HOME | DD

Description
Bigfoot/Sasquatch Critical Analysis
Well, here it is. Decided to do this about two weeks ago when I was both talking with some of my friends and was flipping through some of artbyjrc ‘s and WDGHK ‘s profiles where I commented on the Gigantopithecus profiles/artwork. And it got me thinking (for the first time in a while) about the “validity” of Bigfoot. Kind of had to put this off because of work and I had to revise this countless times.
For this “profile” I decided to mix things up a bit and do an actual analysis on this mythical beast.
Now, first and foremost, everything here is presented as my own opinion/what I read from a critical perspective on Bigfoot.
I should add that I’ve always been fascinated with this legend and used to be an ardent believer in it. And honestly, I will state, it’s thanks to this that my enthusiasm for zoology and paleontology really blossomed. Yeah, growing up and seeing Sue in the Field Museum was one thing, but the idea of thinking, what else was out there always has been a fascination for me. Now, while I am still fascinated with that view, ultimately, I have grown quite critical of it as you’ll see here.
Over the end of the last month, I binge read both Abominable Science by Donald Prothero and Hunting Monsters by Darren Naish, and I watched some videos made by Bigfoot believers.
First and foremost, my intent here is NOT to disprove bigfoot, it is only to show my opinion, and my interpretation of the whole Bigfoot Zeitgeist. I’m only covering some of the most prevalent aspects of Bigfoot. If I had to cover every single point on Bigfoot, I could turn this into a book of my own.
Now I should state, if you are not a fan of having your beliefs challenged… Well, tough.
I welcome all discourse on this subject, I won’t block you, nor will I be hostile towards you, feel free to state your own opinions. So, hope you guys enjoy this!
Note: Un-italicized text is my personal connection/own injections into the analysis.
Bigfoot/Sasquatch
From the beginning of arrival in the Americas, and even before then, legendary “wild-men” have always been a cornerstone in myths, legends, and in the past century, cryptozoology. The lattermost aspect is the “study” of legendary things/creatures. The most famous would undoubtedly be Sasquatch, better known as Bigfoot.
It has become an icon of the Pacific Northwest, a symbol of cryptozoology, and an obsession of countless people from kids to pseudoscientific quacks. Is the evidence of this creature real? Well, dear reader, read on and see for yourself.
Description: Bigfoot sightings have been reported across America. With the commonly accepted view nowadays of it being a bipedal great ape. Reports range from an average human size up to 10ft tall, perhaps weighing in at 300-500lbs. It has long arms, a reduced or no neck, a human/primate-like face, and of course big, human-like bare feet up to 12-16in long. Most of the sightings are attributed to the Pacific Northwest. It inhabits forested regions, swamps, and mountains according to most proponents. The diet of this creature is largely believed to be omnivorous eating whatever it comes across. The most famous sighting would undoubtedly be the Patterson-Gimlin Film which will be discussed in the next section.
Where does the “Sasquatch” name come from?: Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch is a common moniker for this legendary beast. Where does this name originate from? It’s an anglicization of the Salish word, Sasq’ets. Salish were native peoples residing in the pacific northwest and the word Sasq’ets literally means, “wild-man”. It was coined by Bigfoot sleuth John W. Burns sometime in the 1930s.
Patterson-Gimlin Film: I can remember the first time I saw the P-G Film when I was a boy in 2nd grade. It was shown to me by my zany friend during a playdate. As a child, I was convinced that this legendary animal was real and that some day I’d see it. I can remember it was an obsession of mine up to when I was in middle school, and I tried to convince everyone about this creature. But post-middle school, I basically drifted away from it.
As I stated in the intro, now that I’m older, more educated, and have a more thorough understanding of paleontology, zoology, ecology, history, and in this case, technology, I view it very differently.
Bigfoot on the Bluff Creek: This film was recorded on October 20, 1967, by Roger Patterson in Northern California in an area called Bluff Creek. Patterson and his friend Bob Gimlin were about 38 miles south of the border with Oregon. The most famous frame that everyone has seen was frame 352. The image where “Patty” a supposed female Bigfoot glanced at Patterson and then proceeds into the brush. Paleontologist Donald Prothero states that “no one knows whether the film depicts a real Sasquatch or a man in a gorilla suit.” To some extent, yes this is true, but I should add, the evidence of it being fake (in my opinion) outweighs the aspects about it being real.
Costume?: Proponents of the film hold this film up as evidence for Bigfoot. Furthermore, they propose that if this were a hoax, it’d be impossible to fake it. However, given the distance and quality between Patterson and the subject of the film, it’s not inconceivable to think that perhaps this is a suit, and given the quality of the film, it makes it look more real (go into detail on “ENHANCE IT” and the Gait Section).
