Related:
Finding Bigfoot - Full Episodes
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Friday, November 28, 2014
Debunking Claimed Patterson-Gimlin Film Bigfoot Hoaxer Bob Heironimus
 |
| Bob Heironimus claims to have been the Bigfoot depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film |
Furthermore, there is the film analysis of Bill Munns and National Geographic showing the subject's proportions do not match that of any known human. This is coupled with his experimental work trying to build A Bigfoot costume to match the look of the 1967 film, resulting in his co-authorship of a peer-reviewed paper with Meldrum showing that the film subject is consistent with real anatomy and not a Bigfoot suit. Munns studied film and worked for 35 years making monsters for films, museums, and wildlife exhibits, thus is also highly-qualified for the study have done. Their conclusions cannot be dismissed.
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film - Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Cracking the Bigfoot Code (ThinkerThunker)
How to tell a Bigfoot from a man in a monkey-suit, finally! (No, I'm not kidding)
***I misspoke when I said "look how long Patty's arm is compared to Bob's." It's not longer, it's just that her shoulder placement is SO MUCH lower than ours, it makes her arms look longer. That and her catcher's mitt-sized hands. So the fact that her arms (scaled down to our size) are the same length as ours makes arm extensions even more ridiculous.
Also; some believe that the suit is worn lower to make the legs look shorter. Which is also ridiculous! That would throw her "thigh-to-shin" ratio off, making her thigh look way too short compared to her shin. Give up - ratios win :)
Bottom line: suits can ADD bulk or length, but they can't subtract. And looking at Patty, scaled down to Bob's size, her shoulders appear to be much, much lower on her frame than his. Suits can't do that.
Here we explore the difference between our walk and whomever or whatever it was walking in the Patterson Bigfoot Film.
Further analysis from ThinkerThunker showing that Heironimus's shoulders, elbows, and knees do not match the Patterson footage: You think Bigfoot is a hoax? Explain this
Meldrum talks about the embedded video above and addresses Bob Heironimus.
Was the Patterson-Gimlin film ever proven to be a hoax?
posted by Matt Moneymaker; January 31, 2010  |
 |
| 2010 National Geographic documentary "American Paranormal: Bigfoot." You must see the program on large screen television to appreciate certain details of the analysis and anatomy, but for those of you outside the U.S. and Canada, there is a low-res YouTube version available. Click the icon above. Check the homepage for this series for the next scheduled broadcast ... on the newly redeemed National Geographic Channel. Do tell your friends to tune in. As one BF blogger already said, this documentary really "hits it out of the park!" |
But what about the rumors? What about the rumor that one of the people who helped obtain the footage "confessed" to wearing the costume?
There are, in fact, several different stories involving different people who claimed (or were suspected) to be the man in the costume ...
Logically, if the stories involve different culprits ... then most of those stories must be completely bogus ... because not everybody who made the claim of being the guy in the costume ... was the guy in the costume ...
Some of those bogus stories have been commercially exploited in books and TV documentaries. That his how most people have "heard" that the Patterson footage was "proven to be a hoax".
On this page you will find links to youtubery of the most influential documentaries, and some relevant background informaton most influential rumor of all -- the Hieronimous "confession".
Thankfully, in January 2010 new information was presented on television which graphicly demonstrates that all of those costume stories were falsified.
A new documentary on the National Geographic Channel titled "American Paranormal: Bigfoot" presented some compelling math and anatomy to show it's not a costume at all.
The strategy for analysis of the Patterson creature built upon strategies employed in prior documentaries, namely "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" and at least one episode of Monsterquest (History Channel).
That's not a bad thing. The three different examinations all mutually corroborate each other in various ways. The mathematical data of the latest examination gives a more precise measurement of the Patterson creature's height:
Seven (7) foot, six and a half (6 1/2) inches tall
The math is there to be re-examined, anytime.
There wasn't sufficient time in the documentary to examine any of the pervasive hoax rumors still floating around, but that can be done here.
All the Costume Confessions, Now Obsolete
Between the beginning of 1996 and the end of 1999, a new crop of PGF debunking rumors blossomed, as large segments of the North American population were connecting to the Internet for the first time. Some of those claims were promoted by clever opportunists. A handful of these rumors received regional press attention. A few received national press attention.
