| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Case Files Week: Revisiting the Patterson Film
Saturday, November 19, 2016 1:18
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
HISTORY
In 1967, in the Bluff Creek area in California, Roger Patterson went out on horseback to try and find a Bigfoot and possibly film one. He brought along Bob Gimlin. Supposedly, the two men rode out and at one point along a creek bed, actually sighted a Bigfoot and Patterson was able to film it. The only film that was shared with the public was about one minute worth and strangely the rest of the film has not been publicly available, at least an untouched full-length copy.
There has been an almost 50-year debate about its authenticity. It seems that most people who think it's preoposterous such a thing exists and conveniently got filmed so openly means that it has to be a hoax. To a great deal of the population, it shows an obvious being who is not one of us, close perhaps, but not the same.
EXAMINING THE CASE
Setting aside the fact that Patterson very much wanted to film a Bigfoot and get credit for discovering them officially, we don't usually blame an anthropologist for coming across a remote unknown tribe when he intended to go find one. There is no reason to think that the situation is any different. Notoriety and respect are always the hopeful payment for discovery, whether you are a layperson or a scientist.
Personally, after reviewing the exceptional clear images that MK Davis (BLOG and YOUTUBE) has processed from the film and considering the proportions of the body, I do believe this to be genuine.
The photo above I have shown the length of leg compared to the height ratio. To “Patty” (Patterson film subject), her legs are one third of her height. For me as other Homo sapiens, leg length is almost half the height. If I had her proportions, instead of being 68″ tall, I'd be 96″ tall (that's 8 feet)!
POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
1. A man was hired to wear a suit and walk across the sand to be filmed in a premeditated hoax.
2. Someone knew about Patterson's plans and set up a costumed person to walk by, making Patterson believe he filmed the real deal.
3. A type of man that has yet to be identified walked along the sand, captured on film by Patterson's shaky hands. This individual did not run, perhaps in a desire to draw attention away from a youngster in hiding.
Source: http://www.ghosthuntingtheories.com/2016/11/case-files-week-revisiting-patterson.html