Cracks in the Story: Roger Patterson died in 1972 ~5yrs after the film was released. Bob Gimlin who, as of 2021 is still alive had always maintained until recently that what he and Patterson saw was real. Now, he concedes that he could have been duped by Patterson. When one investigates Patterson’s background, it seems possible.
BUXOM Bigfoot: Proponents of the film point out the breasts on the subject of the film. Many claiming that “why would Patterson put Bigfoot boobs on the costume? Why’d he put that unnecessary aspect on the Bigfoot?” Well in one of the earliest “modern accounts” of an ape-like Bigfoot made in 1956 in an account made by William Wroe, Wroe had sketched up a bigfoot that was well endowed as well, and even in the drawing that Patterson drew in his book, as elaborated by Paleontologist Darren Naish:
Darren Naish on Twitter: "In 1966, Patterson drew (for his book on #Bigfoot ) a scene where a hunter with a gun is watching a female Bigfoot cross a clearing. Patterson’s drawing was a copy of an illustration by Mort Künstler, done for an article by Ivan Sanderson. It depicts the William Roe encounter. t.co/Kz9ghP3ZVy " / Twitter
Patterson’s background: Roger Patterson was a fascinating character in the Bigfoot Zeitgeist. Since 1959, when he read an Ivan T. Sanders article in True Magazine about both Bigfoot and the Yeti, he became somewhat obsessed with it.
He had self-published a book called “Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?” in 1966, a year prior to the sighting on Bluff Creek. Furthermore, he was also a great artist and was described as someone who was a stickler for detail as seen in these points raised by paleontologist Darren Naish:
Darren Naish on Twitter: "I contend also that the circumstantial evidence pointing to a hoax is good. For starters, we know that Roger Patterson was an excellent craftsman and artist (here’s a drawing which Patterson did, from Long’s book) and... t.co/GQcdjYZ3zk " / Twitter
Finally, and oddly enough, at this time, Patterson was planning to make a documentary on Bigfoot in the coming months. He was gathering footage to make the doc. Isn’t it peculiar that while he was making a Bigfoot doc, Patterson came across what could be considered a once-in-a-lifetime sighting of a mythical animal? Almost as though if this sighting was too good to be true.
Bob Heironimus, costumed ape or liar: Bob Heironimus was a good friend of Roger Patterson and claims he was offered $1,000 to put on a bigfoot costume and pose for the P-G film. He admitted to partaking in this hoax on multiple occasions. Going so far as to take a polygraph test which he passed with flying colors in 1991. Most proponents of Bigfoot state he was lying. Granted, it is possible to deceive a polygrapher, and it cannot be used as ironclad evidence, but the fact that he went on public record (more than once) to state he was the one who did it, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. As shown in Patterson’s self-published book, it’s not beyond belief to think that he had fabricated or commissioned a costume and used his drawings as a reference. He was a fantastic artist/craftsman after all (as previously shown).
It’s all about the Gait, bout’ the Gait: Supporters of the film who state that this is a female Bigfoot point to the gait, which is unlike any other human. However, they overlook one technical aspect of the film. It’s extremely choppy. While no details on the frame rate have been conclusive (some think its 16FPS others 18FPS), it’s as lower rate than standard movie cameras. Which makes sense since in 1967, personal film cameras were still relatively new. You’d be lucky to get one that even had color for silent home movies. The lower framerate makes everything look extremely choppy and missing frames more than likely explains the peculiar gait.
ENHANCE IT: Through the years, many people have tried to enhance the footage to get a better look at the creature. However, “enhancing a film” while technically possible, can only be done properly if you have a good enough camera and have a good enough reference (IE: How NASA solved Space Shuttle Columbia’s Disaster by enhancing a foam strike from the launch cameras). With the P-G film, many proponents have attempted to add pixels/speed up and stabilize the footage. However, enhancing a film/photo can only go so far. Most of the enhancements are done with AI and as great as the technology is, it’s never perfect. The additional frames are not conducive to offering a clearer picture of the subject in the film.
To some extent, we cannot conclusively say whether this is a hoax or a creature. What I have done is just shown my opinion. However, what I think is that this film is fake, and again I am just stating my view. I’d be happy to admit that I could be wrong. Which if Cryptozoological proponents want to be taken seriously, they must consider all aspects on whether or not it could have been faked, which is necessary in any scientific endeavor (more on that at the conclusion).
Ancient myths describe creatures or wildmen like bigfoot exist, thus they existed LONG before things like P-G Film: First and foremost, yes there were legends of wild men that were held by countless tribes across America, but rarely has anyone bothered to look into them.
