SPEAKER_00 0:01

For nearly 60 years, the Patters Gimlin film has been examined, dissected, and debated. And yet the mystery remains. Some say they know how it was faked. Scientists and Hollywood special effects experts have raised serious doubts about the man in the suit theory. So who's telling the truth? In part two, we examine the conflicting hoax claims, the anatomical evidence, and what experts have uncovered. And finally, we give our own verdict. Did Parison really film a Bigfoot? Or one of the greatest hoaxes of all time? This is Inquirium.

unknown 0:44

Inquirium.

SPEAKER_00 1:06

Okay, so we're back. Part two. Who knows? Maybe part three. We've got a lot to cover here. Continue on to discuss the documentaries that dissect the Patterson Gimbling film. We move on to the world's greatest hoaxes, Secrets Finally Revealed, that was put out in 1998 as well. Cal Korf, CEO of Total Research, when he examined the film, says, I quote, No doubt in my mind that the Patterson film is a hoax. It's a human being in a fur suit. He claims to see a line going on the back of the creature, stating it looks like a zipper line or suspicious fur line. He claims there's no primate on Earth that has a fur line down its spine. That actually is not true. Even humans, we have a line down the back. And you can imagine if you have fur, if we had fur, I'd kind of have a little bit of fur back there, probably TMI, but if you have fur and the sun's heading in it and stuff, it's going to show a crease and seem like a line. So I don't think that's an accurate or true statement. And then he claims there are various patches on the body of the creature that are consistent with a suit. And then they interviewed Clyde Rinkey, former executive of American National Enterprises, that's a film distribution company out of Salt Lake City, Utah. And I quote, he says it's one of the worst frauds ever perpetuated against the American public. He claims that Roger Patterson also worked for the company, American National Enterprises, and he quotes saying he was on the payroll as a permanent employee salaried as a photographer. He claims that Patterson was deliberately told to fake the Bigfoot film by the executives of the company. He said that the executive recognized the marketing potential that a Bigfoot film would have, and it was an ambitious attempt to promote their other wildlife films in their collections. So they would put the Bigfoot film together with other films, such as they had one called Cougar County. And the Bigfoot film itself, just combined with this other film, would increase the attendance by a large amount, a very significant amount. And he claims that the Bigfoot scene in the Patterson film is nothing more than a large man in a monkey suit. He actually identifies the man in the suit as Jerry Romney. And this name may be new to you because it was new to me. He says he was a close friend of the A and E's former chairman, and he was the insurance agent for AE. And he claims that he's a big man. He's like nearly seven foot tall, weighs like 250 pounds. And so they interviewed Jerry, and he said he had nothing to do with it. He didn't know anything about it, and he doesn't even believe in Bookfoot. So Clyde Rinnekee's claims Jerry told him that it was him in the suit, and that he had admitted to him on several occasions and told him that it was a lot of fun doing it, and it was very hot in the suit. Later, Jerry starred in a later AE film in 1972. Jerry points out that because of his size, his relationship to AE, and his role in this other film, that Clyde must have confused the two or blended the stories together. The filmmakers had Romney walk for them to compare his size and gait with the past film, and they claim that they are very similar.

SPEAKER_01 4:26

So what is where does this leave Bob Hieronymus? I believe that's how you say his last name. He's the guy that took the polygraph saying that he was it. Right. So who who's who's lying here? Right. Because someone is clearly lying. Bob Hieronymus, probably not since he had a a lie detector test. It would lean more in his favor. People can spoof those things or they can beat those machines, but still, it's probably not Bob Honymus who's lying, it's it's them. Right.

SPEAKER_00 4:55

Somebody is well, yeah, and it's it's difficult to say, you know, why would this Clyde Renickey uh make these claims? You know, what is what it's he need to gain from it really. So yeah, it's really strange. And you know, AE made millions pairing the Bigfoot footage with their other films, and so there's no question about that, and repackaging it in other ways. Right. Additional evidence was uncovered to collaborate Clyde's story in the form of a letter written by filmmaker named Harry Kimball, claiming that in 1967, shortly after the Patterson film was shot, that Roger boasted about making the film to him. And according to the letter, Patterson talked about how the costume was made, how they carefully chose the spot with the soft mud and sand to create the footprints, and how they used specific film, camera, and shaky focus to pull off the hoax, and they all laughed about it. Now, later in the doc, Cal Korf, the CEO of Total Research, claims that the bottom of the foot seen in Patterson film could not have made the footprints in the Patterson collection. He says it's not possible, they don't match. And I think we both strongly disagree with that uh assessment. So that was a very interesting documentary because it, as you mentioned, it kind of countered what other people claim who have worn the song.

SPEAKER_01 6:13

Bob Hieronymous. Yeah. Yeah. And we'll talk a little bit more. Yeah. Go ahead. Well, it's just he was, you know, on that show on TV and they did the lie detector right there and he passed it. Yeah. Saying that he was he was a guy in that film and he had apparently been in others where they had paid him to uh get in the suit and like there's one where they're running across a ridge, apparently that's him. There's another one that where it's a slow walk, kind of on a a hill among the trees, a slow walk, and then he goes down and disappears. I think he was in that one too, claiming to be in that one. So but since he passed that test, he either knows how to pass those things or uh he's telling the truth.

SPEAKER_00 6:54

I think the one you're talking about where the they have a long shot of them running across the long field, I think they were just showing that footage as a general as stock kind of. Yeah, stock footage. I don't think yeah. But I do agree that the other one you talked about where he's slowly moving through the foliage, I think that was like a test one that he claims that I will talk about that because um I've I've got some more information on that. So that takes us to Sasquatch Odyssey, the hunt for Bigfoot. This one came out in 1999. And in it, John Green, Bigfoot hunter, and a friend to Patterson says the footprints were far deeper than a human could have made or walk given that much weight. And I think earlier you made a good point, maybe it was in part one, that uh you know, if you are wearing a fake footwear, that it's gonna act more like a snowshoe and yeah, the load would spread out over the bottom of the costume, the foot.