The stories did not corroborate each other. They were all contradictory in their details, but they all claimed to debunk the Patterson footage. After a while it became increasingly ludicrous to hear more stories claiming to be the "final resolution of the mystery."
Ironically, the most influential rumor floating around today is the one inadvertently promoted by the National Geographic Channel a few years back, in 2005 ... The series title was "Is it Real?". The episode title was "Bigfoot." Youtubery of this old episode can be accessed below.
The episode featured a new liar "confessing" to be "the man in the costume." His name is Bob Hieronimous. Millions of people apparently saw that episode, or heard about it from others, because people often bring it up with us. His "confession" has even found its way into foreign publications describing nature mysteries around the world.
At least this confessor lived in Yakima (where Patterson was from). Hieronimous claims he was friends with Roger Patterson, and accompanied Patterson and Gimlin to Nor Cal with his costume. Patterson's widow says he's lying. Bob Gimlin says he's lying. No one can corroborate Hieronimous' claim that he accompanied Patterson and Gimlin. Various living witnesses near Bluff Creek say Patterson and Gimlin were not accompanied by anyone. No one ever saw Hieronimous with those two. Hieronimous doesn't know where they went exactly, or which route they too ... Indeed, there is every reason to believe Hieronimous is trying to attach himself to the Patterson story with his own fiction.
Roger Patterson apparently knew Bob Hieronimous before he obtained the footage in 1967. Patterson had been wanting to film a low budget documentary about the subject. He organzied some people in Yakima for some stock scenes on horseback for his film. Bob Hieronimous was apparently one of those people, but that appears to be the extend of his assocation with Roger.
***
In the nine years between the widely publicized Jerry Crew tracks in October, 1958, and the Patterson-Gimlin footage in October, 1967, several people in the Northwest had the idea of making a documentary about the bigfoot mystery, but only a few actually made progress in that direction. Patterson was, apparently, the only one among them who was willing and capable of leading extended horsepacking trips in the mountains where tracks were being found most often -- down around Bluff Creek, California.
Hieronimous may have looked for a different way to obtain footage -- a much easier way, closer to home.
Hieronimous was aware of the widespread interest in the topic. Based on his own statements, it is obvious that he only looked upon the mystery as a opportunity for cashing in somehow. He may have acquired his own cheap gorilla costume before 1967 in preparation for hoaxing his own footage.
There are statements from people around Yakima who recall Hieronimous having some kind of furry costume in his trunk during that period, and remember his claims that he would try to fool some people with it. So there may have been a costume in his possession in the mid-1960's, but he didn't hang on to it, nor did anyone take a photo of him wearing it.
***
Hieronimous is, in fact, one of Bob Gimlin's neighbors, but Gimlin had little social contact with him over the years.
Gimlin has boarded and trained horses for decades. It was not uncommon to for him to board horses of neighbors. During the late 1960's one of the horses he boarded was owned by Hieronimous. It was, in fact, Hieronimous' horse that Bob brought down to Bluff Creek in 1967.
If Hieronimous had felt left out of Patterson's project by 1967, it would have added insult to injury to learn that his own horse was used by Gimlin on the horse trip that made them both famous.
***
 |
| Born in Missouri in 1931 and relocated to Yakima at a young age, Bob Gimlin is a tough but intriguing character. Part Chirokowa Apache, and a former Navy boxing champion, and a former rodeo contender, he is adored by the nearby Yakama Indian tribe, having trained many of their mountain horses. |
 |
| After remaining silent about the PGF for nearly 30 years
(to protect his wife's job as a bank officer), Bob Gimlin
finally attended his first bigfoot conference in Willow Creek, California
2003. Now he periodically speaks at bigfoot conferences across the country. His name sells out auditoriums. People come from far and wide to meet him and ask him personally about the incident at Bluff Creek that day in 1967. |
 |
| One of the people who helped shape the Hieronimous story for the press
is a
notorious publicity scam-artist named Kal Korff -- a man described
by national radio talk show host Art Bell as "the most brazen media
deceiver in the country". He is more well known among UFO research
circles, and JFK Assassination Conspiracy circles. Korff is a curious species of self-promoter. Watch the video above to ascertain Korff's credibility. He has a delusional pathology similar to the late Erik Beckjord, combined with the publicity seeking compulsions of Biscardi. |
The reason Gimlin was involved with the Patterson footage to begin with was because of his reputation as a talented horseman. Patterson needed the toughest, most dependable horseman he could find for that 1967 trip in the mountains of Nor Cal. Everyone knew Gimlin was the best of the best in the region when it came to the sort of venture Patterson was proposing.