Furthermore, myths aren’t conducive to reality. There are countless legends of wildmen and giant people some that were hairy, some were naked skinned, some that were maneaters, some were a race of beasts/wildmen, some were individual “witches” similar to Baba Yaga of Eastern Europe like the ogress known as Dzunuk’wa commonly depicted on a Kwakwaka’wakw totem pole, and some that were just giant 20ft tall people. Probably most bizarre of all were a Quinault legend of a race of humans that looked exactly like regular humans except for a massive 6-foot-long quartz spike growing out of their big toe.
When one reviews the “wild-men” myths, it’s not that much of a stretch to think these animals have about as much validity as legends like Theseus and the Minotaur. In other words, they’re just legends and not real.
Gorillas were undiscovered by European Explorers till the 1800s, the Okapi was undiscovered till the 1900s, the Giant Squid was the Kraken: The Lazarus taxon argument. First and foremost, Gorilla was known to have existed by native peoples long before Europeans knew.
At this time, even during the 1800s, European explorers such as David Livingston were exploring Africa not for any animal, but for a massive mountain range, known as The Mountains of Kong. A non-existent, 4500-mile mountain range that stretched from the west coast of Africa to southern Ethiopia. So, it’s not inconceivable that Europeans could have missed some great apes.
Similar to the Gorilla, the Okapi was also discovered fairly recently, and native peoples had seen these elusive giraffe relatives for centuries.
The Giant Squid and the Kraken: The Kraken was described as sometimes squid-like, but other times it was described as a massive whale or indescribable sea beast that’d swallow up ships.
Gigantopithecus Theory and the Fossil Record: Gigantopithecus is the most common suspect to Bigfoot that cryptozoologists bring up. The anthropologist and bigfoot advocate Grover Krantz published articles on how similar Bigfoot was to Gigantopithecus up to his death in 2002, going as far as to call Bigfoot “Gigantopithecus canadensis”.
To the average laymen of paleontology, at first, it’d seem like Gigantopithecus would fit the bill of Bigfoot. However, recent research indicates this is not the case.
At first, early paleoanthropologists posited that Gigantopithecus was a hominid just on a much bigger scale. However, it’s now known that Gigantopithecus’ closest relatives are Orangutans (Ponginae). They largely inhabited forested regions of China and Southeast Asia. The fossil record is fragmentary for this giant ape, only around 1,000 molars and a handful of mandibles have been found. The largest and most successful species, Gigantopithecus blacki was (based on recent studies) around 650lbs and if it stood up on its hindlimbs would have been about 9-10ft tall.
It should be noted that Orangutans rarely stand upright on their hindlimbs, and if Gigantopithecus was anything like Orangutans, its likely Gigantopithecus was the same as well. The only way they can stand is if they’re holding onto something with their long arms. With such a small sample size of fossils, we don’t know what Gigantopithecus’ limb proportions were, but most paleontologists think that it probably resembled Orangutans giving their close evolutionary relationship. So, for Gigantopithecus to be an ideal candidate, this giant Orangutan-like ape would have had to evolve bipedalism within ~300,000 years (point will be discussed later).
Furthermore, Bigfoot enthusiasts claim that a Sasquatch has a diet similar to humans or Grizzly Bears, being a mixed omnivore. However, Gigantopithecus was not omnivorous. It was a pure herbivore, with its massive molars capable of processing tough vegetation. Feeding primarily on bamboo, roots, tubers, and occasionally some fruit like figs.
Fossil Record: The fossil record will never be as complete as Cryptozoological and Creationist detractors purport, but it’s complete enough for us to get an idea of how various animals arrived in various locations. No fossils of any hominid have been found in rocks older than around 15-13,000 years in North America. The youngest primate found in North America prior to the arrival of humans is dated to ~37,000,000 years ago and is known as Rooneyia viejaensis which was found in Texas in 1966. It largely resembled a tarsier.
Well what about new world primates, they don’t have a fossil record and they made it to South America! Gigantopithecus could be the same!: Okay, they likely evolved from African Primates since fossils of them have been found around 40,000,000 years ago, and back then, Africa and South America were a lot closer than today. The common theory is that New World Primate ancestors arrived on floating mats of vegetation that drifted with the currents. Or there could have been a land bridge between the two continents. Africa and South America were once a part of Gondwanaland during the Mesozoic after all. The idea that smaller primates migrated out of Africa, into Asia, across the Bering land bridge and made it down North America and into South America has largely been rejected by the scientific community.
Gigantopithecus’ fossil record: In the case of Gigantopithecus, based on the most recent fossil evidence, it’s accepted that it died out ~300,000 years ago. No fossils have been found outside of Asia. If we are to assume that Gigantopithecus did make it into America, it would have needed to:

-Cross parts of the eastern Gobi

-Forge the Mammoth Steppes of Siberia and reach Beringia with NO bamboo, fruit, or tubers in sight

-Cross Alaska while they’re covered in Glaciers and the Ice Sheet

-And finally, make it to Canada and/or south-west flank of Alaska.

This would have been a massive migration of more than 6000 miles being made by quadrupedal apes. And somehow, they’d evolve bipedalism along the way.
Let me put it this way: American Mastodons are distant cousins of modern elephants who subsist primarily on a browsing diet. Fossils of these magnificent beasts have been found as far south as Honduras. They resided less than 650 miles from the vast and expansive forested areas of South America. BUT they never were able to cross the vast grasslands of the Isthmus of Panama to reach those areas.
If proboscideans who can survive days without water or food, are able to move far more effectively, and have a far more flexible food supply, were unable to forge the ~650 miles of the Isthmus, how could a Pongine primate do the same?!

The Habitat of the Pacific Northwest IS conducive to supporting a large primate!: This is something that I could say about XYZ Animal and put it into a similar ecosystem. IE: The forests of the Midwest could support a large browsing animal like an elephant, which considering they once did with the American Mastodons, that’d line up well. I could say that the Redwood forests of California line up well with parts of the Jurassic Morrison Formation, does that mean some Sauropods or a couple non-avian theropods still live there? NO.
Bigfoot may have higher intelligence; thus, THEY avoid US: This is the most recent point that cryptozoologists/bigfoot enthusiasts bring up. Granted, apes are intelligent. Easily among the most intelligent animals on land. Especially considering we are apes. However, there’s a problem.
The commonly stated population of Bigfoot is from 3000-5000 individuals (based on various sources of Cryptozoologists). Well, we have Great Apes far rarer than that. The Cross-River Gorilla’s population is around 300 individuals in (AT BEST) a handful of bands left in Western Africa. It’s a tragic thought to think that probably by the time this century is half-way through, these magnificent primates will be gone.
However, there is another flaw in this theory. It doesn’t matter how good their avoidance is of us. Doesn’t matter how many there are, HELL, it doesn’t matter if they hide bodies when their bigfoot brethren die. Eventually they’d make a mistake, and eventually they’d reveal themselves to someone who was at the very least competent with a camera.
It can’t be a bear!!! Yes, it can. Bears, while not proficient in bipedal walking, can stumble around for a good 12-15 seconds. It’s seen by hikers when they wade through water or even on occasion to intimidate people. 12-15 seconds can seem like an eternity when your body triggers a fight-or-flight response and adrenaline courses through your body. Finally, if you have seen pictures/heard about the myth of Bigfoot, your mind can play tricks on you. Maybe make that carnivoran head into something more… apelike.
Plus, isn’t it odd that most of the sightings of bigfoot overlap with range of black bears?
Conclusion: What is Science and how it connects to Bigfoot?: It should be noted, science is not about proving something right. As Donald Prothero states in his book “Abominable Science”, “Science is always open to new discoveries,” this is something that happens very often, especially in Prothero’s field of Paleontology. One must be open to all possible hypotheses and make sure that they are testable under the scientific method. However, it should be noted that science is not about proving something to be true, but rather about proving if something is false. Cryptozoology is about finding something (a mythical animal in this case) and seeing if it’s true, normally, they have an objective, are not open to any other ideas other than this creature being true, and not if it’s false. As Prothero lays out a scientific hypothesis, “has to withstand the critical evaluation and peer-review process of the legions of scientists who are dedicated to shooting it down. Scientific hypotheses must always be tentative and subject to examination and modification, and they never reach the status of ‘final truth.’”. When scientists examine the hypothesis of Bigfoot or other primates existing in the New World, it’s not meant to be a personal attack on the proponents, but Cryptozoological advocates view it as inherently negative and an attack on their worldview. The burden of proof and presenting evidence is on the proponents, not on the peer-reviewers.
To close out this long profile/analysis, I will add, Bigfoot stories are intriguing and fascinating to me. They make great stories to tell your friends, and sound fascinating to any laymen. Though in my opinion, as cool as they are, I do not see much value/evidence that these purported long-lost primates exist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Okay, this is a bit of a mix-up from what I normally do. As I said, I wanted to mix things up a bit and I hope you guys enjoy my ramblings/opinions on this mythical beast.
The model and skin was made by Ulquiorra and I just posed it to resemble the famous “look” at Patterson.
Now, I should note I have only just scratched the surface on Bigfoot and other legends. I do plan on doing more Cryptids and mythical monsters in due time, but if you want a better understanding, GO READ Abominable Science and Hunting Monsters because they did a fantastic job on pointing out these aspects.
Anyways, next couple of profiles will be paleo-profiles.
Sources:
The Problem with Patty. Let me begin by saying that I’m a… | by Chris Tharp | Medium
Hunting Monsters by Darren Naish
Abominable Science by Donald Prothero
And some of Darren Naish’s insightful commentary on Bigfoot linked in the text.

