Fifty years ago today, Bigfoot was reportedly shot.
On film, that is.
“Baby what a big surprise, right before my very eyes.” – Baby, What A Big Surprise, Chicago (1977)
Or was it?
That all depends on which side of the fence you are on in regards to something called the Patterson-Gimlin film.
Former rodeo rider turned Bigfoot hunter, Roger Patterson (1926-1972), and his friend, Robert Gimlin (b.1931) were exploring the Bluff Creek area of Northern California on the afternoon of October 20, 1967. When the pair later emerged from the wilderness, they carried with them perhaps the most intriguing and likely the most controversial piece of Bigfoot evidence yet produced. This startling video, while only fifty three seconds (953 frames) in duration, has given rise to decades of debate.
All of these years later, the Patterson-Gimlin film continues to raise eyebrows and questions. Is it hominid or hoax? Is it an unknown primate or a guy in a monkey suit? Why didn’t they shoot it? Was one of the pair hoodwinked? Why does the creature simply saunter off rather than bolting from the intruders? The list goes on and on.
The pro- and anti-Bigfoot camps agree to disagree on the legitimacy of the clip with a fervor often reserved for debates over politics, religion, Cubs vs. Cards, Ginger or Mary Ann and so on. The pros view their opponents as close-minded and unwilling to listen while the skeptics label the believers as crackpots or dreamers. Regardless of allegiance, only one crowd’s belief is ultimately correct.
The story of the film goes like this.
Patterson and Gimlin were allegedly out on an expedition to film some background footage for a proposed Bigfoot documentary and wound up in the right place at the right time. Both men were on horseback when the creature was spotted in the creek bed and Patterson’s mount spooked causing him to fall to the ground. He was then able to grab his camera from a saddlebag and proceeded to shoot the film as he ran towards the creature. The initially jumpy footage shows Bigfoot walking from left to right seemingly in no hurry at all to ditch his pursuers, both of whom were armed with rifles (although they had previously agreed not to shoot in the event of an encounter). Towards the middle of the footage, the film stabilizes as the creature continues on his way and eventually disappears into the trees as the film runs out.
This was the clip that sold me on Bigfoot back when I first encountered it in a documentary, The Mysterious Monsters, at the old West Cinemas in Galesburg, IL. Even now, it’s somewhat creepy to watch the hulking, hairy creature lumbering across the screen. And of course, Frame 352, which has become “the” Bigfoot icon, can still make the hairs on the back of the neck stand up even though I’m well beyond that nine year old kid. There’s just something eerie about the subject nonchalantly turning to look directly at the camera (and me) before continuing on his way.
Frame 352 and close approximations provide a lasting image.
The debate over the authenticity of the film’s star continues to this day. Some special effects experts state it is clearly a man in a monkey suit and point out flaws. One man later came forward with the allegation that he made the suit while yet another individual has stated that he was the man in the suit. Others in this field dismiss such statements citing the shortcomings of the techniques and technology in 1967.
Bigfoot researchers, skeptics, academics and amateurs utilizing modern technology have analyzed various aspects of the footage only to wind up with differing opinions. Gimlin sticks to the claim that he wasn’t duped by his partner and the late Patterson steadfastly maintained that the subject in the film was the real thing. Noted Bigfoot researcher Peter Byrne relates that a dying Patterson did express one change of heart in stating, “You know we should have shot that thing: then people would have believed us.” Whatever the case, it’s still a pretty cool piece of video that leaves a lasting impression.
In putting together today’s posting, the lead in lyric was the first bit of song that came to mind and despite considerable reworking of this piece I never once considered changing it. I did find it interesting though, upon later realizing that the first two lines of the song are as follows;
“Right before my very eyes, I thought that you we’re only fakin’ it.”
What do you think?
I also can’t resist adding one last tidbit of information although it is potentially useless in the future to anyone beyond me and my wife, Julie. Today marks the sixteenth anniversary of my asking Julie to marry me and she said “Yes” on the first try. You see, I’m no dummy as I wisely chose an important date so as not to wind up forgetting as the years go by. Not that there’s anything wrong with choosing mythical holidays like Valentine’s Day or Sweetheart’s Day. It’s just that, for better or worse, I’m admittedly more Bigfoot than Cupid.
Talk to you tomorrow. Troy