Drew -- The official story is that Patterson and Gimlin were out searching the Ape Canyon area when Al Hodgson phoned Mrs. Patterson and told her about new tracks found at Bluff Creek. Problem is that Jerry Merritt said Patterson didn't have a phone at the time. He used Jerry Merritt's phone, so for Mrs. Patterson to answer a call from Al Hodgson would have been difficult.
My take on it is this: Wallace and others got into the habit of faking prints. It was fun to see people like Green and Sanderson write articles and bend over backwards trying to prove their authenticity. As Wallace's cousin said, "All we had to do was leave tracks and let people find them."
Patterson worked on his "movie" with Merritt in May 1967 and then the two of them got a ton of money from the Radfords and traveled to Los Angeles. They tried to get funding from Nudie Cohn to finish their movie. That didn't happen.
At some point Patterson must have wound up paying a visit or phoning his creature suit contact and paid for the Bigfoot suit to be made.
By June Patterson was required by contract to repay the Radford loan. He never paid back a dime. Nor did he return the camera he'd also failed to pay for. He just kept on going and trying to make his Bigfoot scheme pay off.
In July Gimlin approached Heironimus and asked him to wear a suit that was being prepared.
In August and September 1967 Patterson, and sometimes Patterson & Gimlin, were supposedly on Bigfoot hunts. They traveled back and forth between the Bluff Creek hot-spot area and Ape Canyon. This is when the footprints showed up.
In 1964 Patterson just happened to stop off at Bluff Creek while on his way to Los Angeles and lo and behold tracks appear - the infamous PAT GRAVES footprint. Like Marx, Freeman and Wallace wherever Patterson goes Bigfoot just happens to show up and he is there to confirm it.
So the tracks were laid down at Bluff Creek in advance. Green shows up to check them out and confirm them. Gimlin and Patterson showed up later and did the same. Then the film was made and more tracks laid down.
William Parcher -- Those images of the prints you posted should make anyone with an open mind understand that Wallace was responsible for those early prints. He even made totally different types of prints. Some looked like extended bear tracks (this is the double-balled hourglass type) as well as the infamous Crew slanted but different double balled foot, and let's don't forget the original skinny but long human footprint. All of these types showed up around wherever he was and were found in his basement cabinet.
What I cannot understand is how Meldrum and others can keep using the wooden feet of Wallace as some kind of proof that Patterson's Bluff Creek prints could not be faked. All they have to do is put on a pair of floppy oversized rubber feet molded in the shape of the Patty tracks and walk in the mud. Mid-tarsal breaks are caused by rubber feet. It's truly simplistic. I've done it myself.
This PIC shows how a human foot fits into a big rubber foot and the arch creates the Mid-Tarsal break. The other PIC shows the print of the left foot of a human walking on the beach next to Patty's print.
This works if you wear your boots with heels inside the rubber feet as well. The rubber bends in front of the heel right where the human arch is. This is what forms these shapes. I've seen it happen over and over on film sets. Amazing that a scientist cannot seem to comprehend this and prefers to go with an imaginary cartoon foot explanation.
Avindair -- That "Dfoot hasn't made a complete suit" nonsense is why I had to show them they could not judge what was and wasn't a suit because of their pre-conceived belief that the film had to be real.
You'd think (as with the rubber foot demo above) that they would step back and take a look at how they reacted to my showing them Patty on a different background. All went out of their way to tell me how it wasn't even close to the PG film - when that is exactly what it was.
Instead, they go into a tirade based on things I never said. This is why merely showing them a suit similar to Patty will never do. A brand new hoax might be possible, but you'd have to do it in a way different from the Patty suit to be effective. Patty in clear focus would not stand up today. Stiff breasts won't do. Separating necklines would be spotted by someone. You'd have to go one step beyond what Patterson did - then reveal the hoax and listen to the ensuing tirades that result.
This is why Gimlin will go to his grave saying the film was real. I don't think he has it in him to own up to what has gone on - even for his wife's sake. He's too afraid of the nutjobs out there. I don't blame him.
mangler -- I would not be concerned with what a guy from Utah who has been hired a few times to work for a make-up crew has to say. This is what Rick Baker himself says: (and he has more knowledge on this subject than others) He and Bob Burns were asked to sit and watch the film by some people making a Bigfoot program. This was in the early 70's I believe. Within five minutes Baker said this could ONLY be a man in a suit and nothing more due to many of the things I've outlined in the past. The Bigfooters didn't want to hear that and they moved on looking for someone to say something nice so they could use that as a "quote from Hollywood experts". That's how it works.
If one of the hoaxers involved (such as Chambers or Janos) tells them what they want to hear they'll lap it up. If Wallace tells Sanderson that he's really upset about these prints showing up on his work sites and is desperate to get to the bottom of the mystery, then Sanderson and Green will write that Wallace is "a pragmatic no-nonsense businessman who thinks someone might be trying to ruin his contracts". This is lapped up.
You can always find someone who'll say something, anything, that proponents want to hear. Even if it's just to be kind. The fact is that ALL of the top level creature suit designers in Hollywood (not Utah) know that the film shows a guy walking in a simple suit. It only takes them five minutes of close up study to see this as it did with Baker.
This is the foot of one of Janos' ape suits that he made in the late 50's. I took this video the other day. Dermal ridges - no problem.
This is the famous chimp head made by Janos that he wore on THE OUTER LIMITS and BEACH BLANKET BINGO. My friend wore it recently on a show for the National Geographic Channel.
The mouth opens and close just like the STAR TREK head used to make Patty. It feels like a helmet when you put it on - exactly as described by Heironimus.
Inside the typical "helmet head" of the 60's you'd find something like this. The tiny metal band is the hinge for the jaw. Your chin fits into the chin of the mask and this opens and close the mouth. The small white button can be added to make the upper lip move up independently by pressing it with the tongue. This is the inside of Janos' Chimp head from the 50's. Lot's of Ape heads from the 30's were made this way too.
This is a close up of one of Janos' old suits. This is what Patty's breast looks like.
This is video I took of the INSIDE of the chimp foot I showed you above. This is from the 1950's. It feels like those rubber hip waders and will bend over the soil as you walk to create "mid-tarsal breaks".
This shows the chin area of one of Janos' gorilla heads. Your chin sits on the chin of the helmet/mask. It feels like one of those old timey padded football helmets that were made of leather. Just as Heironimus tried to describe for us.
And that's the outside of that particular head. I'm trying it on. It feels exactly like what Heironimus described. All I need is a fake eyeball and the sun on my back. Add some distance, blur, grain, overexposure and jerkiness and perhaps I can get a make-up person or scientist to say that he can't find a zipper so it must be real.
Cartoon drawings are fun, but they are just from the imagination of the person creating them. That's not real. What I'm showing are things that are real. You can touch them. They can account for what is being shown on the PG film. The footprints, the suit, all of it. Witnesses attest to the fact that Heironimus wore the suit and his story matches reality. Gimlin's does not.
Patterson never searched for Patty again at Bluff Creek even though that was the supposed hot spot where she had been filmed and tracks found year after year. Perhaps, like his "Ape Canyon Campsite Photo" he knew he had made a fake film.