Also, the artwork/profiles I referenced is:
Forest people - Pongine apes by artbyjrc on DeviantArt
WW Creature: Gigantopithecus blacki by WDGHK on DeviantArt
Model and skin by Ulquiorra:
Sasquatch (Ulquiorra) | ZT2 Download Library Wiki | Fandom

Description
Bigfoot/Sasquatch Critical Analysis
Well, here it is. Decided to do this about two weeks ago when I was both talking with some of my friends and was flipping through some of artbyjrc ‘s and WDGHK ‘s profiles where I commented on the Gigantopithecus profiles/artwork. And it got me thinking (for the first time in a while) about the “validity” of Bigfoot. Kind of had to put this off because of work and I had to revise this countless times.
For this “profile” I decided to mix things up a bit and do an actual analysis on this mythical beast.
Now, first and foremost, everything here is presented as my own opinion/what I read from a critical perspective on Bigfoot.
I should add that I’ve always been fascinated with this legend and used to be an ardent believer in it. And honestly, I will state, it’s thanks to this that my enthusiasm for zoology and paleontology really blossomed. Yeah, growing up and seeing Sue in the Field Museum was one thing, but the idea of thinking, what else was out there always has been a fascination for me. Now, while I am still fascinated with that view, ultimately, I have grown quite critical of it as you’ll see here.
Over the end of the last month, I binge read both Abominable Science by Donald Prothero and Hunting Monsters by Darren Naish, and I watched some videos made by Bigfoot believers.
First and foremost, my intent here is NOT to disprove bigfoot, it is only to show my opinion, and my interpretation of the whole Bigfoot Zeitgeist. I’m only covering some of the most prevalent aspects of Bigfoot. If I had to cover every single point on Bigfoot, I could turn this into a book of my own.
Now I should state, if you are not a fan of having your beliefs challenged… Well, tough.
I welcome all discourse on this subject, I won’t block you, nor will I be hostile towards you, feel free to state your own opinions. So, hope you guys enjoy this!
Note: Un-italicized text is my personal connection/own injections into the analysis.
Bigfoot/Sasquatch
From the beginning of arrival in the Americas, and even before then, legendary “wild-men” have always been a cornerstone in myths, legends, and in the past century, cryptozoology. The lattermost aspect is the “study” of legendary things/creatures. The most famous would undoubtedly be Sasquatch, better known as Bigfoot.
It has become an icon of the Pacific Northwest, a symbol of cryptozoology, and an obsession of countless people from kids to pseudoscientific quacks. Is the evidence of this creature real? Well, dear reader, read on and see for yourself.
Description: Bigfoot sightings have been reported across America. With the commonly accepted view nowadays of it being a bipedal great ape. Reports range from an average human size up to 10ft tall, perhaps weighing in at 300-500lbs. It has long arms, a reduced or no neck, a human/primate-like face, and of course big, human-like bare feet up to 12-16in long. Most of the sightings are attributed to the Pacific Northwest. It inhabits forested regions, swamps, and mountains according to most proponents. The diet of this creature is largely believed to be omnivorous eating whatever it comes across. The most famous sighting would undoubtedly be the Patterson-Gimlin Film which will be discussed in the next section.
Where does the “Sasquatch” name come from?: Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch is a common moniker for this legendary beast. Where does this name originate from? It’s an anglicization of the Salish word, Sasq’ets. Salish were native peoples residing in the pacific northwest and the word Sasq’ets literally means, “wild-man”. It was coined by Bigfoot sleuth John W. Burns sometime in the 1930s.
Patterson-Gimlin Film: I can remember the first time I saw the P-G Film when I was a boy in 2nd grade. It was shown to me by my zany friend during a playdate. As a child, I was convinced that this legendary animal was real and that some day I’d see it. I can remember it was an obsession of mine up to when I was in middle school, and I tried to convince everyone about this creature. But post-middle school, I basically drifted away from it.
As I stated in the intro, now that I’m older, more educated, and have a more thorough understanding of paleontology, zoology, ecology, history, and in this case, technology, I view it very differently.
Bigfoot on the Bluff Creek: This film was recorded on October 20, 1967, by Roger Patterson in Northern California in an area called Bluff Creek. Patterson and his friend Bob Gimlin were about 38 miles south of the border with Oregon. The most famous frame that everyone has seen was frame 352. The image where “Patty” a supposed female Bigfoot glanced at Patterson and then proceeds into the brush. Paleontologist Donald Prothero states that “no one knows whether the film depicts a real Sasquatch or a man in a gorilla suit.” To some extent, yes this is true, but I should add, the evidence of it being fake (in my opinion) outweighs the aspects about it being real.
Costume?: Proponents of the film hold this film up as evidence for Bigfoot. Furthermore, they propose that if this were a hoax, it’d be impossible to fake it. However, given the distance and quality between Patterson and the subject of the film, it’s not inconceivable to think that perhaps this is a suit, and given the quality of the film, it makes it look more real (go into detail on “ENHANCE IT” and the Gait Section).
