Dave: Getting back to your statement about the Patterson/Gimlin film being a fake, what is your take on how the bogus footage went down?

Matt: I’m not sure I stated the Patterson/Gimlin film as being a fake! I hope I was clear in suggesting that there were enough red flags about the event to legitimately question it. I lean toward it being fake.

My “take” on the film is therefore more or less speculative. First of all, I’m no expert in theatrical costumes. I’m amazed at how Bigfooters are willing to claim to know what a theatrical costume should or should not look like. The Internet has spawned a whole generation of keyboard “suit experts!”

That said, I think it’s a guy in a suit. I suspect Patterson contacted Philip Morris, and probably had a Morris suit at one time. I suspect what we see on the film is not a Morris suit though. What we see on the film is not a baggy costume, as would be expected from a roughly one-size-fits-all suit designed for the “Girl to Gorilla” illusion.

I suspect Patterson, in conjunction with De Atley, contacted John Chambers upon realizing that the Morris suit was unconvincing. I suspect that Chambers built a form-fitting suit out of parts he had “lying around.” I suspect that whoever wore the suit on the film practiced a compliant gait, and was healthy and relatively athletic. I suspect some tracks from the actor’s track way may have been “enhanced” by Patterson later to augment depth and detail. I suspect the track seen in the famous “Laverty photo” may be the result of an actor wearing a cowboy boot inside of a relatively flexible prosthetic costume foot. It’s possible that the non-compliance of the substrate may have been overstated.

My own experiments with flexible foot prosthetics show that it is indeed possible to create mid-foot pressure ridges in fabricated tracks, at least in compliant substrates. While I can’t claim my experiments are definitive, there is enough about it to suggest that there are more possible explanations for the mid-foot pressure ridge track morphology than just the product of a “mid-tarsal break.”

I have a funny feeling that the advocates really haven’t investigated what flexible foot prosthetics, especially those found in ape costumes can do as far as what kind of tracks they make. If they have, why haven’t they publicized the results?

I do know with great certainty, however, that my thoughts on this matter will have no effect on anyone’s belief system….

Dave: You tossed out the question, “Why are there no African-American Bigfooters?” I’ve thought about that one before myself. What’s your take on this question since you brought it up?

Matt: Whew! Do I want to touch this with a ten-foot pole? Well, first off, I’ve never even asked any black person what they thought about the question. I suppose I could, in order to give you a better answer. My best guess is that on one level Bigfootery is about “ape-men,” or “sub-humans” and so could seem offensive to some black people. It might be related to an urban vs. rural mindset, although of course there are plenty of blacks living in rural areas. Surely there are lots of black people who have seen Patterson’s film on TV, why aren’t they intrigued?

Obviously there are people from various other ethnic groups interested in bigfoot, so it’s certainly not an all-white club, though it is obviously mostly white. Honestly, I don’t know the answer, and I really don’t even have a good speculation. But I’m glad the question is being discussed!

Did I manage to offend anyone???

Dave: For the skeptics and agnostics out there, can they ever put the legend of bigfoot to rest in your opinion?

Matt: No, because you can’t prove a general negative. For instance, you can’t prove that there are no Martians on Mars, or prove there are no Leprechauns. You can always argue that you simply haven’t looked hard enough for those things. Whether there is, or is not, an animal behind all the sightings, footprints, and so forth, the phenomenon remains. Whether or not various skeptics or agnostics “put it to rest,” I’m confident the phenomenon will continue. But as Ben Radford pointed out, in his Skeptical Inquirer article “Bigfoot at 50,” “At some point a bigfoot’s luck must run out: one out of the thousands must wander onto a freeway and get killed by a passing car, or get shot by a hunter, or die of natural causes and be discovered by a hiker.”

And this is one of the big problems I have with Bigfootery as a human social enterprise; these people simply don’t add up the evidence against the existence of bigfoot. The very fact that North America is filled with millions of miles of roads and millions of rifles suggests that we should have a body by now. Every day that goes by without a body is in fact one more data point that favors the skeptics. At what point do you call it quits? The Bigfooters are fond of pointing out Native American legends in order to show this is not a “modern” phenomenon. True enough, but it also demonstrates that many more data points with no body….

Dave: Based on what you said in question 15, are you willing to say all bigfoot tracks found and cast across the U.S. are all fakes?

Matt: No. As I say, while I’m doubtful of the existence of this animal, I won’t rule it out. My point is that as evidence, tracks are ambiguous, for the very reason that they could be faked. I am quite convinced, based on my own tests, that the claim often made that such-and-such tracks “couldn’t be faked” is simply bullshit. It’s relatively easy to make fake tracks, and I look at these photographs of some of these tracks and I simply don’t see what’s so special about them. Seriously, take a look online or in some of these books; the tracks you see are all in mud, or sand, or fine dirt, or snow. I’ve even made fake tracks that demonstrate “mid-foot pressure ridges” which is allegedly a feature of “real” tracks. Try it for yourself, and you will see what I mean. It’s about as hard as making fake UFO photographs.

Think about this; if humans can create quite acceptable forgeries of Vermeer paintings and American 100 dollar bills, don’t you think they can make fake depressions in dirt?

So indeed, I’m willing to say that all bigfoot tracks could be fake.

Dave: Since you are leaning towards the Patterson/Gimlin film being a fake, do you lean towards Bob Heironimus being the “bigfoot” in the film?

Matt: Yes, though to say so is like spitting on the Holy Grail! There are problems with his story, though he’s telling it almost 40 years after it happened, and those who defend the film are clearly willing to pounce on his every little inconsistency.

I think the strongest evidence that there was a suit is that there are other witnesses that saw it. But you know, if you are a skeptic, then you should question everything, even things that “go your way.” Frankly, I think it’s possible Heironimus had a suit in collaboration with Patterson in order to “stir-up” bigfoot sightings in Yakima. When I drive through Yakima, and I have several times, I simply don’t see the kind of habitat that I think a sasquatch would need in order to survive. Consequently, I’m highly skeptical of Yakima bigfoot sightings. Yet, in the mid-1960s there were a bunch of sightings in Yakima. Frankly, I don’t think Long entertained that possibility that Heironimus had a suit, but that he used it in a different way than at Bluff Creek, perhaps hoaxing local sightings.

Dave: What do you think of Native American lore that points towards a large hairy man of the forest? Just embellished legends? Do you think bigfoot stories over the years have been influenced by these Native American stories?

Matt: Well, I’m really more interested in the physical evidence; my opinion on Native American legends is not well informed. But I can say that I think it’s useful for Bigfooters to consider that this is not just a North American phenomena, it’s virtually world wide. Now either you have bigfoot, or some other bipedal primate inhabiting virtually the entire planet or you have groups of people who are mistaken, or are simply repeating legends.

As far as influence by Native American stories, personally I think the greatest influence on people’s psyches is the Patterson film. Everyone seems to have seen it on television at one time or another, kind of like Star Trek. Patterson’’s film is visual, unlike Native American stories, and so does a much better job of providing a “template” for what one imagines a bigfoot to be.