Yakima folks say Bob Hieronimous, by contrast, was always an under-achiever, since he was young. His bare-minimum work ethic won him no admirers in the community. He didn't have many friends, compared to Gimlin. Gimlin had a rather large circle of friends in the Yakima Valley.
Hieronimous lives right down the street from Bob and Judy Gimlin.
Compared to the Hieronimous property, the Gimlins seem to have done nicely for themselves. The Gimlins' home has always been well maintained, and nicely painted, and the landscaping nicely manicured. The Gimlins always had nicer, newer vehicles in their driveway too. The Hieronimous family could never keep up with those Joneses.
It was a formula for envy in a small western town.
Hieronimous had been telling people in Yakima bars for years that he would someday find a way to make money off the Patterson footage, like his famous neighbor did.
But Gimlin never made any money off the PGF, though many people around Yakima assumed he did.
When Hieronimous was asked, during an in-depth, on-camera interview why he was coming forward 40 years after the fact ... his reply confused the interviewer a bit. Hieronimous said, "All these people have been making money off that footage for years. It's my turn now." See that interview below.
He was referring to all the other people who had claimed to be involved with the footage, who Hieronimous assumed made money from their claims. It was time for him to get a piece of that action.
***
Gimlin's life story is an inspiring one. It was a progression of achievements, then harsh setbacks, and then even bigger achievements.
He began working in Washington's apple orchards at age 10, and worked continuously throughout World War II. When he was old enough, he joined the Navy and eventually became a champion Navy boxer. His Navy boxing career was cut short by an auto accident. The accident left him severely injured and hospitalized for more than a year.
As soon as he could walk again, Gimlin went back to work, doing everything from construction to demolition, to horse training, to rodeo riding, usually holding two jobs and working late hours. He did this until he could train horses full-time.
Today, in his 70's, Gimlin still works part-time as a horse trainer. He breaks and trains a particular breed of horse: the sure-footed, quiet-stepping Rocky Mountain horse. Its the ideal form of transportation for sneaking up on skittish wild animals.
Gimlin's wife, Judy, also worked diligently for decades. She began as a bank teller at the oldest savings and loan in Yakima. She eventually advanced to the rank of corporate officer for that savings and loan chain. She retired a few years ago, after 40 years with the same employer.
At one point during their younger years, Gimlin and Hieronimous were both hired by the same large industrial employer in Yakima, along with many other men in Yakima. In time, Bob Gimlin became a valuable employee for the company. Whereas, Bob Hieronimous showed little motivation and opted to perform light janitorial work around the facility. He swept up a bit, and changed a sprinkler head every so often, and spent a lot of time in the coffee room ... His supervisors eventually transferred him to a different facility. There he was kept busy stacking empty palettes and making deliveries of sodas.
From Hieronimous' own statements, one can sense his envy of Gimlin's prosperity, and his feeling of being cheated out of that same level of prosperity.
Hieronimous wanted to believe (and wanted his wife to believe) that Gimlin's success was the product of a dishonest scheme ... rather than the product of a better work ethic ...
 |
| Roger Patterson holding casts at Bluff Creek following the incident. Patterson and Gimlin were both quintessentially western characters, in a quintessentially western moment -- two tough, brave entrepreneurs on horseback, each with his own special talents and skills, including rodeo riding. They had all the right stuff at that moment in 1967, to film a fleeting encounter with an ancient legend. |
For many years Hieronimus grumbled to folks in Yakima bars that his neighbor's good fortune did not come from honest work, but rather from the proceeds of the Patterson footage.
 |
| The primary writer of the book promoting the new "confession", is a man named Greg Long. Greg Long came to this book project with a definite agenda for casting doubt and aspersions on the Patterson creature. His path to undermining the creature was to characterize the filmographer as a petty crook. Now people around Yakima are talking about their dealings with him, and the stories they say he distorted and stretched in his book. The book was designed to attach itself to any future debate about the subject-- a debate that has become a fixture in many writing & journalism classes, at the high school level, and undergrad level. |
| In the video above, Kal Korff talks about his involvement with Greg Long, Bob Hieronimous, and the making of "The Making of Bigfoot." |
When Greg Long was assembling the book featuring Hieronimous' confession, Gimlin was not yet talking. The parasitic trio (Long, Korff, Hieronimous) assumed he never would talk to the press, because he had avoided the press during the previous Patterson debunking scams.
