By Lloyd Pye
Introduction:
On Monday, December 28th, the Fox Television Network
aired a show called World's Greatest Hoaxes: Secrets Finally Revealed.
Heavily publicized, the show was seen by millions of basically uninformed
people inclined to agree with and accept the show's basic premise: That
the events discussed are generally accepted as factual, thus requiring
such a show to "expose" the multiple deceptions. In at least the first
segment of the show, nothing could be further from the truth.
That first segment was the only one where supposedly
"new" evidence was offered, the ultimate exposure as a hoax of the Roger
Patterson film of a female bigfoot striding across a sandbar at Bluff Creek,
California, in October of 1967. Anyone not knowing any better would watch
that segment and consider it a paragon of valid, unbiased, well researched
information. Actually, it was a slick piece of utter disinformation with
no basis in fact and riddled with blatant distortions.
Background:
Roger Patterson was a feisty little outdoorsman from
the Pacific Northwest who had previously encountered a bigfoot and knew
they were a real phenomenon. Not long after his first sighting, he made
it a personal goal to film one, so he began taking horseback rides through
the heavy montane forests where most bigfoot sightings occurred. He did
not believe in killing one, so he would take his rides armed only with
his old-style 16mm movie camera. Knowing this, his friends would often
ride with him carrying hunting rifles, to protect him if he encountered
a bigfoot and trouble ensued. On that October day he finally hit pay dirt,
he had such a companion with him, Bob Gimlin. Patterson's rules for such
companions were simple: no firing unless they were attacked.
As they rode along the banks of Bluff Creek, their
horses caught the first whiffs of the bigfoot's powerful body odor. They
bolted, but not before Patterson had spied the female at the creek bank,
probably washing food, as all four hominoid types are known to do. His
horse reared and fell over with Patterson still in the saddle, but he managed
to scramble out from underneath and retrieve his camera from inside the
saddlebag where he carried it. Bob Gimlin had all he could do to steady
his own agitated horse, catch and hold Patterson's terrified animal, and
keep an eye on the bigfoot in case he had to grab his rifle and start firing
at it.
Patterson ran toward the creature, filming as he
ran, which the jiggling film clearly shows. Then he paused in his pursuit
to try to get a few steady frames, at which point the female sensed his
pause and turned to glance at him. All of this action is clearly visible
in the film. Then she turns away from him and continues her measured retreat
back into the woods flanking the creek. At that point Roger Patterson and
Bob Gimlin have made history: They have captured on film undeniably genuine
proof that hominoids exist. And while it is not the first such proof by
any means, it is certainly one of the most compelling.
Hoax Hallmarks:
True hoaxes have certain hallmarks, and such is the
case with hominoid hoaxes. In fact, the Fox TV show used two such "genuine"
hoaxes in an effort to smear the Patterson film by association. A hoaxed
hominoid film will usually not be attributable to any specific person,
it will be provided anonymously, so whoever filmed it cannot be grilled
by specialists who will be able to quickly expose the fraud. Also, the
place where the filming occurred will not be provided, so experts cannot
return to the scene and check for footprints, measure the creature against
items (tree limbs, rocks, etc.) in the background, or bring tracking dogs
to see what their reaction will be. (Because of a hominoid's overpowering
stench, even tracking dogs will recoil from it, while a human in a suit
will be pursued as if the suit did not exist.)
In contrast to a hoaxer's typical behavior, Roger
Patterson went right out from the sighting and called several area experts,
begging them to come to the scene and to bring tracking dogs. None of the
experts would come. However, several friends within the community of bigfoot
hunters did come to the scene to thoroughly examine it for several days
afterward. So, there is no doubt that the creature was there, she left
numerous clear tracks that were photographed and cast in plaster, and her
weight was in the 600 to 800 pound range because the tracks she left sank
a full inch into the hard-packed sand at the creek bank. A 200 pound man
walking near her tracks sank only about a quarter of an inch. These facts
are utterly undeniable, and they were utterly avoided in the piece presented
as fact on World's Greatest Hoaxes.
Technical Evidence:
1) It was a bright, cloudless day with sunlight glinting
off the creature's hair as she walked. In close-up and at very slow motion
it is easy to see her muscles rippling in her right shoulder and in her
right thigh, just as they would be visible in a human with those body parts
exposed. If it had been a human in a suit, the suit would have to have
been glued to the skin to achieve such an effect, but in the act of gluing,
the subtle interaction between muscle and skin would be lost. Even today,
in 1999, Hollywood special effects wizards find it extremely difficult
to portray such subtle subcutaneous movements. In 1967 it was flatly impossible
(check out Planet Of The Apes).
2) The creature's arms are markedly longer than human
arms, with elbows that clearly articulate well below where the elbows of
a human in a suit would articulate. The added length of the humerus (shoulder
to elbow) is four, five, or even six inches, which in anatomical terms
is a light-year, and which causes the hands to swing down near the knees,
whereas in a human the hands reach only to mid-thigh or above. There is
literally no reasonable comparison between the two.
3) The creature's breasts are large, pendulous, and
quite noticeable when she turns to face Patterson as he films. In close-up
and slow motion (conspicuously avoided in the Fox show), it is easy to
see their fluid sway as she turns, and their distinct "bounce" as she takes
two steps. They are indistinguishable from human mammary tissue in motion,
yet if they were an attachment to a modern body suit they would move more
like silicone or gel implants. And in 1967 they would no doubt have looked
like the original implant "nosecones."
Editor's Note: The rest of this fascinating story
will be continued in next month's issue and may be viewed at www.lloydpye.com.
Return to Stories
|