SPEAKER_01 7:50

And so your your actual weight wouldn't penetrate as much.

SPEAKER_00 7:54

He also claims that in the last thirty plus years, the time of this filming, no special effects or costume maker has ever made anything close to what was filmed in the Patterson film. And if it was a fake, how was it done? Who did it, and where did the money come from? Everyone agrees that it would have required a very sophisticated and expensive suit to pull off this hoax. Then they go on to interview Toby. They didn't really have a last name, as he was a makeup effects artist and a creature designer. Uh he done work with X-Files and the Outer Limits, and he basically states that it's a guy to suit, but a well done one. He claims that if someone wanted to make a more realistic creature suit, uh they would have had a custom built around the performer and not worn like a Halloween costume. Now again, in this documentary, Toby is watching this on a small screen TV, and I believe he's watching the original footage, so we have to take that into consideration.

SPEAKER_01 8:52

Also, something else uh to point out is we don't really know that the footprints were made at the same time as the the video, so it may not even have been the guy in the costume. It could have been like feet on stilts, because that's been something that people have done to increase the stride. They would have stilts have a really long stride with fake feet on them. So who knows? You know, it may it may be that those impressions were made with a wooden foot or something, who knows? And not even in a costume. So that whole spread of the costume spreading out the load would not even apply in that case. We just don't know.

SPEAKER_00 9:27

Well, it's funny she mentioned that because uh Chris Packham, the the the guy from the X Creatures documentary, that was his point that we never see the creature and the footprints in the same shot. But I mean this is a dynamic this thing is happening in real time, so I don't know you would ever rarely ever catch both in the same setting. But I would also push back on that that the footprints, as I mentioned before, are very dynamic. There's not hardly one that looks the same. So if this is done with stilts or or fake foot, you would pretty much be producing similar footprints.

SPEAKER_01 10:04

Yeah, your toe spread would be the same. You'd be able to track it and probably figure that out.

SPEAKER_00 10:09

Yeah. So then they interviewed Peter Byrne. He's a veteran Bigfoot tracker. He's become convinced over the years after studying the film and studying Patterson himself that he wasn't capable of pulling off such an elaborate hoax. He claims mostly because of the sophistication needed to create the creature in a film that looks so natural and has the muscular features that it does, that he doesn't feel like Patterson could have pulled that off. Then they interviewed Todd Deary from the North American Science Institute. He personally contracted a forensic examiner to review the footage from an objective point of view with objective data from the film, and he was unable to disprove the film or disprove that the creature was faked. They were unable to say that it was a man in a fursuit. And despite extensive analysis, no zippers or costume seams were detected in their analysis, leaving no evidence that the subject was a man in a suit. Now, this was done in 1999, so a little bit better technology to examine the footage with. That takes us to 2003 Sasquatch Legends Meet Science. This is one of the more interesting documentaries because it had a lot of scientists in it, uh, a lot of science-based information. So if you're interested in that aspect of it, I definitely recommend go watching that one. You can find it on YouTube. They interview Ruben Steindorf. He's a forensic animator from Vision Realm Entertainment. He got a call from Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, and we'll talk more about him later on. He's an important figure in the Bigfoot community. He's a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University, and he stated he observed that the creature's knees followed an unusual circular motion, unlike the typical movement of a human anatomy. Ruben used inverse kinematics to recreate the alleged Sasquatch anatomy and concluded that its joint movements made physical sense in the real world, the way the body of this creature moved in the film. Then they interviewed Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, who we mentioned just a few minutes ago. He examined this 3D anatomy that Ruben had created, overlaid it with the original footage, and confirmed an unusual rotation of the leg and the foot, unlike that of a modern human gait, suggesting it could represent a real animal, a real creature. He concluded that the creature's anatomical features matched the adaptations expected of a biped living in rugged mountainous forests, meaning that unlike an ape or a human, over time, over evolution, you would expect a creature of this to develop this type of movement given the terrain that they live in. Then they interviewed Dr. Andrew Nelson, professor of anthropology and director of the Center of Forensic Science at the University of Western Ontario. And while studying the patterns of footage, he identified a prominent bulge on the creature's right leg. And again, in the older footage, in the original footage, because of the graininess and the shakiness of the film, I think it's hard to see, but with more enhanced images, you can see this bulge. When its foot strikes the ground, there's a bulge that comes out of its thigh. He noted that the bulge could be explained by a partial quadricep band injury, but such an injury would also be expected to produce an impaired gait. So they kind of go hand in hand together. Later in the video, Dr. Nelson stated that, and I quote, after analyzing the biomechanical issues of the Patterson footage, I find it very hard to believe that somebody in nineteen sixty seven could have fabricated the intricacies as evidenced by the soft tissue irregulatory that seen on the upper leg. The study of biometrics at that time was just far too primitive. End quote. So I thought that was pretty interesting information. When you really look at the fine details of its gate, the way it lifts its foot, how the knees operate in conjunction, how long both feet stay on the ground at the same time, the the flexibility of the foot that's different than a human.

SPEAKER_01 14:10

Um they all kind of add up, start to add up to why I think when you look at it, at least to me it looks natural. And if it looks natural, that's what all all those little pieces add up to looking natural.

SPEAKER_00 14:22

Yeah. When you take a look at the close details, and you can see that.

SPEAKER_01 14:26

That wouldn't happen in a in a costume.