It was bad gamble. Nowadays Gimlin attends bigfoot conferences ever so often. He is not shy to discuss things, especially the lies of Hieronimous, Korff and Long -- their lies about himself and about Roger Patterson.
Hieronimous' late-blooming "confession" is debunkable in various ways (listed further down in this article). Certain aspects are debunkable by author John Green. Other aspects are debunkable by Bob Gimlin and/or Patricia Patterson (Roger Patterson's widow). Both still live in different parts of Yakima, and both are available to speak to qualified journalists about this particular subject.
As it turns out, some of the Yakima residents who were quoted by Greg Long in his book now say their stories and comments about Roger were distorted in his book. They say Long seemed to be on a mission to make Roger Patterson out to be a petty criminal.
Roger was an unsophisticated cowboy, but a highly motivated, multi-skilled cowboy with big aspirations. Only a few years after obtaining the footage he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He died in 1972, at the age of 46. Apparently (and not surprisingly) Roger had not repaid all his personal debts, or completed all his planned projects, or returned all his borrowed items, before his cancer put him into the bed where he eventually died.
People who die of cancer in their prime of life often leave behind a lot of loose ends and debts. Does that make them petty criminals? Greg Long would have you think so.
Greg Long told folks around Yakima that Roger Patterson made a heap of money from the famous footage, and he (Greg Long) wanted to find anyone who was owed money by Patterson ... or who would otherwise bear witness against him, as Long claimed everybody in town was doing .... For example, Bob Hieronimous claims Roger owed him $1,000 for wearing the costume in the footage ...
The Real Story Behind the Patterson Footage
The real story behind the Patterson-Gimlin footage is a remarkable intersection of uniquely western talents, bravery and entrepreneurial motivation.
Had Gimlin not been a gifted handler of quiet-stepping Rocky Mountain horses, and had Patterson not been a seasoned rodeo rider, with a strong drive to make documentary about sasquatches ... the footage would probably not exist.
When the two men came into view of the creature, Roger's normally unspookable mountain horse reared up in panic and fell over on him. Roger's leg was pinned to the ground. With a thrashing horse pinning him to the ground, he pulled himself out from underneath it, and whipped out a 16mm camera from a saddle bag, and then dashed toward the fleeing figure, finally steadying his aim as it walked away.
It all happened faster than it takes to describe. You get a sense of how fast it actually happened when you watch the unstabilized full version of the footage.
It was a violent burst of energy and motion, then a quickly steadied control of his body and hands -- the characteristic maneuvers of a seasoned rodeo rider.
Patterson was not a hoaxer. Patterson was an authentic cowboy, on an authentic cowboy mission. He accomplished that mission on the afternoon of October 20, 1967... and then died from cancer a few years later (probably due to his cowboy lifestyle ...).
| Hieronimous Links Himself to the Footage | ||
| In 2005 a Seattle TV station produced an episode for "Evening Magazine" which focused on the Hieronimous claims. This program took a much more critical approach than the "Is it Real?" segment with Hieronimous. They also included clips of Canadian author John Green refuting the claims of Hieronimous. | ||
| See also: The article written by Canadian Bill Miller, mentioning other factors relevant to the credibility of Hieronimous' story, or lack thereof. | ||
 |
 |
The 2005 documentary on the National Geographic Channel was titled "Bigfoot: Is it Real?"
You can watch the entire documentary by clicking the vertical icon on the left.
The parasite trio (Long, Korff and Hieronimous) managed to use this documentary to promote their deceptive book, "The Making of Bigfoot."
Before the book's release, Long and Korff warned and promised (Biscardi-esque style) that the book would "blow the lid off the subject".
