The Debunking of The Patterson - Gimlin Bigfoot film is a Pick Your Poison.

For the latest on this please visit: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bigfoot-hoax-exposed-jason-brazeal-uncovers-truth-behind-brazeal-isolc/?trackingId=WYsUcljG4ano66KqmbbmWA%3D%3D

This is the older version. If you visit the link above it has all of the updated information. 

In dissecting and debunking the Patterson-Gimlin film, it essentially comes down to choosing your poison. It's a hoax, contrary to assertions by figures like Meldrum and Munns, who claim expertise but come up short in every aspect; it's really a matter of selecting which hoax exposure resonates with your perspective:

Ill-fitting footwear that flops

A Chamber’s mask stretched over a football helmet with the head portion removed from the suit to create bulk

The comical notion of "Gimlin-In-A-Bush" (which, amusingly, evokes a Scooby-Doo scenario)

Frame F325 featuring fake footwear

Frame F61 showing two left feet

Misplaced fake breasts, positioned three inches lower than anatomically accurate

Utilization of arm extensions and shoulder pads

Walking patterns mirroring human gait, particularly that of Bob H.

Use of a Ringo Starr-esque hairpiece akin to what Chambers employed at the time, appearing remarkably similar to Dr. Zeus when darker, more Ringo-esque, and affixed to a football helmet

Inclusion of a prosthetic eye, glaringly authentic due to being molded from Bob H.'s actual prosthetic eye onto the mask for a realistic gleam

Still hands and immobile fingers, lacking natural movement due to arm extensions being employed

Roger's history as a con artist and the detailed storyboard and screenplay evident in Roger's book a year prior

The Roe account, indicating plagiarism with a play-by-play description

Bob Hiaronomous' sterling local reputation, untainted by accusations of dishonesty from the Yakima community during his entire lifetime of residence there. With the only implications of dishonesty being hurled from Bigfoot enthusiasts in regards to the PG film hoax.

The fact that Bob H. was confronted by Gimlin about wearing the suit and promised 1,000.00 for wearing it and it was never delivered. Bob H. wasn’t one of the so called “masterminds” behind the hoax but instead was literally just a neighbor who was asked to wear the costume and promised 1,000 to do so. Which in 1967 was a substantial sum.

Philip Morris' account detailing Roger's rental of a suit from Chambers, albeit desiring a customizable suit (Chambers parted out suits and reused them for various productions and was known to rent out the suits. Suit alterations like those done in the PG film would not have been allowed so it makes sense that another suit was purchased for customization as all of that aligns with the backstory)

Roger's visit to Desilu Studios

The backstory alone unveils a tapestry of fabrications, rendering the film's authenticity highly dubious even before viewing the footage. This sentiment is amplified when examining the film's numerous flaws, particularly considering the alleged expertise of individuals like Munns in FX and film, which is indeed an embarrassment that such a so called “expert” would fail to recognize fundamental FX techniques and would hold up a false narrative about the technological capabilities of FX artists at the time. Such individuals should feel ashamed for fostering false hope among Bigfoot believers.

Meldrum's interpretation of a sliding suit piece (footwear too large for Bob H. which is clearly seen just before Bob reaches the log and just as the image stabilizes) as a midtarsal joint is equally laughable. One might question whether these experts are genuinely misguided or deliberately deceiving their audience, perhaps for personal gain through book sales or documentary appearances that exploit believers' hopes.

This situation is not only repulsive but also pitiable. However, returning to the focal point, these discrepancies represent merely the tip of the iceberg. Numerous other inconsistencies further corroborate the film's status as a hoax, leaving no room for doubt.

As I mentioned earlier, exposing such truths isn't about malice; rather, it's rooted in a fascination with uncovering realities obscured by hoaxes and misidentifications. Despite my interests in gothic rock, punk, history, and technology, I find no allure in advocating for the existence of phenomena like Bigfoot. The absence of credible evidence, despite modern technology and extensive scrutiny, solidifies my stance. Bigfoot is a fantastical notion that contradicts natural history and lacks any substantial basis.

My area of interest lies in Cultural Anthropology, delving into the intricate study of diverse human tribes, their societies, and the nuanced interpretations shaped by their customs. This concept embodies what I term a "Pop-Culture-Society," a modern realm where myths often emerge from the fabric of movies and popular culture. Take, for instance, the iconic KING KONG (1933), which sparked the initial modern sighting of the Loch Ness Monster. While some may cite St. Columba's accounts, it's crucial to note the contextual embellishments, such as his reputed feats of turning water into wine and dispelling demons from milk pails. These narratives were strategic tools aimed at Christianizing the populace of that era for the Catholic Church's benefit.

The narrative surrounding Nessie's presence in ancient folklore becomes further complex when considering the millennia-long occupation of Urquhart Castle, dating back to the 13th century. Astonishingly, throughout this extensive history, there exists not a single recorded sighting or report of the Loch Ness Monster. This absence poses a significant challenge for Nessie enthusiasts.