SPEAKER_00 14:28

Right. Um, so then I moved on to Mysterious Encounters, uh, Bluff Creek Bigfoot. This was done in 2003. So in this documentary, actually Bob Gimlin makes an appearance and him and this doc crew go back to the site. And this is the first time since that filming that Bob Gimlin has been back to that area, surprisingly. I was kind of shocked by that. So, how many years had passed from 1967 to 2003? You know, the several decades. And so they take him back, and so they're talking to him about the the event, and he states that he often regrets having been there to witness it just because of all the blowback and the criticism and the pressure from his own wife. She threatened to divorce him because you know she was just a simple bank teller at a local bank. And this is a small community where he lived, so everyone knows each other. So she was constantly getting harassed by people coming in and naysayers and claiming they faked it and stuff, and it was a lot of hardship for him for several decades.

SPEAKER_01 15:31

Um he had said that's why at one point he agreed to go to a convention and he was one of the speakers, and after he spoke, it was like the first time everyone stood up and and started clapping. And then he was yeah, this was like the first time that happened. Yeah, in decades. So that changed his mind. That's when he started doing more conventions because before that, those decades before that, it was all criticism. It was not pleasant. So that by itself too lends to his credibility and that that wouldn't be worth doing. Why would you do that? Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 16:04

And you know, for better or worse, Patterson didn't have to really endure as much that because he passed away only like five years after the film was made. Oh, really? Um, so you know, unfortunately for Bob, he had to face the brunt of that, all that criticism, all that people blow, you know, just constantly criticize him and and stuff. So you can imagine it wasn't a pleasant life for him during that time. He states that the famous shot of the Bigfoot turning around happened because he had just crossed over the creek on his horse, and that caught the attention of the creature. This is some new information I didn't know. So when we see that famous shot of it turning around and it swinging its arms wide and facing the camera, that's the exact moment that Bob is crossing the creek on the horse. So I thought that was pretty interesting information. And then he goes on to describe that he had Pashton reload the camera at his discretion, and he wanted to go follow the creature, and so they did. And we already talked about that, how he really wanted to follow the creature, but stood behind and waited for Roger to get settled on his horse and get the camera reloaded. And so, like we discussed before, they did follow the tracks. And Bob said, and I quote, we went on in the same direction that the creature went. We could see scuffs in the gravel, and then it went right up into the cliff. There was no way you could ride a horse over it, end quote. So they did follow it for a while as far as they could on horseback, but it climbed up into a cliff and disappeared. Bob said that they had been riding and camping in that remote area for a week before they spotted the Bigfoot, and I think I mentioned that before. And then they talked to Doug Hajek, he's a video expert, and he noticed what looked like uh hernia or injury on the thigh, which is what we talked about earlier. And I think at this point that wasn't widely known or discussed, and he discovered that on his own, and that seemed to be played out to be the truth, uh, at least according to the anthropology experts, and that looked like the muscle may have been had an injury. Now, Ruben Steindorf makes a reappearance in this documentary, and this time he's working from steel images of the Patterson Gimlin film to recreate a 3D model of the creature's head and his shoulders. And after digitally removing the hair, he found the underlying facial structure appeared more human-like than ape-like, suggesting the creature was more humanoid than a modern ape. And actually, when you see this, it's it's pretty striking. It's like I know for me when I was younger and more impetuous and less wise, I always thought, well, somebody just needs to shoot one and then we'll have it and then we can examine it. But the more you learn about these creatures and seeing the hair removed from the face, you realize how more human they are than ape-like. And I think it's easy to say, yeah, just go shoot one, but you're almost shooting something that's on the same level of intelligence as you. You know, they don't have the communication skills that we do, or obviously the science and all that, but they're pretty intelligent. I think they're probably a little smarter than than an ape.

SPEAKER_01 19:07

I think they're I think they're a lot smarter than an ape. If they're able to to hide and evade us, it means they're very aware of our ability to destroy habitat, because there there's been a lot of like lumber mills in the past that have been attacked by groups, mining camps, throwing rocks and things like that. Hunters out having to flee back to a cabin that was also being pummeled by rocks, like big rocks by multiple big feet. So they've been around a while to observe us and apparently have long memories. They're able to pass down and and my theory is they're passing down that knowledge to watch out for humans. So they they have to be able to communicate in a pretty sophisticated way. But also i it it's uh it's skill level because e even if we want to find a wolverine, wolverine is very rare. If we want to find a wolverine, we could probably do it. We could probably find these these big feet, but i if they're as intelligent as I think they are, way more intelligent than the gorilla, probably close to being as intelligent as we are in some ways, then uh it'd be far more difficult because they would be the masters of the wilderness. Because even the native scouts like of the Lipin Apache, uh, the guy I I learned tracking from, he called them the gods of the wilderness. There was elders that were several generations in the past, and there were a couple of twins that he considered they were the master scouts, and they could be standing next to you, you could be out in that environment, they could be standing next to you and you wouldn't know they're there. That's a lip and Apache. Yeah. So if you consider that these creatures are uh intelligent in a similar way like we are, to where they're they can have this super heightened awareness, they're in this environment all the time. So their abilities are probably supernatural in some ways. In fact, some of the stories I read are they're just straight up supernatural. Because it's like it's not just all this big hairy person, it's like glowing eyes and you know, all kinds of stuff it gets into.

SPEAKER_00 21:12

There's been lots of uh documented where they where they people come across structures that were made. That's a very common feature where you have areas where there's a maybe a high population of Bigfoot is where they crisscross limbs or large trees or even put stakes in the ground.

SPEAKER_01 21:30

Yeah, mark they're markers, markers for uh in some ways, maybe like for hikers. They call them friend markers for hikers. The theory is they can point some of those in certain directions. It's communication. It's like, oh hey, the uh the elk are over here, or they pass through here, or something like that, you know.