Among other things, the trio hoped their book would enrage everyone in the bigfoot research community, thereby baiting those folks to debate it extensively online. All three of these guys delighted in that idea. It gave them a feeling of power over bigfoot researchers.
Many people also heard a different man-in-the-costume "revelation" on a 1998 TV documentary on the Fox Entertainment Channel. It was titled "World's Greatest Hoaxes".
You can watch the entire "World's Greatest Hoaxes" documentary by clicking the vertical icon on the right.
The third widely broadcast program claiming to debunk the PGF was the 1999 BBC series "X Creatures". It was written by the young British host/director, Chris Packham -- a clever chap who walked right into America and solved the whole bigfoot mystery with a few phone calls from his motel room, and a few handy, unsupported conclusions at the end that he presented as reliable facts ...
See that documentary below, split into three parts. Packham's parting statements/summation, toward the end of part three, is the most ludicrous portion of the whole documentary.
| The BBC's Shameful and Deceiving Television Documentary | ||||||
| By the BBC's standards, Packham's
narration and investigative style is amazingly self-serving, and
strangely self-contradictory. Among Packham's tricks was his clever editing of the phone call with Bob Gimlin. What you don't see or hear in the documentary: Packham manipulatively goaded Gimlin on the phone into making some type of equivocating statement about the footage. Packham needed that type of statement from Gimlin. He needed something he could deceptively twist as "confession" by Gimlin that he's "not entirely sure" of what he saw that day. Packham goaded that type of statement by asking Gimlin, in such a tone as to gauge his reasonability ... if there could have been "any possibility at all" that it was a hoax. To which Gimlin gave an answer demonstrating that he wasn't too narrow-minded to consider the hoax possibility. Gimlin says Packham edited the phone conversation so it sounded like Packham merely asked Gimlin whether he "thinks it was a man rather than an animal." In that context Gimlin's response sounds much more equivocating than it was intended to be. But Packham had what he needed -- a statement that could be stretched to sound like doubts on the part of Gimlin. Not unlike Greg Long, Packham was on a predetermined mission to cast doubt on Roger and the footage. He had promises to keep back home. |
||||||
| The Second Big Deception The second deception was the costume. In this regard the American version of this X-Creatures episode was quite different from the version broadcast on British TV.
During the costume building sequence the designer hints at the difficulty they had matching their costume to the figure in the footage. Among other things, they could not match the fur with artificial fur, and they could not recreate the large moving muscles in the Patterson figure. Nevertheless, Packham touted their creation as an "exact match" of the Patterson creature, and even showed the "matching" costumes side by side .. The Third Big Deception Packham's script in "X Creatures" goes immediately to work deceiving the audience from the beginning. He explains that the subject really began with the Patterson footage. "It all goes back to the Patterson footage," he says. One of the big markets for the program was relatively uninformed British and European audiences -- audiences that wouldn't question the premise that the Bigfoot legend arose from the Patterson footage. The bigfoot legend pre-dates the Patterson footage by several decades, at least. Who Has this Version? If you, or someone you know, has a copy of Discovery Channel's version of X-Creatures: Bigfoot. Please upload the whole thing to YouTube and let us know. We'd like to link to it. Of particular importance, is the portion where the costume designers are running into problems recreating the Patterson "costume". |
||||||
The Significance of the Patterson-Gimlin Footage for Bigfoot Research
 |
| Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Professor of Anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatella. The image above shows him giving an authoritative lecture about the Patterson-Gimlin footage at a bigfoot conference. |
For a few years now, they have wanted to put this latest false confession to rest, because of how it affects attitudes toward the subject and public perceptions about all other bigfoot-related evidence.
If the Patterson footage is fake ... then how can anyone have confidence in any other bigfoot footage?
But that's exactly what PGF parasites take advantage of. They know that many people are so emotionally invested in the PGF images, they'll actually spend money on a book promising to reveal the truth about the footage, even if the book is a hoax itself.
Let there be no confusion about it: The PGF shows a real giant ape-woman in the wild. You can emotionally invest in those images, safely, without worrying about feeling betrayed later on. There will surely be more bogus allegations about the PGF down the line, but nothing more than allegations. New confessors coming forward in the future will need to have increasingly bizarre stories to explain why so many years passed before they revealed their secret ...
