THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM AND THE RELIGION OF BIGFOOT
In an age of divisiveness nothing should be a surprise as a point of contention. No, not even Bigfoot, and I’m not talking about the head-butting that always surrounded North America’s fabled wild man. Believers have always stood firm while the calls for logic from scientists have been in vain. What has changed is the increased hostility between the two.
This, too, was inevitable for the supernatural is, after all, a religion and few subjects elicit stronger passions, especially when drawn into the political arena, than dogma. Look no further than the quarrel with the church of the flat earth for proof.
Not surprisingly, the quarrel reaches a pitch when Patty enters the room. Patty is the christened name given to the supposed female sasquatch filmed by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in 1967 in a piece of footage which has since then become the Shroud of Turin for Bigfoot hunters.
Patterson had been such an aficionado since at least 1959 when he began reading about accounts of mysterious hairy humanoids around the world and by the early 60s began visiting Bluff Creek, a tributary of the Klamath River in Northern California’s Six Rivers National Forest, where rumors of the creature’s existence were thriving. As his friend Marian Place recalled, “In 1962 he visited Bluff Creek and talked with a whole host of Bigfoot-believers. In 1964 he returned and met a timber-cruiser named Pat Graves, who drove him to Laird Meadows. There Patterson saw fresh tracks—for him an almost unbearably exciting, spine-chilling experience. What a tremendous feat it would be—what a scientific breakthrough—if he could obtain unshakable evidence that these tracks were not the work of a prankster, but the actual mark of a hitherto unknown creature! If he succeeded, he would be famous! And rich! Alas, fame and fortune were not gained that year, nor the next, nor the next. Patterson invested thousands of hours and dollars combing Bigfoot and Sasquatch territory. He fought constant ridicule and a shortage of funds. ... he founded ... the Northwest Research Foundation. Through it he solicited funds. The response was encouraging and enabled him to lead several expeditions. In 1966 he published a paperback book at his own expense. He added the income from its sales and his lectures to the search fund. As each wilderness jaunt failed to see or capture the monster, one by one the thrill-seekers dropped out. But Patterson never gave up.”
In the spring of 1967 Patterson turned to filmmaking, beginning production on a low-budget independent film about Bigfoot hunters in Northern California. Along with himself in the lead, Patterson cast local volunteers as extras and his friend Bob Gimlin as the Indian scout. Where Patterson was falling short was in acquiring a Bigfoot costume.
That October, Patterson and Gimlin made an excursion on horseback (on Patterson’s suggestion) to Bluff Creek, for years the hub of Patterson’s obsession. Although rifles were packed, Patterson was steadfast in not shooting a specimen should one be seen. Instead, he hoped to bring back evidence (more footprints or film) to drum up funding for his film project.
To the shock of no one reading the story with a rational mind, they returned with the best footage of a Bigfoot ever. In the film, an alleged female sasquatch is seen ambling away after spotting the two men filming it and wanders off upright into the forest. The film caused a sensation in its day and analytical studies of the footage continue today.
Up until his death from cancer in 1972, Patterson maintained that what he filmed was a live animal. He spent the rest of his ears on talk shows and media tours. At 91, Gimlin is still taking interviews on the film and while he insists that he was not involved in a hoax, he has gradually come to concede that Patterson may have put one over on him.
The biggest fans of the film have been Hollywood make-up artists. While none have given an opinion one way or the other most agree that, if it is footage of an actor in an ape suit, it is top tier work. A handful of biologists have taken the time to analyze the footage and while none have officially endorsed it (the closest it has come to a validation is “inconclusive”) some have given credit where credit is due and consider it a well made hoax as far as hoaxes go.
One counterpoint presented by defenders of Patterson against the suit theory is that a suit depicting a female of the species would have to be custom made as animal suits are male by default and if this were nothing more than a prank, why the extra effort? Fair enough, here one must remember that Patterson was a long-time Bigfoot aficionado and his drive was created by an assortment of sasquatch tales, chief among them was a 1957 story by one William Roe who claimed to have encountered a female bigfoot and accompanied his story with illustrations.
To me the film is a hoax as an ipso facto: it is a hoax because the existence of Bigfoot is almost certainly a biological impossibility, a fact becoming increasingly clear in the age of drones, camera phones and tracking devices. A breeding population would be needed for a species to thrive for so long and the likelihood of numerous large apes going undetected for centuries as settlement and development push forward is practically nonexistent. As paleontologist Darren Naish pointed out in 2016, “If "Bigfoot" existed, so would consistent reports of uniform vocalizations throughout North America as can be identified for any existing large animal in the region, rather than the scattered and widely varied "Bigfoot" sounds haphazardly reported. If "Bigfoot" existed, so would many tracks that would be easy for experts to find, just as they easily find tracks for other rare megafauna in North America, rather than a complete lack of such tracks alongside "tracks" that experts agree are fraudulent. Finally, if "Bigfoot" existed, an abundance of "Bigfoot" DNA would already have been found, again as it has been found for similar animals, instead of the current state of affairs, where there is no confirmed DNA for such a creature whatsoever.”
And yet committed believers take skepticism as a personal attack. Science and fundamental beliefs have a long turbulent history, often the very identity of the combatants is at stake. To the true believers, questioning the existence of Bigfoot, especially the Patterson-Gimlin film which is hailed as the best piece of evidence, is no different than questioning miracle healing for those so devoted. It needs to be true for them.
As it did for Roger Patterson, the legend of Bigfoot fills a void in our psyche just like religion does to our soul. Bigfoot symbolizes our wondrous and often conflicting attitude to the wild. We are in awe of its mysteries, yet we need to tame them, to understand them. Our connection with nature has always been based on molding it to our terms instead of the other way around, hence Bigfoot is described as “human-like” and more so than a missing link represents for some the bridge between the comforts of civilization and the primal instinct that keeps longing for the forest. In this vein it is easier to sympathize with even the most stubborn of Bigfoot champions.
Comments
Post a Comment