SPEAKER_00 21:47

Right. So that would suggest that yeah, they have a little bit higher intelligence than uh your typical ape. So that would kind of strengthen that point of view for sure. So then they interviewed Dr. Jugen Konzent. Professor of kinesology and director of the Human Sensor Motor Control Laboratory at University of Minnesota. And when he examined the Patterson film, he noticed an outward rotation of the leg, also noted by Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum in the Ledgery Meets Science documentary. He also noted the well-developed muscles in the legs as it walked, which makes perfect sense, he noted because the knees do not fully lock during the gait, and supporting a leg, a creature that size requires substantial muscle strength to bear the creature's full body weight. He finally concluded that the creature's gait exhibited several unusual characteristics, including the way it lifted its legs and the motion of its knees and hips, making it distinctly different from a normal human gait. Now, the average person like you or I probably w didn't really notice that, but you know, these people studied this type of uh movement for a living, so that stood out to him and to other people as well, including Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum. And then Dr. Meldrum concluded that several features of the creature's gait anatomy, including its distinctive knee rotation, leg movement, and high-stepping gait, were consistent with an authentic biological creature rather than simply a man in a costume. So then that takes us to more modern times. I think we've talked about the science a little bit. Now let's talk about the costume, if it is a costume, the legitimacy of that. So Bill Muns, he's a world famous costume designer, and he's actually been doing this. He actually started his career right around the same time the film came out, and he worked for Universal Studios and famously worked on a lot of films. And so he was interviewed, and he talks about this in his book when Roger met Patty. But Bill Muns, you know, as I mentioned, he's a veteran Hollywood creature special effects makeup artist in film and television, museum exhibits, animatronics, and he actually created the famous scientifically accurate museum reconstruction of the gigantopithecus in collaboration with anthropologist Russell Kaikon. Uh, and it was exhibited in the museums and trade shows around the country. Now, after spending seven years analyzing the Patterson Gimlin film, he may have studied this film more than anybody on the planet, he concluded that the figure is not a person wearing a costume. He argues that several features, including the unusual small head, the natural movement of the neck, the apparent motion of soft tissue, the shifting of skin and hair underlying muscular structure, the anatomical proportions, cannot be convincingly explained by costume technology available in 1967. While acknowledging that individual features might be imitated, he concludes that the combination of all these characteristics have been beyond the capabilities of the air's special effects techniques. And then in a separate interview, a YouTube channel called Dave Wants to Know in 2014, Bill says he entered the special effects industry essentially the same time as the Patterson film was released, as I mentioned. And then Bill says the first time he encountered the Patterson and Gimlin film was back in 1968 while studying the groundbreaking ape effects in the Planet Apes movie and the 2001 Space Odyssey. And he says although he wasn't convinced the film depicted a real creature, he found it compelling because it didn't resemble any Hollywood ape costume he was familiar with at the time. And one of Bill's strongest arguments centers on the creature's neck. He explains that the costume technology available in 1967 could only produce two types of ape suits, one with a disconnected, freely moving head, which we see in the 2001 Space Odyssey, or one with loose fur that wrinkled around the neck to allow movement. In contrast, the Patterson Gimlin feature displays a smooth neck, natural skin contours, and unrestricted head movement, features that Munn argues were not possible until advances in special effects technology, such as Rick Baker's dredge fur techniques developed in the mid-1980s. Now this takes us to Hunting Bigfoot, uncovering the elusive truth. This was a more recent documentary in 2023. In it, Dr. Jessica Rose, Director of the Motion and Gate Analysis from Stanford, and Dr. James Gamble, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery from Stanford. In 1994, they examined the Patterson film and they concluded that the unusual walk, the pattern of movement did not match any known species and was not consistent with a person simply walking in a costume. The narrator goes on to say that the relationship between the creature's skeletal structure, muscular structure, skin, and hair produced a pattern of movement they believed would be extremely difficult for a person in a costume to convincingly replicate. In 1999, researchers from the University of Florida's Department of Anthropology analyzed the footage, followed by a frame by frame study by anthropologists from the American Museum of Natural History in 2009, and despite these detailed examinations, the creature was yet to be identified as a known species. Some researchers have suggested the closest known relative may have been the gigantopithecus, an extinct genius of giant ape that lived during the Pleistocene period, and we talked about this before. And they were believed to be the largest primate ever existed on the planet, at least we have any record of. And history has shown that what we believe could be extinct may sometimes just be undetected. In fact, there was a discovery of a colitheus fish thought to have been extinct like sixty million years ago. But in fact, they were found in 1938. So this shows that even species that we thought were extinct. So I think this proves that we don't know a lot as much as we think about our extinct species. Some things that we think are extinct may still be around. I don't know what you think about that.

SPEAKER_01 27:55

Yeah, especially when it comes to the ocean. I think we overestimate our understanding of nature. Pretty clear that we don't really seem to uh care about that too much.

SPEAKER_00 28:05

Well, and some more recent examples, which may surprise a lot of people, that we really only discovered the the mountain gorilla in 1902 and the Komodo Dragon around 1910, and the mega mouthed shark in 1976, and then the giant panda. Now, the giant panda was in lore in China, but in the Western world we didn't really discover it until 1936. So it shows that there it is possible that there could be a Bigfoot species that would have it.

SPEAKER_01 28:37

Well, especially if if you consider where most of the sightings are, at least in in North America, it's in the Pacific Northwest. The vastness of those areas of wilderness, it's hard to imagine for someone who never goes out into the wilderness. I used to hike quite a bit. I've been in some of these environments, and and they are vast. So it's not unreasonable to consider the possibility that populations live in these environments.