Cracks in the Story: Roger Patterson died in 1972 ~5yrs after the film was released. Bob Gimlin who, as of 2021 is still alive had always maintained until recently that what he and Patterson saw was real. Now, he concedes that he could have been duped by Patterson. When one investigates Patterson’s background, it seems possible.
BUXOM Bigfoot: Proponents of the film point out the breasts on the subject of the film. Many claiming that “why would Patterson put Bigfoot boobs on the costume? Why’d he put that unnecessary aspect on the Bigfoot?” Well in one of the earliest “modern accounts” of an ape-like Bigfoot made in 1956 in an account made by William Wroe, Wroe had sketched up a bigfoot that was well endowed as well, and even in the drawing that Patterson drew in his book, as elaborated by Paleontologist Darren Naish:
Darren Naish on Twitter: "In 1966, Patterson drew (for his book on #Bigfoot ) a scene where a hunter with a gun is watching a female Bigfoot cross a clearing. Patterson’s drawing was a copy of an illustration by Mort Künstler, done for an article by Ivan Sanderson. It depicts the William Roe encounter. t.co/Kz9ghP3ZVy " / Twitter
Patterson’s background: Roger Patterson was a fascinating character in the Bigfoot Zeitgeist. Since 1959, when he read an Ivan T. Sanders article in True Magazine about both Bigfoot and the Yeti, he became somewhat obsessed with it.
He had self-published a book called “Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?” in 1966, a year prior to the sighting on Bluff Creek. Furthermore, he was also a great artist and was described as someone who was a stickler for detail as seen in these points raised by paleontologist Darren Naish:
Darren Naish on Twitter: "I contend also that the circumstantial evidence pointing to a hoax is good. For starters, we know that Roger Patterson was an excellent craftsman and artist (here’s a drawing which Patterson did, from Long’s book) and... t.co/GQcdjYZ3zk " / Twitter
Finally, and oddly enough, at this time, Patterson was planning to make a documentary on Bigfoot in the coming months. He was gathering footage to make the doc. Isn’t it peculiar that while he was making a Bigfoot doc, Patterson came across what could be considered a once-in-a-lifetime sighting of a mythical animal? Almost as though if this sighting was too good to be true.
Bob Heironimus, costumed ape or liar: Bob Heironimus was a good friend of Roger Patterson and claims he was offered $1,000 to put on a bigfoot costume and pose for the P-G film. He admitted to partaking in this hoax on multiple occasions. Going so far as to take a polygraph test which he passed with flying colors in 1991. Most proponents of Bigfoot state he was lying. Granted, it is possible to deceive a polygrapher, and it cannot be used as ironclad evidence, but the fact that he went on public record (more than once) to state he was the one who did it, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. As shown in Patterson’s self-published book, it’s not beyond belief to think that he had fabricated or commissioned a costume and used his drawings as a reference. He was a fantastic artist/craftsman after all (as previously shown).
It’s all about the Gait, bout’ the Gait: Supporters of the film who state that this is a female Bigfoot point to the gait, which is unlike any other human. However, they overlook one technical aspect of the film. It’s extremely choppy. While no details on the frame rate have been conclusive (some think its 16FPS others 18FPS), it’s as lower rate than standard movie cameras. Which makes sense since in 1967, personal film cameras were still relatively new. You’d be lucky to get one that even had color for silent home movies. The lower framerate makes everything look extremely choppy and missing frames more than likely explains the peculiar gait.
ENHANCE IT: Through the years, many people have tried to enhance the footage to get a better look at the creature. However, “enhancing a film” while technically possible, can only be done properly if you have a good enough camera and have a good enough reference (IE: How NASA solved Space Shuttle Columbia’s Disaster by enhancing a foam strike from the launch cameras). With the P-G film, many proponents have attempted to add pixels/speed up and stabilize the footage. However, enhancing a film/photo can only go so far. Most of the enhancements are done with AI and as great as the technology is, it’s never perfect. The additional frames are not conducive to offering a clearer picture of the subject in the film.
To some extent, we cannot conclusively say whether this is a hoax or a creature. What I have done is just shown my opinion. However, what I think is that this film is fake, and again I am just stating my view. I’d be happy to admit that I could be wrong. Which if Cryptozoological proponents want to be taken seriously, they must consider all aspects on whether or not it could have been faked, which is necessary in any scientific endeavor (more on that at the conclusion).
Ancient myths describe creatures or wildmen like bigfoot exist, thus they existed LONG before things like P-G Film: First and foremost, yes there were legends of wild men that were held by countless tribes across America, but rarely has anyone bothered to look into them.
