Contrary to the previous post, there is actually quite a lot of circumstantial evidence that this film was hoaxed, though no actual proof.
The most damning evidence is the timeline -- 16mm footage allegedly shot in California on a Friday afternoon, then developed at a lab and back in Yakima for viewing by that Sunday evening?! According to researcher Greg Long, there were only a handful of labs that processed 16mm film for the public at that time. And survivor Bob Gimlin can't "remember" how they got the film back to Yakima or where they had it developed. It seems nearly impossible...
So Patterson was likely lying about WHEN the film was shot. Why? I can't answer that, but it's odd that it happened to be pouring rain when Patterson made his first phone call to other Bigfoot investigators to come out and look at the site, rain that ruined the footprints (human and otherwise). All that remained were plaster casts and film that Patterson took of the footprints prior to the rain -- so, basically, no one could see anything in the sand that he didn't WANT them to see. Did Patterson film it sometime earlier, then just wait for it to rain, to blur evidence of a hoax?
And while there do seem to be discrepancies in the story of Bob Heironimus (the man who claims he was wearing the Bigfoot costume), at least one detail gives me pause: he claims Patterson's still-living widow Patricia watched him try on the "Bigfoot" costume back in 1967. I find it hard to believe that he would implicate her with an accusation like that if it were unfounded. And, as far as I know, Mrs. Patterson has never filed a lawsuit against him for slander, nor has Bob Gimlin.
However, the film has never been definitively debunked, nor definitively proved. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to catch a live sasquatch and compare it to the film subject... unless Gimlin or Patterson's widow were to fess up.
The most damning evidence is the timeline -- 16mm footage allegedly shot in California on a Friday afternoon, then developed at a lab and back in Yakima for viewing by that Sunday evening?! According to researcher Greg Long, there were only a handful of labs that processed 16mm film for the public at that time. And survivor Bob Gimlin can't "remember" how they got the film back to Yakima or where they had it developed. It seems nearly impossible...
So Patterson was likely lying about WHEN the film was shot. Why? I can't answer that, but it's odd that it happened to be pouring rain when Patterson made his first phone call to other Bigfoot investigators to come out and look at the site, rain that ruined the footprints (human and otherwise). All that remained were plaster casts and film that Patterson took of the footprints prior to the rain -- so, basically, no one could see anything in the sand that he didn't WANT them to see. Did Patterson film it sometime earlier, then just wait for it to rain, to blur evidence of a hoax?
And while there do seem to be discrepancies in the story of Bob Heironimus (the man who claims he was wearing the Bigfoot costume), at least one detail gives me pause: he claims Patterson's still-living widow Patricia watched him try on the "Bigfoot" costume back in 1967. I find it hard to believe that he would implicate her with an accusation like that if it were unfounded. And, as far as I know, Mrs. Patterson has never filed a lawsuit against him for slander, nor has Bob Gimlin.
However, the film has never been definitively debunked, nor definitively proved. The only way to prove or disprove it would be to catch a live sasquatch and compare it to the film subject... unless Gimlin or Patterson's widow were to fess up.