In addition to this we can look at the Chupacabra and how the first sightings directly coincide with the release of the film SPECIES (1995).

From a Cultural Anthropological standpoint, these phenomena captivate me. The allure of these stories, steeped in mythical and ghostly motifs, intertwines with the intriguing truths lying beneath the surface. It's intriguing to observe how readily people embrace outlandish theories, such as Bigfoot being an extraterrestrial entity or existing in an inter-dimensional realm. For instance, the eccentric M.K. Davis propagates a ludicrous notion of additional footage from the Patterson-Gimlin film, which he altered the color palette of this footage to make the reds more pronounced in order to depict blood and a fabricated massacre orchestrated by a malevolent lumber company against Bigfoot and its kin. The absurdity of the PG Film reaches new heights with Davis's Bigfoot Massacre narrative.

M.K. Davis fervently subscribes to this fantastical Bigfoot narrative. However, the massacre is a fabrication rooted in the undeniable fact that the Bigfoot itself is a fabrication, as evidenced by the Patterson-Gimlin film featuring Bob H. donning shoulder pads, dynel fabric, horsehide, ill-fitting fake breasts, and oversized footwear. It's a comedic irony that people gravitate towards such extremes, yet balk at the simplest, most logical explanation—a person in a costume. This cognitive dissonance often leads to name-calling and a staunch defense of their perceived reality, despite the inherent flaws in eyewitness testimony, which holds limited weight in legal proceedings.

This phenomenon, both absurd and captivating, reflects a quasi-religious devotion that some individuals bestow upon these myths, elevating them to the status of deity. It's a complex interplay of belief, fantasy, and the human psyche—an aspect of Cultural Anthropology that continues to intrigue and challenge conventional understanding.

The concept of a singular missing link is a fallacy; evolution is a complex tapestry of interconnected elements, not reliant on a solitary creature like Bigfoot to complete the narrative. Regarding the Patterson-Gimlin film specifically, I must assert that deception has been at play. Regardless of one's perception of Bob Gimlin's honesty, the fact remains that he continues to profit from perpetuating a falsehood, repeatedly deceiving the public.

At the end of the day there are 3 kinds of people.

1. You’ll be grateful for this knowledge and look back at how silly it was that you could have ever considered it to be real. You’ll give a round of proverbial applause to Roger for pulling one over on you and you’ll find the truth to it all very interesting. Even more interesting than the hoax.
2. You’ll be in denial about it and you’ll make up excuses as to why that could never be true. Because there’s no way that the guy in the suit could be a guy in a suit. I mean that’s preposterous to think that this guy in a suit is anything but a legendary creature that has never been proven to exist and doesn’t fit in with Natural History. Right? I mean how could anyone mistake this amazing creature with Dynel fur to be anything but a missing link!
3. You will wonder why this has even been brought up because didn’t they already admit that it was a hoax? Oh wait! You mean Bigfoot believers still latch on to this? They still think it’s real? This is still their best evidence of Bigfoot and it’s a hoax? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! As Bugs Bunny would say “Whatta Maroon!” 

All of the scenarios I listed from the manufactured footwear and prosthetic eye to everything in between is true and that’s why it’s literally a pick-your-poison.

As I have stated before, the fact that certain elements within the sequence might appear to look more realistic or that they couldn’t be done are automatically trumped by the introduction of one single synthetic (or faked) element.

If the subject in the film was indeed real and was a genuine, living breathing creature then there could be absolutely no fakery involved. So it stands to reason that by exposing one thing within the film which is fake, no matter how large or microscopic that thing may be, it automatically exposes the entire sequence to be fraudulent because the only way that the fraudulent element can exist is if the entire sequence and everything in it is fraudulent.

So we don’t need the entire film to align with our conceptions once that single and exposing element has been revealed. All we need from the point of exposure of this fraudulent item is to then look at it in terms of how they pulled it off because we know that it is indeed a fraud and contrary to what certain individuals might say…if we know the subject is wearing manufactured footwear that doesn’t fit properly, or we know that there is eyeshine in the most famous still of the sequence and it’s obviously due to a prosthetic eye, or if we know that the subject has to have fake breasts on because they don’t line up where they’re supposed too, or whichever of the myriad of elements both within the film and without that all point to fraud, then once we have that one thing which we have noticed to be a fraud, there is no more point in arguing whether or not this could have been done, or that could have been done.

It obviously was done and the reason we know that is because we have already revealed it to be a fraud and since it’s an all or nothing sort of thing, there is no other explanation for it being anything but a fraud once fraud has been established on even the smallest of levels.

So pick your own poison, there are plenty to choose from which are both within the film sequence itself and outside of it. It doesn't matter which one you pick because they all point to fraud. They all point to the lie that you have been told by people trying to capitalize on your sense of wonder and curiosity and hope and they do it for their own popularity and their own financial gain, whether it be getting paid to appear in Docs or getting suckers like you to buy into their BS lie and spend money on their books and autographed pictures and stuff.