Furthermore, myths aren’t conducive to reality. There are countless legends of wildmen and giant people some that were hairy, some were naked skinned, some that were maneaters, some were a race of beasts/wildmen, some were individual “witches” similar to Baba Yaga of Eastern Europe like the ogress known as Dzunuk’wa commonly depicted on a Kwakwaka’wakw totem pole, and some that were just giant 20ft tall people. Probably most bizarre of all were a Quinault legend of a race of humans that looked exactly like regular humans except for a massive 6-foot-long quartz spike growing out of their big toe.
When one reviews the “wild-men” myths, it’s not that much of a stretch to think these animals have about as much validity as legends like Theseus and the Minotaur. In other words, they’re just legends and not real.
Gorillas were undiscovered by European Explorers till the 1800s, the Okapi was undiscovered till the 1900s, the Giant Squid was the Kraken: The Lazarus taxon argument. First and foremost, Gorilla was known to have existed by native peoples long before Europeans knew.
At this time, even during the 1800s, European explorers such as David Livingston were exploring Africa not for any animal, but for a massive mountain range, known as The Mountains of Kong. A non-existent, 4500-mile mountain range that stretched from the west coast of Africa to southern Ethiopia. So, it’s not inconceivable that Europeans could have missed some great apes.
Similar to the Gorilla, the Okapi was also discovered fairly recently, and native peoples had seen these elusive giraffe relatives for centuries.
The Giant Squid and the Kraken: The Kraken was described as sometimes squid-like, but other times it was described as a massive whale or indescribable sea beast that’d swallow up ships.
Gigantopithecus Theory and the Fossil Record: Gigantopithecus is the most common suspect to Bigfoot that cryptozoologists bring up. The anthropologist and bigfoot advocate Grover Krantz published articles on how similar Bigfoot was to Gigantopithecus up to his death in 2002, going as far as to call Bigfoot “Gigantopithecus canadensis”.
To the average laymen of paleontology, at first, it’d seem like Gigantopithecus would fit the bill of Bigfoot. However, recent research indicates this is not the case.
At first, early paleoanthropologists posited that Gigantopithecus was a hominid just on a much bigger scale. However, it’s now known that Gigantopithecus’ closest relatives are Orangutans (Ponginae). They largely inhabited forested regions of China and Southeast Asia. The fossil record is fragmentary for this giant ape, only around 1,000 molars and a handful of mandibles have been found. The largest and most successful species, Gigantopithecus blacki was (based on recent studies) around 650lbs and if it stood up on its hindlimbs would have been about 9-10ft tall.
It should be noted that Orangutans rarely stand upright on their hindlimbs, and if Gigantopithecus was anything like Orangutans, its likely Gigantopithecus was the same as well. The only way they can stand is if they’re holding onto something with their long arms. With such a small sample size of fossils, we don’t know what Gigantopithecus’ limb proportions were, but most paleontologists think that it probably resembled Orangutans giving their close evolutionary relationship. So, for Gigantopithecus to be an ideal candidate, this giant Orangutan-like ape would have had to evolve bipedalism within ~300,000 years (point will be discussed later).
Furthermore, Bigfoot enthusiasts claim that a Sasquatch has a diet similar to humans or Grizzly Bears, being a mixed omnivore. However, Gigantopithecus was not omnivorous. It was a pure herbivore, with its massive molars capable of processing tough vegetation. Feeding primarily on bamboo, roots, tubers, and occasionally some fruit like figs.
Fossil Record: The fossil record will never be as complete as Cryptozoological and Creationist detractors purport, but it’s complete enough for us to get an idea of how various animals arrived in various locations. No fossils of any hominid have been found in rocks older than around 15-13,000 years in North America. The youngest primate found in North America prior to the arrival of humans is dated to ~37,000,000 years ago and is known as Rooneyia viejaensis which was found in Texas in 1966. It largely resembled a tarsier.
Well what about new world primates, they don’t have a fossil record and they made it to South America! Gigantopithecus could be the same!: Okay, they likely evolved from African Primates since fossils of them have been found around 40,000,000 years ago, and back then, Africa and South America were a lot closer than today. The common theory is that New World Primate ancestors arrived on floating mats of vegetation that drifted with the currents. Or there could have been a land bridge between the two continents. Africa and South America were once a part of Gondwanaland during the Mesozoic after all. The idea that smaller primates migrated out of Africa, into Asia, across the Bering land bridge and made it down North America and into South America has largely been rejected by the scientific community.
Gigantopithecus’ fossil record: In the case of Gigantopithecus, based on the most recent fossil evidence, it’s accepted that it died out ~300,000 years ago. No fossils have been found outside of Asia. If we are to assume that Gigantopithecus did make it into America, it would have needed to:

