While I understand the film looks authentic to most, I can't help thinking about the information beyond the actual footage that creates doubts in my mind about everything being on the up and up. Here's a quote that really makes me think there's something not right about the whole deal:
"I lived through this. I was Roger Patterson's next door neighbor in the 1960's. I believe that Greg Long did an excellent job interviewing those who were involved, including my father, "Marvin." I am also the niece of Jerry Lee Merritt, a major figure in this story. I know how Roger screwed my uncle. If you knew Roger, you knew he was always looking for a way to get rich quick. I saw all of his inventions. I was in a TV commercial for one of his toys, the stick and hoop. I saw what an artist he was. His work in 2 and 3 D was exceptional.
Does Bigfoot exist? I don't know. But I don't believe a word that Roger Patterson said about the subject. The picture in Roger's book, of him at Mt. St. Helen's with his horses tied behind him? I was there when that picture was taken--in his back yard in Tampico. He lied about that. What else did he lie about? And he was some horseman! I personally saw him drag a horse down the road behind a cattle truck in an attempt to get it to follow behind. My dad went out and cut the leadrope, but I believe it was too late. The horse was missing a lot of hide, the muscle was showing on it's chest and side and the open wounds were covered in gravel and dirt. I'll never forget the horse screaming. I never saw that horse again...
The evidence is only as good as it's witness. I knew Roger Patterson. He was a liar and a con artist.
Thank you, Greg Long for taking the time to unearth the truth. If you believe Roger Patterson, it's only because you want to believe. If you knew the man, you would distance yourself from any claims he made about anything."
I just recently heard an interview with Gimlin and I believe that he knew Roger was a scoundrel. They weren't friends and Patterson used Gimlin to the point of abuse (my interpretation)he did to get them our there...his knowledge on tracking. Without Bob Gimlin there wouldn't be a film. My theory is Patterson was trying to get rich quick and that he figured out these things were real. At that time following the monster crazed 50's that all those folks who went to the quarter B movie drive ins were still young enough to go nuts for the real thing. Bob Gimlin got sick of of the whole thing and later gave up his rights to the film.
In filming portion of the encounter Patterson was freaking out and fell off his horse. He screams at Gimlin to cover him Gimlin gets off his horse terrified because he had seen the creature much better than the film showed it and he was in awe. Why would Roger be so insistent on Bob covering him? In the interview, Bob says he was disappointed in the film when he saw it. He believed it didn't capture but only a small amount of what they experienced that day. Also, Gimlin has, I believe, only done a couple of interviews since 67. He came across to me as honest and a guy who had seen the real McCoy that day. He also came across as a guy that just recently forgave Patterson for all the BS.
They will forever be linked together and one was a quiet cowboy and one was selling snake oil. I think Patterson did luck into something real but like everything else he did he made it seem shady and wrong because all he cared about was getting money off it which would make anyone question it's authenticity. We all know the amount of analysis that has been put into breaking every frame of the film down and as tricky as Roger was he couldn't have faked the thigh and actual height etc.
Here's what it comes down to. Gimlin either lied or he didnt. With Patterson, I don't think truth mattered...he was lying even when he wasn't. People like the guy who made the comment about us living in a fantasy all day..think everyone is lying about everything. (Monster Hunter...they get you every time...ignore them...you know what you've seen)
If folks out there have been in the woods as much as some with an open mind... they'd know something is out there. You just have too open your eyes and ears. My point is there are 1000s of sightings and I'm sure some folks are lying but not everyone is. The Indians were not all lying...the missionaries of yesterday, Teddy and the mountain men weren't all lying. They had no reason to and then of the 1000s of people that have seen them...there are 1000s more that have not reported what they have seen...are they lying too?