It may be impossible to scientifically prove that a given clip of bigfoot footage is authentic (without physical remains to authenticate it), but it is not impossible to disprove a fraudulent debunking like the Hieronimous "confession".
Background on the events of 1967
In the summer of 1967 Gimlin was asked to accompany his friend and fellow rodeo rider Roger Patterson on a horsepacking trip to Northern California. Patterson wanted to obtain footage of a sasquatch for his own documentary about the subject. Gimlin was regarded as the best horseman in the Yakima region -- the obvious choice for a partner on a long horsepacking trip.
As we all know, Patterson obtained some footage on that trip, but Gimlin never earned anything from it. After Roger died, Gimlin assumed he had no legal claim to any proceeds from the footage. He eventually signed a document transferring any *potential rights* in the footage to Canadian sasquatch researcher Rene Dahinden. Dahinden had harassed the Gimlins so much that Bob finally signed the agreement just to make Dahinden go away. Dahinden paid Gimlin $1.00 to relinquish those potential rights to him.
Dahinden ran with that for years, sending letters from lawyers to TV production companies that used the footage. He demanded a $500 fee from those production companies that used the footage on TV, and he usually got it.
Those TV rights actually belonged to Patricia Patterson but she did not have the network of groupies that Dahinden had. Dahinden had a decent following of people who would always tip him off to various TV programs in America that used the footage. Only after Dahinden died in 2001 did Patricia come to learn what Dahinden had been doing all those years, after Bob Gimlin signed that agreement in exchange for $1.00.
 |
Author John Green says Hieronimus' description of the 1967 Nor Cal trip and his timeline don't match up with the facts, not by a long shot. Gimlin is equally adamant that the encounter filmed in Bluff Creek that day involved a real animal, not a man in a costume.
Hieronimus' initial ploy was to quickly sell his "confession" to the tabloids for a heap of money. It seemed like a slam dunk. There were a few papers around Yakima that fell for the "confession" and printed short articles about it ... but the tabloids didn't bite. With no visual evidence to back up his claim, they didn't need to pay a heap of money to him. Tabloid staff writers could fabricate more sensational bigfoot stories on their own.
Eventually Hieronimus' "confession" caught the attention of other opportunists, like Greg Long and Kal Korff, who came to Hieronimus with book and film plans for the confession.
| In one part of the program Hieronimous
boasts that "the scientists all say no human can walk like this figure."
On several occasions he has given a demonstration of the "bigfoot walk"
while wearing cowboy boots with significant heels, which tend to keep
the knees more bent when walking. His "bigfoot walk" seems close enough, at first glance, to casual observers. Hieronimous draws your attention to his walking style, distracting attention from what is most strikingly different between the two figures -- the limb ratios (arm length vs. leg length). Quite clearly the figure in the Patterson footage has a different skeleton than Hieronimous. The comparative overlay above, by itself, visually proves that Hieronimous was not the Patterson creature, beyond any shadow of a doubt. |
1) Hieronimus has given three (3) contradictory versions of his confession to various journalists -- contradictory regarding the "costume" description. Specifically, he has changed his description of the costume, dramatically, three times. The contradictions are so blatant that the only reasonable explanation is that the whole story is fake.
2) Hieronimous is still not able to demonstrate a matching costume, even with expert assistance. As the Hieronimus crew continues to introduce new costumes, to more closely approximate the Patterson creature, the more obvious it is that Hieronimus didn't have anything do with it the first time either.
3) Hieronimous does not know anything about the route to get to the film site, as if he was never there.
4) His explanation for why he never asked for the $1,000 from Gimlin or Patterson ... doesn't make any sense. Many things in his confession make no sense.
5) When Hieronimous is asked why he's telling this story to the public 40 years later, he says "It's my turn now" ... refering to the other parasite scammers who have made claims about the footage in previous years.
6) The comparative visuals clearly show that the Patterson creature has a different skeleton than Bob Hieronimous (or any human, for that matter). See the comparative footage on the left.