SPEAKER_00 29:04

Yeah, I I agree.

SPEAKER_01 29:05

There are scientists that say bones break down, like in Pacific Northwest in those rainforests. Even bones break down. So like, oh well, why haven't we found those skeletons? Well, because they break down. They get eaten.

SPEAKER_00 29:16

Rarely. Well, I mean, think about creatures that we know exist, bears, cougars, their skeletal forms are rarely found either, and they're way more abundant than supposed Bigfoot. So yeah, I don't know if that's a strong argument. I I think I used to believe that until I understood it more. Um, you know, because it does seem like a logical. Well, why haven't we found a body? Why haven't we found a skeleton?

SPEAKER_01 29:37

It's suspected that some some populations move around from state to state, and Pacific Northwest is is kind of a place where a lot of them hang out or at least return to. If they're masters of the wilderness, they know exactly where to go. And they can adjust accordingly to avoid humans. Also, in in wintertime, they found deer that had their their front legs broken and their livers removed in wintertime. Well, if you consider the eating a liver, uh in the wintertime, you're getting a lot of nutrients. It's like it's kind of like when the the bears, I look at it like it's when the the grizzlies towards the end of the season they start only eating the important parts. Like there's some I guess maybe it's the liver, but some of the guts of the salmon and not the meat. Because they can get more calories that way. And it's it's not as efficient to eat the entire salmon. It's it's like there's a lot that we we think that we can that we understand, but we don't, especially when it comes to to nature and the possibility.

SPEAKER_00 30:34

Well, another example of that is uh killer wells. They attack sharks and expertly take out the liver. I mean, with precision, almost like a surgeon, they uh attack and only suck out the liver for probably that same reason for nutrition for the con the Well, also too, it's like what people would say, well, how how does Bigfoot know how to go for the liver?

SPEAKER_01 30:56

And uh I would argue that some of the case studies I've read of of the guy who I learned some of the tracking from that I know, it's not all logical. It's like you're you're tapping into a higher source of information and and I would even call it like different dimensional, paranormal type stuff. There's no other other way to describe it. So these things are if you're you're that aware and that tuned in, like we're talking about you know, telepathy, like they're probably in a constant state of alpha on the move. So what are they sensing? What's their what's their gut telling them? Who knows? Not to mention you have the eons of of generation after generation that I mean they they probably inherited habits that have been passed down since they weren't even the same species. So it's it's pointless even arguing why why they would know that. They just do.

SPEAKER_00 31:49

Yeah, I I don't find anybody questioning that to be a really a good argument. I mean, there's countless examples in nature of animals and creatures and insects doing strange behaviors, and you're like, how did they know how to do that? I mean, just thinking about the uh the fungus that attacks those ants and like takes them over like zombies. Like how did they develop that?

SPEAKER_01 32:11

You know, well it's just it's like how do some plants know to develop uh specific defenses against certain species of birds or bugs? They don't have eyes, they don't have a brain, so there there's some other kind of communication going on. You know, and I think when when we tap into our awareness awareness, we could tap into stuff like that. But these creatures, considering that they are a whole nother level of intelligence, I believe, than gorillas, they would be able to to tap into awareness that gives them information. It wouldn't happen just in an instant, it's like how would they know about the liver? Well, it's what they've been doing since who knows when the the point was that they maybe it wasn't a point. Maybe they just were eating everything else and eventually got to the liver and like wow, this is I feel great after eating this, you know.

SPEAKER_00 32:59

Yeah, I mean I I just yeah, I don't even think that's a good argument because uh like you said, it's just so easy to figure that out just from experimentation. You could learn that in one generation. Yeah, right. So um so the last documentary I wanted to cover is not really a documentary, but it's an episode uh from the History Channel. Um it's called The Proof Is Out There Remarkable Evidence of Bigfoot's Footprint. And in it, there's good information again from Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, and he says that he has spent his career studying the form, function, and evolution of the human foot. That's his expertise. And after examining the footprint casts recovered from Bluff Creek from the Patterson film, and he reached a striking conclusion, even if he had never seen the film, just based on the footprints alone, they would be a strong evidence of the film's authenticity, just from the prints alone, if he even had not seen the film, which I thought that was pretty interesting. And then he says one of the most remarkable details visible in the Patterson film is the creature's flexible midfoot. And we touched on this in episode one, so this is coming back to that. So in his mind, this creature has a flexible midfoot, unlike a human foot, where the heel and the front of the foot appear to move somewhat independently, a primitive trait that would prove both powerful propulsion and the ability to navigate steep, rugged terrain, which we've seen in countless photos and videos of these things traversing through the wilderness. And he says it can sometimes cause some of the substrate, and in this case, sandbar, to be forced back up as a pressure ridge because of the arch giving to the foot. It's relation to the foot. He explains that the foot pushes off, it can force loose and sand and gravel beneath it upward, creating a raised pressure ridge, which we saw in that photo. He explains that a footprint is more than just a shape of a foot, and we talked about this earlier. It's the record of how the foot interacts with the ground throughout the entire step. As the foot moved forward, it compresses and displaces the soft substrate, leaving behind subtle features such as erased pressure ridges. And then Melldrum argues these details reveal the mechanics of the foot in motion and are well adapted for traveling across rugged terrain in Bluff Creek. He concludes that the Patterson film's footprint is from a living foot, and there's no doubt in his mind. So that kind of concludes the expert testimony that I wanted to cover in this episode. And before we conclude, I wanted to revisit this new documentary come out, and again, it may be out by the time this airs, called Capturing Bigfoot. And in doing so, there's a gentleman named Rob. I don't know that he is given his last name, but his YouTube channel is Cabin in the Woods. And what's interesting about Rob is that when he first started his YouTube channel, it was just about him building this cabin in the middle of the woods, hence the name of his YouTube channel, Cabin in the Woods, and his life and experience with his family living out in the middle of nowhere in this cabin. And that was the extent of his YouTube channel for several years. And only within the last year that focus has changed to Bigfoot. And that's because about a year ago or more, while he was vacation in British Columbia, he had a Bigfoot encounter. And so that changed his whole channel and changed, I think, probably profoundly changed his life in some way. And anyway, over this year or so, he's become sort of a Bigfoot expert. He's become well connected in the Bigfoot research community. He's interviewed lots of researchers, investigators, and eyewitnesses from all across North America. And in a recent video, he discussed a number of emails and other correspondences that he received after the capturing of Bigfoot premiered in South by Southwest from individuals who claimed to have seen the early screen of this documentary. And so, in one particular email Rob shared was from someone claiming to have seen the early screening. And he alleged that the documentary conclusively debunks the Paris of Gimlin film, including that they described as an admission from Bob Gimlin and called it a shocking revelation for the Bigfoot community, meaning that Bob admitted that it was a fake in this documentary. So Rob went and talked to several of his Bigfoot experts and people who had actually seen the footage, seen the film, and compiled a bunch of counter-arguments. And again, you and I, until we both seen this documentary, we'll we can make up our own mind. But I just wanted to share what some of his counterpoints were. So because there's a lot of you know, a lot of the debunkers out there who have clambered onto this film saying, I told you all the time this was Bigfoot is fake, it's not real, you know, or the opposite, having the effect of people starting to question whether, you know, people who are believers um maybe changing their mind to some extent. In the movie, in the documentary, they say the film was shot in 1966, this other footage and the rehearsal footage. And the Patterson film was shot in 1967. So according to Bill Munns, he's the costume expert that we talked about earlier, he saw this documentary, the early release, and he says that the only thing discussed in this film was the stock date of the film, the Kodak film, which was dated 1966. Now, the date of the film stock is the manufactured date. That's not when the film was exposed or when it was developed. And he says that film can remain unused for months or even years before being shot. So without documentation establishing when the footage was actually filmed, the chronology remains unproven. So, you know, just because the film was marked 1966 on the film stock doesn't mean that's when it was shot. So yeah, and that's why you need experts to weigh in. Right. And then in the film, they discussed the suit that was used in the Patterson Gimlin film. Now, Bill, you know, he's a costume expert, so when he viewed this new footage for the documentary, he describes the suit as an average quality costume lacking anatomical realism, muscle movement, and mechanics that he believes distinguish the uh Patterson subject, so distinguish it separately from and he argues the strongest similarity is the walking style and not the suit itself. So it's almost like someone was trained to walk exactly like the Patterson film, but the suit itself was not a good match, in his opinion. And then in the documentary that claims that the matching walk is demonstrated in both films depict the same costume. And Rob's counterpoint, the Cavin the Woods gentleman, says that someone carefully studied the Patterson Gimli film. They could intentionally imitate Patty's walk, and Patty is the Bigfoot's nickname, uh named after Patterson. Similar movement alone does not establish that the footage predates the original or proves that it was rehearsed, which I agree with that assessment. Rob relays that Bill Munn's hypothesis that the newly discovered footage may have been filmed after 1967 as an attempt by Roger Patterson's financial backer, Al D. Atlee, which we talked about earlier, to determine whether the original film could be convincingly recreated. Under this hypothesis, the footage would represent a reconstruction or an experiment, not a rehearsal. Rob emphasizes this is a hypothesis rather than an established fact. And then Rob argues that neither Patricia Patterson or Clint Patterson witnessed the events at Bluff Creek, and Patricia Patterson is Roger Patterson's wife, Clint Patterson is his son, because in the film, apparently there's some talk in the film that they believe that it was faked, but they don't have any firsthand testimony from that event in October 20th, 1967. He also discusses possible family and financial dynamics that may be soiling their comments. And then Rob argues that reports of Bob Gimlin's current cognitive decline raises questions about the reliability of any recent statements attributed to him. He also says he has heard claims that Gimlin may have been taken out of context, that his words were taken out of context, though he cannot independently verify those reports because he hasn't seen the film himself. And then Rob also notes that even Dr. Jeff Meldrum, who also viewed this document, he actually viewed it before it came out. He actually passed away, sadly, before the documentary was re-released, but he was able to look at the footage ahead of time. He expressed concern in the documentary and that his reaction is still an opinion formed within the context presented by the filmmakers, meaning his reaction is based on how the evidence was presented to him and doesn't independently establish that the newly discovered footage was filmed before the Patterson Gimbling film. And then Rob points out that several arguments reportedly featured in the documentary, such as those involving Bob Hieronymus and claims from Greg Long's The Making of Bigfoot book have been publicly discussed for years. And while the documentary may present them differently, he argues they are not newly discovered information or evidence. And finally, Rob argues that even if the documentary established that someone wore a Bigfoot suit at some point, it still must explain how the pattern given subject exhibits anatomical features such as an apparent muscle movement, proportions, the head shape, all the things that all the experts say could only have been done by a real creature. And I think that's a fair point as well. So we you still have to explain how they pulled that off because the costumes that we've seen that supposedly that Bob Hieronymus wore looked nothing like the one in the film. Would you agree with that? Yeah, I agree with that.

SPEAKER_01 42:51

They just didn't look the same. The head doesn't look the same. Well well, one of the heads looked kind of like they spent a lot of time on it, like it looked pretty impressive, but it didn't look still didn't look like what you'd see in the film.

SPEAKER_00 43:03

In that episode of Bob saying that he passed the light detector, and he said in that footage, he says he put the head on like a helmet, like a football helmet. That is clearly not what we see in the Patterson film. It is definitely not.

