Uncovering the Patterson Film Hoax - National Geographic Investigation

[zoobyshoe]

National Graphic Channel recently aired a skepticism/debunking program of the bigfoot phenomenon and they presented a piece of evidence concerning the Patterson film that has thrown me completely over into believing it was a hoax.

This piece of evidence was the walking gait of Bob Hieronymous, the man currently claiming to have played the hairy beast in that film.

The Patterson film has been played over and over and I've probably watched it at least 50 times, such that, with no effort to do so, I have become attuned to the subtleties of the "creature's" walk.

National Geographic showed Hieronymous walking along at about the same distance from the camera as the creature is in the film, and I was thunderstruck to recognise his gait as the same one.

Anyone else see this?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Welcome back Zooby!

I saw a segment on this but not the Nat. Geographic show. Very interesting!

Does this affect your attitude about bigfoot claims generally?

 

[Kakarot]

yea i saw the same show. that guy walks exactly like the bigfoot in the video so it was most likely a hoax. they said the suit never turned up though :tongue2:

 

[zoobyshoe]

Does this affect your attitude about bigfoot claims generally?

Yes. I am now much more suspicious of any reported sightings made after the Patterson film, especially in the U.S. Sightings in rural asian countries retain as much credence as before (they're worth keeping an open mind about) since people there would have a hard time getting access to gorilla suits.

I recently read a novel titled Neanderthal whose premise was that pockets of these people have survived in remote areas, and the occasional spotting of them was responsible for yeti/bigfoot lore.

It's an intriguing concept, but requires ignoring the height requirement since Neanderthal was somewhat shorter than us. Strangely, though, his feet were, indeed, about a half again as large as ours.

Another reason this is an attractive alternative to me is that the guy who claimed to have been held prisoner by a family of bigfeet in 1924 (Mysteries of the Unexplained, p.155-156) lived long enough to be shown the Patterson film. His reaction was that the creature in the film looked nothing like the ones who'd kidnapped him.

Something like neanderthal is also closer to the "wild-man" captured by the Russians in 1941 (Mysteries of the Unexplained, p.158). The National Geographic show also showed a photo of the Russian...guy who was claimed to be the offspring of a bigfoot woman and Russian peasant. It was a frontal shot of his face, but as much as you could tell from that angle his forhead seemed to slope almost directly back from the brow in a way I haven't seen outside of fossil sculls.

Someone mentioned the neanderthal angle in a thread here, once, but I automatically dismissed it because of the height requirement. "8 feet tall", though, seems to crop up almost exclusively in American reports.

Were bigfoot some kind of surviving neanderthal/homo erectus/cro-magnon it would also address the quetion: "Why haven't any bones ever been found?" (not that that quetion ever gave me pause.) Speculating further, neanderthal was not big on tools or use of fire. What did he do with that brain that was bigger, even, than that of homo sapiens sapiens? Perhaps he practised stealth...

 

[zoobyshoe]

yea i saw the same show. that guy walks exactly like the bigfoot in the video so it was most likely a hoax. they said the suit never turned up though :tongue2:

The reason I held out so long on the Patterson film was because the thing in the film so clearly seems to have breasts. They interviewed Hieronymous, and he talked about how hot the suit was, but never discussed any breasts. I haven't read the book that names him as the bigfoot actor, but did read an interview with the gorilla suit maker who claimed Patterson ordered a gorilla suit from him. This guy also said nothing about putting breasts on it. I want to know where the breasts came from.

 

[honestrosewater]

Couldn't Bob have just watched the film and mimicked () the creature's gait? (eh, mimicked, aped, get it... doh)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Couldn't Bob have just watched the film and mimicked () the creature's gait? (eh, mimicked, aped, get it... doh)

Last year the History Channel (or Discovery, or someone) had a bigfoot special which featured, among others, a guy claiming to be an animal locomotion expert who'd analyzed the Patterson bigfoot's gait. He pointed out a couple things, like how the creature doesn't seem to be able to bend it's knees as much as a person, and doesn't seem to be able to turn it's head without rotating the whole upper torso. He claimed the whole package was distinctly unhuman. He tried, with no success, to imitate the walk. Another person also tried.

When you see the footage of Hieronymous walking along with this very distinctive gait with no apparent effort, his posture and proportions and build just like the Patterson creature, it is completely persuasive. The guy is built funny.

I always thought that if the film were a hoax the bodily restrictions of the suit would explain the quirks of the gait, but Hieronymous walked that way without any gorilla suit.

Keep your eyes peeled. The NGC has repeated this show about once a week for the past three weeks, so it may come on again soon.

 

[dlgoff]

I always thought that if the film were a hoax the bodily restrictions of the suit would explain the quirks of the gait, but Hieronymous walked that way without any gorilla suit.

Maybe he really wants some fame and has worked hard and long to gain this gait.

Regards

 

[zoobyshoe]

Maybe he really wants some fame and has worked hard and long to gain this gait.

I suppose we, here, at area 51 could send a surveillance team to tape Hieronymous and see if he drops the peculiar walk when he's not aware he's being watched.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My only hold out on this is that what we really have is anecdotal evidence against the Patterson film. We never accept anecdotal evidence as proof for a claim, so why should we accept this as proof against claim? For one, we don't know if the suit produced is really what's seen in the film. I think that a duplication of the film using the same suit would be pretty compelling, but thus far, this new claim could also be a hoax. They are certainly getting a lot of attention, which serves as a motive.

Zooby, I think your observation and conclusion are probably correct, but it could be a coincidence as well. Who knows, maybe the guy just happens to walk like a real bigfoot!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nope. My only hope now is The Society For The Promotion Of Bigfoot From Upright-Walking Ape To Surviving Neanderthal Remnant. One death at a time...