlin.

Narrator:

Grover Krantz says the walk isn't human, but he can almost do it.

[[ But, again, not with 800 pounds on his back to drive those feet so deeply into the ground!

Narrator:

So was there a third man, a director of action?

There was certainly money to be made.

After the film was seen, a TV company Los Angeles offered Roger $50,000 for the rights--a modern equivalent would be over a quarter of a million.

Could Roger have been employed to film the creature, even told to use a partly exposed roll of film and bring Bob Gimlin along to corroborate his story?

OPTION THREE has Roger leading Bob into an event he's rehearsed; a performance. And Roger was in control.

[[ It's notable that option #4 is not presented: There had been no hoax, but an actual event providing Patterson and Gimlin - and the world - with THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF WILDLIFE FILM, EVER!

Narrator:

The two had conspicuously agreed not to shoot the creature, unless it attacked them.

[[ How would a couple of cowboys inconspicuously agree not to shoot the creature?

[[ Carrying rifles on a bigfoot search would require that the subject be addressed, conspicuously so!

[[T he narrator is grabbing at anything to cast doubts on the two principals' motives.

Narrator:

Bob Gimlin doesn't talk to the media, but in 1992 [he] recorded the story on October 20th for his friend, John Green.

Bob Gimlin:

I left early in the morning, and, of course, Roger slept in. My horse loosened a shoe up, so I came back in to tack the shoe on tighter. And Roger was gone when I got back, and . . .

Narrator:

So Roger and Bob were apart on the morning before the filming.

Bob Gimlin:

He [Roger] asked me what area I had covered that morning, and I told him. And he said, "so why don't we ride up into this area . . ."

Narrator:

And Roger led Bob out in the afternoon. It's a vital detail. But Bob still maintained that what he saw was an animal.

[[ Well, Roger was in charge of the expedition. So his providing directions is not necessarily a suspicious "vital detail."

Narrator:

He [Bob Gimlin] hasn't spoken to the media in 13 years. But he was a crucial eye- witness.

On the phone, he was willing to accept the theory that he had been fooled.

[[ The telephone monologue does not reveal this at all.

Bob Gimlin:

When I first saw this thing, it was just like the adrenaline flow[ing], you know. I was shocked, excited--just like, golly, they do exist, you know.

At one time in my life, right shortly after the film footage, I was totally con- vinced that no one could fool me. And, course, I'm an older man now, and I see a lot of things. And I think there could have been a possibility.

But it would of had to have been really well planned by Roger, and I feel they would have had to have been very careful, because I had a 30.06 loaded with 180- grain bullets. And had that thing had turned and rushed me, I would've shot it.

So I feel that if that was a hoax, some- body was taking an awfully big chance with their life.

[[I n other words, Gimlin doesn't believe it was a hoax, as the narrator suggests above.

Narrator:

Maybe that's why the creature just walked away. And what a brilliant piece of cast- ing: Honest Bob, the eyewitness.

[[ At this point, there isn't any pretense to giving a balanced report on the event.

Narrator:

So how wold the hoax have been created?

The first job is to find out more about the suit.

In Burbank, California, Optic Nerve Studios specializes in building creatures around people. It's run by John Vulich ((sp?)).

John Vulich:

In my mind, it's undoubtedly a suit [he's sitting at his desk, in front of a TV screen running the Patterson footage].

[[ What would one expect from a man running a Hollywood special-effects studio to say, that he believed it to be a real ape-man? How many clients would he lose for being so "out of it"?

John Vulich:

Generally, what we would build is a two- layered suit. We'd have a musculature underneath where the muscles are actually separate pieces sewn together, so they can slide up against each other the way muscles would on a real person. Then, on top of that, the first suit goes on as a separate layer, so we get some kind of sliding in between the fur and the muscles. It does tend to look more natural.

Narrator:

And what about the locomotion? How easy would that be for a man?

John Vulich:

To my mind, the movements of this crea- ture are no where near as dramatically different than as a man playing a gorilla or chimpanzee. And you're talking about very, very different body language--very different style. And, so, if a human being can master that type of movement, he can certainly master this that much easier. And I think an amateur would be able to achieve this kind of locomotion very easily.

[[ It's one thing to play like a gorilla but quite another to master subtle, and unusual, movements seen on the Patterson film--to walk over 300 feet carrying 800 pounds and drive the feet into the ground while (1) leaning a bit forward, (2) breaking at the knees with each step, and (3) lifting up the feet at the end of each stride.

[[ A university trained anatomist, Grover Krantz, explained the difficulty, yet a special-effects guy knows best?

Narrator:

A lot of expertise is required to make a convincing suit.

[[ The Patterson subject's "suit" isn't just convinc- ing, as compared with what John Vulich is about to show the viewer, but stunningly real!

[[ It appears like the pelt of an animal, rather than something put together. And, again, those pendulous breasts aren't mentioned by the narrator!

Actor:

That's made from a spandex under-suit [he's half-dressed in a red ape-man suit, show- ing the padding and other features]. And onto that we put real animal hair. In this case, yak hair.

[[ The yak hair flies everywhere on the suit, like a shaggy dog having a bad hair day.

[[ The Patterson subject's hair is well groomed, oily and showing hair-growth patterns natural to an animal, as the sun glistening off its back - in one segment - clearly reveals natural-appearing hair growth down the back and buttocks.

