So You Still Don’t Think The Patterson-Gimlin Film Is A Real Sasquatch?

The Crypto Crew Offers Some Reasons To Reconsider

By TCC Team Member Dorraine Fisher

            It’s a neverending debate. Is it fact or faked?

            But after the countless scientific studies that have been conducted on the famous Patterson-Gimlin bigfoot film shot in Bluff Creek, California back in 1967, it still hasn’t been disproven. But I’m always surprised to find how many people still believe it’s a hoax. Didn’t several people confess to wearing the suit that day? Yes, and that makes it easy for some to settle for the idea of it being a hoax when they don’t know all the facts about the film. The story runs quite a bit deeper than many imagine.

            There are numerous discrepancies. As the film has been studied over and over again, many details can be found that point to it being the real deal...if one bothers to look.

            Up and down movement of the creature’s toes is one. This kind of movement in a costume isn’t possible. The creature’s calf muscles flex as she walks; also not possible in a suit. Many have tried to duplicate this muscle movement in a suit and not accomplished it as yet. And the open and closing motion of the mouth is not possible if it’s someone wearing a mask. But the biggest problem with the idea of it being a suit is that human proportions and ape proportions are not the same. Apes have must longer arms and a much longer upper lip making it impossible for a human to fit properly into a suit such as the one in the film. Human arms would be too short and not able to function like a creature, and the mask would not fit a human properly...and a hoaxer certainly would not be able to move its mouth in a mask as it struggled with this inconvenience.

            Bob Hieronimous was one of the guys who confessed to wearing the suit that day. But the subject in the film was found to be at least 6.5 feet tall. Other studies have showcased the possibility she was closer to 7.5 feet tall. But either way, Bob H. wasn’t tall enough to wear a suit that big.

            Another thing that’s rarely discussed is a portion of the film at the very beginning when the camera was shaking. Patty was squatted down on the ground, looking for food, defecating, or drinking or eating. But with a little enhancement to the film, her butt crack can be seen pretty clearly. This is a strong detail that wasn’t being created in costumes back in the 1960s. It would have taken a lot of time and meticulous work to create such a compelling detail.

            And lastly but certainly not least, on examining the ending of the film closer, a second creature, possibly a male, can be seen moving near the creek bed. It appears to be moving its arms and then moving its head to look back at Patty. Is this another guy in a suit?  Probably not. It would be hard enough to create one suit, let alone two. The main focus has always been on the subject, Patty, so there are many other details of the film that have been overlooked. *******

Check out these videos for more details: