The Patterson Gimlin Film Hoax PROVEN

What you think, what you know, and what you can prove are often very different scenarios as I was recently reminded by a colleague.  This is especially true concerning the Patterson Gimlin film of an alleged sasquatch/bigfoot. In the early afternoon of Friday October 20th 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claimed to have captured film of a sasquatch and documented part of its trackway along with making plaster casts of the imprints left by the film subject.

I'm claiming that during the footage of Patterson casting a track there should be an impression visible past the one he is casting. There is not. During the footage showing 4 impressions there is now a footprint present past the one Patterson was casting previously. The ground in the footage of Patterson making the cast shows flat mud and no impression. (no following track present!) I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression. (the right impression being cast, is the same right footprint cast Patterson represents coming from the film subject)

It is not coincidence that Krantz documents Pattersons actions just by wild chance.

on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

Krantz's documentation of this also places Patterson making fake tracks at Bluff Creek, and making a film of it. The case of the missing print.  How ironic is it that Patterson filmed proof of his own hoax?


The images below are large resolution scans of still frames from the actual pieces of film presented as part of the evidence of the encounter allegedly on Friday Oct 20th 1967. (although many believe it to have been filmed at an earlier date due to the type of film used and its developing procedures and availability. the format was a tightly controlled by Kodak and their processing facilities exclusively) The film was first shown Oct 22nd at Al DeAtleys house. DeAtley was Roger Patterson's brother in law. Also of note is Roger Patterson's clean shaven face in the casting footage, and then shown with a heavy beard growth in the cast display footage by a large tree. (alleged to have been shot on the same day at Bluff Creek in California - Oct 20 1967) This beard growth in such a short time seems impossible to most.

Proof the PGF is a hoax. This is not speculation, nor is it condemnation. This isn't about my opinion, or yours or any acredited scientists. The evidence is right there on the film. Patterson and Gimlin did what no one else has been able to do since.  Don't hate.  I appreciate the legend, and the story that has become famous world wide.  Instead of bashing Patterson and Gimlin - I thank them for the entertainment and for accomplishing one of the best hoaxes in our time.

River