Three Contradictory Versions of the Hieronimous Confession
Version #1, Costume Description Hieronimus said Roger Patterson killed a red horse and made a costume from its heavy, stinking hide. Quotes from Bob Hieronimus, in 2001: "Roger skinned out a dead red horse ... [The costume] stunk ... It weighed maybe twenty, twenty five pounds. It was a little bit heavy ... Horsehide would be heavy." "It was made of three parts. It had legs. It had a corset or middle piece between the neck and waist. And it had a head." |
 Hieronimus' first story described his costume as a heavy costume made from the hide of a red horse. He says it stunk like a dead animal. |
|
 PGF Frame 352 |
||
Version #2, Costume Description Hieronimus subsequently agrees that the costume was a simple, gorilla costume, manufactured by Morris Costumes in North Carolina in the 1960's. In this second version of his confession, the fur of the creature was dynel nylon threads stitched to a woven cloth backing -- nothing like the hide of a "dead red horse" that he previously described. This dramatic modification of his original "confession" was prompted by a publicity-hungry costume maker in North Carolina named Phillip Morris. Morris also wanted to take some credit for the Patterson footage, somehow, and possibly market a new costume. Although Morris has no records showing the sale of a costume to Roger Patterson, he is nevertheless certain that he provided the costume used in the famous footage. Morris claims that a man named Roger Patterson bought a discount gorilla costume. Somehow he remembers that sale, though there is no record of it. He also claims he "recognized" the gorilla costume when he saw the Patterson footage on TV one day. How coincidental! The photo on the upper right shows the costume Morris "recognized" from the Patterson footage. |
 A photo of the gorilla costume Hieronimus said was used. The man in the photo is costume maker Phillip Morris. In this same photo Morris appears as his "Dr. Evil" TV host character. The TV show was a horror film showcase which aired in the 1950's in the southern United States. Prior to his recent claims about the Patterson footage, Morris got media attention for his demands for compensation from the producers of the Austin Powers film series. Morris claimed the Mike Meyer's "Dr. Evil" character infringed on Morris' previously unregistered trademark for an obscure line of "Dr. Evil" costume products. Lawyers for the Austin Powers producers easily demonstrated that the two different "Dr. Evil" characters were developed independently, and would not be confused by the public. |
|
 Mike Myers as "Dr. Evil" |
||
Version #3, Costume Description Sometime after Costume Description #2, Hieronimus and Morris came up with a new costume replica of the Patterson creature, which Morris said he could make more duplicates of for 7-8 thousand dollars. The latest costume is a custom-made, latex-enhanced non-stretching quirky creation. It's a very far cry from what Hollywood special effects folks say would have been required, and nothing like the simple gorilla costume that Morris originally claimed was sold to Patterson in the 1960s, which Morris claimed he "recognized" on TV when he saw the Patterson footage. The Version #3 Costume is pictured on the right. It is held up by Morris and Hieronimus. The images on the right are from the last television story done about Bob Hieronimus, on the local news channel in Yakima. At the height of the scam, television and newspaper reporters in Yakima ran with the Hieronimus "confession" story without paying much attention to the blatant, graphic inconsistencies. |
   | |
Joe Nickell Promotes his Patterson Debunking Book
Analysis of a frame from the 1967 Roger Patterson "Bigfoot" film shows
evidence of fakery. Costumer Phil Morris reports he sold Patterson a
gorilla suit and material for modifying it, while a man named Bob
Heironimus says he wore it for the hoax.--Joe Nickell
Fans, you all know how well Phillip Morris and Bob Heironimus did re-creating the Patterson/Gimlin film back in 2005. No? Here check it out.
Phil Morris (left) with Bob Heironimus (right) on set of the 2005
National Geographic documentary Behind the Mysteries. Bob in Phil's suit
(inset) failing to come close to re-creating the Patterson/Gimlin film
One of the biggest fails in the re-creation is the "stovepiping" of the hind leg (this is when the pant-like leg looks like a stovepipe). We didn't even have to use our "pants detecting technology" to see Phill's Costume is a far cry from Patty in the Patterson/Gimlin film. So, who is this Joe Nickell?
According to Huffington Post Joe Nickell, Ph.D, is...
"...perhaps the world’s only full-time professional paranormal investigator – with a background to match. He has spent his life collecting “personas”: carnival pitchman, stage magician (he was Resident Magician at a Houdini museum), private investigator (for a world-famous detective agency), folklorist and historian, forensic-science author, historical document consultant, and many, many others.Last Saturday (08/13/2011) Loren Coleman posted on Cryptomundo a response to an article on i09.com promoting Nickell's book, Tracking the Man-Beasts. In the post Coleman isolates Nickell's argument:
In a field where people too often divide into “believers” and “debunkers” – those whose minds are made up in advance of inquiry – Nickell has gained international acclaim and respect as a successful, fair-minded investigator, choosing neither to foster mysteries nor reject them.