Narrator:

What about the body shape?

Actor:

It's simply foam pads sewn with a spandex material, to enlarge the collar bone, biceps, the calves and so on.

[[ Then the Patterson subject appears to be all pads, as there clearly is no room for spaces between padding sections.

[[ That creature is a massive hulk.

Narrator:

Detail is the key. But for bigfoot, eyes are less important than feet.

[[ Yes, let's ignore the massive hulk of the creature - and its pendulous breasts and its oily hair - and focus on its feet--but not so to adequately explain the deep tracks the critter had made in the ground.

Actor:

If you wanted a greater impression [he displays the bottom of the suit's large foot], you'd simply put a stiffer material into the bottom.

[[ If you want a greater impression, you'd need more weight on smaller feet!

[[ The larger the feet, the shallower the impression-- per any given weight--depending on soil conditions.

[[ The Patterson creature's feet were wide and long, so a great weight would have been necessary to make the Bluff Creek prints. Maybe Patterson and Gimlin had slipped a couple of giant bigfoot booties on the back hooves of Patterson's horse, then had it walk on its hind legs, using long strides. No?

Narrator:

And, finally, someone has to be able to work with the suit.

Actor:

One of the things I noticed, is that as he steps down, he tends to break at the knee.

[[ The actor had to have been coached about this trait, as the phenomenon is very subtle to the untrained eye while notable to a trained anatomist.

Narrator:

And if the suit and movement can be repro- duced, so can the event.

[[ It is not clear that the suit and movement of the Patterson subject can be reproduced.

[[ Where is that Patterson suit--that state-of-the- art effort in special-effects? Why hasn't anyone come forward to take credit for that masterful piece of brilliant suit-making?

Narrator:

Using the same distances recorded at Bluff Creek, the same camera and lens, and an amateur operator, it's possible to re- create the action of 1967.

[[ This is not even close to being a re-creation!

Off-Camera Voice:

Action! [A suited actor - in the yak-hair suit - and a cameraman are shown attempting to re-create the bigfoot event at Bluff Creek.]

Narrator:

The most important revelation of [this] exact re-creation, is how close Roger and Bob were to the creature. They were right on top of it, which makes the be- havior less natural. It walked away, utterly unconcerned.

[[ Not true!, as the creature wasn't strolling but force-walking away from the two men. And, more importantly, it turned to look back and make certain it wasn't being pursued, which action shows concern.

Narrator:

Even so, it's conveniently difficult to see much detail in the suit. It's very neat.

[[ Well, as Gimlin said: "[I]t would of had to have been really well planned by Roger, and I feel they would have had to have been very careful, because I had a 30.06 loaded with 180-grain bullets. And had that thing had turned and rushed me, I would've shot it."

[[ Not only is there no detail in the "re-creation," but there is no oily sheen glinting off the yak hair. And, curiously, the suited actor does walk at a near-clipped pace, as if in a purposeful hurry, just like the subject in the Patterson film.

Narrator:

The whole thing was beautifully designed: suit, location, camera work.

[[ It's first-rate Hollywood production. One waits for the narrator to begin mentioning Academy Awards here.

Narrator:

Now days, a lot of commercials deliber- ately use confusing, shaky camera work. But they always have an image that sells the product, like frame 352 [a frame show- ing creature turning its upper body to its right, to face Patterson and Gimlin]:

"I'm bigfoot, buy me."

[[ "And millions of people have," opines the narrator.

Narrator:

And now there's a strong case that bigfoot simply doesn't exist.

[[ There is no strong case, only a contrived attempt to debunk what scientists fear most: a real challenge to their primate orthodoxy and fossil record.

Narrator Concludes:

The bigfoot of legend runs contrary to primate physiology and the fossil record. And Patterson's footage is most likely a brilliant hoax.

[[ Consider for a moment what putting those two thoughts in the same paragraph reveals: There sit both the ready-made PREMISE and CONCLUSION for producing a program which would purposely slant and/or distort evidence supporting the existence of bigfoot.

Narrator:

Even Bob Gimlin, the only man who saw what Patterson filmed, has serious doubts.

[[ Again, Gimlin aired no "serious" doubts.

[[ But he had admitted to the POSSIBILITY of a hoax, which any reasonable person would do, to avoid appearing the narrow-minded dolt.

[[ It's too bad those involved in creating The X- Creature program couldn't shed their own narrow- minded view.

Narrator:

So unless these forests reveal a creature that rewrites the rules of biology, this is the end of the road.

[[ And so ends the Discovery Channel segment about bigfoot and the Patterson film.

[[ It ends with a closed mind, not "the end of the road."

[[ Nothing closes a mind more tightly than one's own professional orthodoxy, it appears.

==================================

Go to the BFRO page and read those testimonials:

http://bfro.net/

TO REITERATE: One, two, or even ten accounts of a hard-to-believe event may warrant dismissing the thing, but dozens or more of such testimonials make doubters appear as ignorant fools.

Of course, borrowing Bob Gimlin's cover-all-bases tack, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE--even a state-of-the-art, Hollywood-award-winning hoaxing effort on the part of Roger Patterson and/or others.

http://bigfootpattersonfilm.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer

Email This Article

MainPage
http://www.rense.com

This Site Served by TheHostPros