SPEAKER_01 43:17

Yeah, that's that's right. If it's like a helmet, you're gonna put it on, and when you turn your head, it's gonna swivel all around the neck. And you're gonna be able you'd probably see that in the video. You know, like you're saying how there's a seam, like in in the the beginning of those movies. Which one was it?

SPEAKER_00 43:34

2001 Space Odyssey.

SPEAKER_01 43:35

Yeah, where there was that seam. You'd be able to see that. Because looking at that mask, oh, you put it on like a helmet, that whole top part's gonna spin because it goes like way down into here. So you turn your you know you turn your head, you imagine it doing that.

SPEAKER_00 43:48

Now, for those watching the video of this, uh I've kind of put the two side by side so you can see the stark differences. And I've even gone the extra mile of trying to uh with AI's help. Help make Bob's photograph of him wearing the costume look grainy, out of focus, colorized to match similar to the original Patterson film, and it's clearly not the same. It's doesn't it's kind of a joke that you would even try to pull that off as as that. So I suspect that this documentary, the footage they're talking about, this is what Bob thinks is him, the original Patterson film. I think he thinks that's what and I think that's why he may have passed the test, because he thinks that was what was filmed of him. And I think that second footage is that of him wearing that. And that's just my my yeah.

SPEAKER_01 44:40

I mean that's at this point with what we know and don't know about that film. I mean that's that's fair to say.

SPEAKER_00 44:46

Yeah. And we won't know until we watch it, but yeah, um, I'm definitely interested in seeing that. Um so that's pretty much all I had to cover. Was there anything that you wanted to cover that I missed?

SPEAKER_01 44:59

Well, I just yeah, I've already mentioned some of it, like the Bob Hieronymous thing, you know, and his taking a lie detector test on TV and passing it, saying that he was the guy in the in the suit and all that. I'll say this about the the manufactured date on the film for the new footage, the new video that we haven't seen yet. If that's a major thing, then it's a big Fazero as far as I'm concerned. Right. I hope there's more to their argument that isn't anchored off of their misunderstanding of that. So we'll see. At this point, before we see the the new video, I'm expected to be disappointed. However, don't know, maybe they'll knock it out of the park.

SPEAKER_00 45:39

Well, I watched a video, a recent one, of the filmmakers who made the new documentary Capturing Bigfoot. And I believe they said that part of the film is only about 10 or 15 minutes. They only cover that for a very short period of time. The rest of the documentary is about the family dynamic between the Patterson family. And so, I mean, they show the full footage unedited, apparently, so from that film stock, but they really don't spend a lot of time on it. And to their admission, they're not trying to set out this documentary wasn't set out to directly debunk the original footage, they are just presenting it as part of that whole package of their overall story they're trying to tell about the Patterson family and that family dynamic.

SPEAKER_01 46:23

Well, maybe there's some weirdness going on there in the family, but why would they video or why why would they shoot film of anything other than the sighting itself? Yeah. What are they like trying to why would they they do that? Are they trying to leave evidence that they're frauds? Why why would you do that unless you're trying to recreate it? Right. You know, after the fact.

SPEAKER_00 46:43

That was Bill Munn's take on it, was that it looked more like a reenactment of the film that had already been shot rather than a practice run. That they were trying the best they could to match the original footage after the fact, not before the fact. And so I'm interested to look at it myself and make my own opinion and conclusions on it. But I feel the same way. I think I'm overall gonna be disappointed. Not maybe not in the film in general. I think it's gonna be an interesting film. I think I'm gonna be disappointed in what they claim to be evidence that disproves the original Patterson film.

SPEAKER_01 47:17

Yeah, I'm very eager to see it for sure. As of right now, we'll see. I'm uh I'm expecting to be disappointed. Not like you say, not in the quality of the actual documentary, but in what they're gonna try to pass off as like proof that it's fake. So we shall see.

SPEAKER_00 47:33

We shall see. So, Steven, uh, before we wrap this one up, uh as tradition, I'm gonna ask you after everything we covered today on the Patterson Gimlin film, all the experts analysis, your own personal, you know, you've watched that footage countless times yourself, and the eyewitness testimony, everything we talked about in this episode, on a scale from one to ten, how convinced are you, based on what we just what we covered, that the creature captured in the Patterson Gimlin film was a real Bigfoot?

SPEAKER_01 48:09

No, man. I I I just I just want to go with a five right now.

SPEAKER_00 48:13

Yeah. That's lower than I expected.

SPEAKER_01 48:16

Yeah, yeah. I well, I just have a lot of questions too. But the video itself of the actual creature is the most convincing thing to me. So that's why that's why it's like an average five. But there's there's plenty. I I still keep in my mind too that you know humans are capable of creating amazing art, very convincing things. They can make out of marble, like you know, a silk cloth over a woman's face or something, you know, that looks super real. Tops right now, I'm gonna give it a six. Okay. I don't mean to change your mind. Just for you. I'm gonna change it just for you.

SPEAKER_00 48:51

I don't want I don't want you to change it for me. I want your honest assessment. I would say in the early years, before I saw all the more modern, you know, the enhanced footage, all the modern experts, both in the field of costume making and anthropology and all of this, I would have probably put it a four or five myself. But given everything I've seen on the footage, all this all the experts weighing in, and my own personal using my own critical thinking, I'm I'm putting this as a nine as far as it being a legitimate Bigfoot in that film. And it's strictly based on everything we talked about, the muscle structure, the movement. Yeah, you just cannot replicate that. I don't care. You cannot replicate that in 1967. And even in today, it would it would be extremely difficult to mimic muscle movement under skin, and including all the other the gait, the walk, the unusual way the knees bow out and in as it walks, how it picks up its feet. I mean, there's no way Patterson would have known how to do all that. He at this point he had never seen a Bigfoot, and no one had ever captured Bigfoot on video or film, so he would not have any reference points to know that that's how they walk.