-Cross parts of the eastern Gobi

-Forge the Mammoth Steppes of Siberia and reach Beringia with NO bamboo, fruit, or tubers in sight

-Cross Alaska while they’re covered in Glaciers and the Ice Sheet

-And finally, make it to Canada and/or south-west flank of Alaska.

This would have been a massive migration of more than 6000 miles being made by quadrupedal apes. And somehow, they’d evolve bipedalism along the way.
Let me put it this way: American Mastodons are distant cousins of modern elephants who subsist primarily on a browsing diet. Fossils of these magnificent beasts have been found as far south as Honduras. They resided less than 650 miles from the vast and expansive forested areas of South America. BUT they never were able to cross the vast grasslands of the Isthmus of Panama to reach those areas.
If proboscideans who can survive days without water or food, are able to move far more effectively, and have a far more flexible food supply, were unable to forge the ~650 miles of the Isthmus, how could a Pongine primate do the same?!

The Habitat of the Pacific Northwest IS conducive to supporting a large primate!: This is something that I could say about XYZ Animal and put it into a similar ecosystem. IE: The forests of the Midwest could support a large browsing animal like an elephant, which considering they once did with the American Mastodons, that’d line up well. I could say that the Redwood forests of California line up well with parts of the Jurassic Morrison Formation, does that mean some Sauropods or a couple non-avian theropods still live there? NO.
Bigfoot may have higher intelligence; thus, THEY avoid US: This is the most recent point that cryptozoologists/bigfoot enthusiasts bring up. Granted, apes are intelligent. Easily among the most intelligent animals on land. Especially considering we are apes. However, there’s a problem.
The commonly stated population of Bigfoot is from 3000-5000 individuals (based on various sources of Cryptozoologists). Well, we have Great Apes far rarer than that. The Cross-River Gorilla’s population is around 300 individuals in (AT BEST) a handful of bands left in Western Africa. It’s a tragic thought to think that probably by the time this century is half-way through, these magnificent primates will be gone.
However, there is another flaw in this theory. It doesn’t matter how good their avoidance is of us. Doesn’t matter how many there are, HELL, it doesn’t matter if they hide bodies when their bigfoot brethren die. Eventually they’d make a mistake, and eventually they’d reveal themselves to someone who was at the very least competent with a camera.
It can’t be a bear!!! Yes, it can. Bears, while not proficient in bipedal walking, can stumble around for a good 12-15 seconds. It’s seen by hikers when they wade through water or even on occasion to intimidate people. 12-15 seconds can seem like an eternity when your body triggers a fight-or-flight response and adrenaline courses through your body. Finally, if you have seen pictures/heard about the myth of Bigfoot, your mind can play tricks on you. Maybe make that carnivoran head into something more… apelike.
Plus, isn’t it odd that most of the sightings of bigfoot overlap with range of black bears?
Conclusion: What is Science and how it connects to Bigfoot?: It should be noted, science is not about proving something right. As Donald Prothero states in his book “Abominable Science”, “Science is always open to new discoveries,” this is something that happens very often, especially in Prothero’s field of Paleontology. One must be open to all possible hypotheses and make sure that they are testable under the scientific method. However, it should be noted that science is not about proving something to be true, but rather about proving if something is false. Cryptozoology is about finding something (a mythical animal in this case) and seeing if it’s true, normally, they have an objective, are not open to any other ideas other than this creature being true, and not if it’s false. As Prothero lays out a scientific hypothesis, “has to withstand the critical evaluation and peer-review process of the legions of scientists who are dedicated to shooting it down. Scientific hypotheses must always be tentative and subject to examination and modification, and they never reach the status of ‘final truth.’”. When scientists examine the hypothesis of Bigfoot or other primates existing in the New World, it’s not meant to be a personal attack on the proponents, but Cryptozoological advocates view it as inherently negative and an attack on their worldview. The burden of proof and presenting evidence is on the proponents, not on the peer-reviewers.
To close out this long profile/analysis, I will add, Bigfoot stories are intriguing and fascinating to me. They make great stories to tell your friends, and sound fascinating to any laymen. Though in my opinion, as cool as they are, I do not see much value/evidence that these purported long-lost primates exist.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Okay, this is a bit of a mix-up from what I normally do. As I said, I wanted to mix things up a bit and I hope you guys enjoy my ramblings/opinions on this mythical beast.
The model and skin was made by Ulquiorra and I just posed it to resemble the famous “look” at Patterson.
Now, I should note I have only just scratched the surface on Bigfoot and other legends. I do plan on doing more Cryptids and mythical monsters in due time, but if you want a better understanding, GO READ Abominable Science and Hunting Monsters because they did a fantastic job on pointing out these aspects.
Anyways, next couple of profiles will be paleo-profiles.
Sources:
The Problem with Patty. Let me begin by saying that I’m a… | by Chris Tharp | Medium
Hunting Monsters by Darren Naish
Abominable Science by Donald Prothero
And some of Darren Naish’s insightful commentary on Bigfoot linked in the text.

Also, the artwork/profiles I referenced is:
Forest people - Pongine apes by artbyjrc on DeviantArt
WW Creature: Gigantopithecus blacki by WDGHK on DeviantArt
Model and skin by Ulquiorra:
Sasquatch (Ulquiorra) | ZT2 Download Library Wiki | Fandom