SPEAKER_01 50:13

Right. The breasts add a lot to the credibility that that it would be real because I don't think most people, especially back in those days, you know, being fresh fresh with movies and things like that, like people would be scared to death. It wasn't you know, when the movie Psycho came out, just like ten years or so before that, the decade before that, people were terrified of that. You know, and it wasn't really that impressive of a movie in my opinion, at least not by today's standards. So people I think wouldn't have thought of that so much, to add that detail and to do it so well.

SPEAKER_00 50:45

It's so ironic that the two leading movies that included Apes came out the year after, or probably filmed during the same time or during a similar time that the Patterson Gimlin film came out, were Planet the Apes and the opening sequence to 2001 Space Odyssey. But even they don't match the technical quality of the Patterson film. And I just find it very hard that Patterson would be able to find somebody to make or even afford to find somebody to make a costume that elaborate in that time. So for me, that's why it's a nine. And for everyone else listening or watching, uh, as always, uh let us know your answers in the comments on a scale from one ten, where do you land? And what piece of evidence influenced your opinion one way or the other? For me, it it's the muscular structure and skin. Now, for you on a five, what what would you say are the two points that both point you towards a ten and one that points you towards a one?

SPEAKER_01 51:47

Well, you can't really connect the prints to what's walking in in the video.

SPEAKER_00 51:51

I do that'd be your main negative.

SPEAKER_01 51:53

Well, that that's a big one. It is possible to stage it, but the thing that would lead me towards a ten would be everything you just said, like the m muscular structure. It's not those costumes. It's not, you know, the ones the costumes that we saw, you know, you showed me in the uh in those pictures. It's just not. So because of the the the way that leg is and the way the calf is, it's very, very defined. It's not like wearing a a pair of pants. That's like a tube going down your leg. It's like tightly around the calf, and then you you see the action of the thigh with the muscles as the you know it goes down on that leg, just like a leg would. You're not gonna see that through a costume, you know, unless it's like super tightly fit, but that's not what what we saw. It's the creature itself that would you know make me move higher than a five.

SPEAKER_00 52:44

I think it's fair. You know, there's so much, you know, because of this extra footage and the people come forward saying that it was faked, it does add a lot of, you know, it it really confounds the uh the actual evidence and it makes it uh harder to believe 100%. And that's why I give it a nine instead of a ten, because there's a lot of controversy around this, and it's controversy around Patterson, maybe even some around Bob, although probably less so. So yeah, I could see why there would still be some question marks there, but if you just purely look at the creature going across this the screen, to me, that is not faked. And I wouldn't have said that 10, 20 years ago because we don't know what we know now. We didn't know what we know now as far and we didn't have the enhanced images of it and the steel, you know, they actually used digitally to stabilize because you know he was moving while he was filming this. In fact, at one point he falls down, according to Bob, and picks himself back up and then crosses over the creek. So he's moving, and then he finally finds a stump, I think, to stabilize the camera, and that's where we get that shot of it turning around.

SPEAKER_01 53:50

I agree with you that the creature itself is is very convincing, and I hope but but I'm open-minded too, you know, like we've got like Houdini doing some amazing things and some of these magicians right in front of your face. Right.

SPEAKER_00 54:05

So Well, again, if if it proves out to be, I mean, I'm not attached to this. I'm just basing my opinion of what what I'm seeing and what I've heard other experts weigh in on. I mean, if it turns out to be a fake, it's fake. It doesn't change my opinion about Bigfoot at all. It's sad, you know, because this has been I mean, this has been the most studied film in the history, aside of maybe the Zebruder film from the Kennedy assassination. No other film has been studied and diagnosed and dissected and scrutinized more than this Patterson film. Bar none. Nothing even comes close other than the Kidney assassination Zebruder film. And uh I think that says a lot because if it was a simple it was as an easy fake, this would have disappeared in the history books decades ago.

SPEAKER_01 54:53

That's true, especially with our modern eyes.

SPEAKER_00 54:56

Yeah. So just to summarize kind of what we've talked about today, we examined one of the most debated pieces of film ever recorded, a film that has challenged skeptics, believers, scientists, and filmmakers for nearly 60 years. Whether the Patterson Gimlin film captured an undiscovered primate, a person in an extraordinary convincing costume, or something else entirely, one thing is certain, nearly six decades later, people are still studying it, still arguing over it, and still searching for an answer that everyone can agree on. And maybe that's what makes this film so remarkable. Not simply what it may show, but the fact that after all this time, it continues to spark curiosity, inspire investigation, and remind us that there are still mysteries worth exploring.

SPEAKER_01 55:46

Now we want to hear from you. After everything we discussed today, where do you stand on the Patterson Gimlin film? Do you believe it captures an unknown creature, or do you think it's a hoax?

SPEAKER_00 55:59

Coming up next, just in time for Halloween, we're revisiting one of the most terrifying movies ever made, The Exorcist. Ooh, that's gonna be a good one. We'll review its most disturbing scenes, explore the phenomenon that shocked audiences around the world, and dig into something even more unsettling. The real life exorcism that inspired the original story. So join us October 27th for this bonus Halloween episode of Inquerium. You can find us wherever you get your podcasts, or even watch us on YouTube. And if you enjoy what we're doing here, please remember to like, subscribe, and share with somebody who enjoys mysteries like we do. It really does help us grow and keep bringing you fantastic stories and mysteries from around the world. Thanks for watching, and we'll see you next time.