Taking a hands-on approach, he has traveled around the world to investigate the strangest mysteries – often innovative strategies such as conducting an original experiment, applying a forensic science in a unique way, doing painstaking historical research, or even going undercover and in disguise. Nickell sees science as a progression of solved mysteries.
"...Then the Patterson film was made in 1967. It attracted widespread publicity and was shown on popular national talk shows. From that point forward, variations in Sasquatch sightings began to dwindle. Creatures sighted after the release of the Patterson film exhibited a great tendency to resemble the creature depicted in the film." --Joe NickellNickell's i09.com Article has some interesting points, and we recommend reading Loren Coleman's post for balance.
Besides i09.com, Nickell has also written an article for Huffington Post. You can read article in it's entirety below.
Paranormal Investigation: From Big Foot To AliensRelated:
Written by Joe Nickell, Ph.D.,
If legends and even many eyewitness accounts are to be believed, since ancient times we have shared our planet with various "man-beasts" - monsters that are more or less in our image. While monsters are often consigned to ancient legend and literary fiction, many are held to be in some sense real. Such paranormal beings (those beyond the normal range of science and human experience) include supernatural ones, such as the werewolf, as well as others (like the Yowie, Australia's version of Bigfoot) that, if they indeed exist, could be perfectly natural creatures. These are those embraced by cryptozoology, the study of unknown or "hidden" creatures (i.e., cryptids).
I have been studying these and other reputed paranormalities for 40 years. By 1995 I had become, apparently, the world's only full-time professional paranormal investigator. I have studied mythological, folkloric, and literary monsters; traveled to remote regions in search of legendary creatures; sought vampire graves in Vermont; visited carnival midways to meet human "monsters," look behind the scenes at exhibited spiderwomen and the like, and witness the transformation of a lovely girl into a wild gorilla; took part in a nighttime expedition with Bigfoot hunters; and explored the Pacific Bigfoot country.
In the slides that follow, as well as in my new book "Tracking the Man-Beasts," we set out to track the man-beasts - to separate fact from fancy.
You can see the slides here.
Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film - Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum
Peer-reviewed Science Proving the Patterson-Gimlin Film is not of a Bigfoot Costume but a Novel Primate Species
If Patty Was a Costume, Why Can't They Recreate It?
Skeptic Questions Patterson Bigfoot Tracks
Sunday, November 16, 2014
A Figure in the Distance Plus Giant Tracks Could Add Up to a Squatch!
This week, the team splits into four groups to cover more ground in Idaho. Matt and his partner Rob meet with two witnesses who claim to have seen a large figure - along with tracks - up on a hill near a casino in Idaho. Watch Sunday @ 10 PM E/P.
Related:
Finding Bigfoot - Full Episodes
Related:
Finding Bigfoot - Full Episodes
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Anaheim Hills residents going ape over gorilla-like creature sighting
The overall consensus is that this is a guy in a gorilla suit and we agree.
Published: Nov. 14, 2014 Updated: 3:17 p.m.
Published: Nov. 14, 2014 Updated: 3:17 p.m.
Baby Bigfoot or just a guy in a gorilla suit?
Whatever it is, folks over at the Anaheim Hills Buzz Facebook group are going ape trying to decipher the mysterious video shot in a quiet neighborhood shortly after 1 a.m. Sunday.
As of Thursday morning, more than 100 Buzzers had posted comments on Facebook speculating about the footage.
Brian Ogawa provided a copy of the video to the Register and explained how it was shot by his friend, who has asked to remain anonymous.
"The purpose of the video was to record the coyotes coming into the community," he said. "We have been having a lot of them coming in, and he was recording them using a game camera inside his car. The camera was on, facing west of Brightstar on the corner of Sundance in Anaheim Hills. We have no idea what is it, and both of us are getting a kick out of it and what kind of 'buzz' its making."
Post Halloween prankster or supernatural sighting? You decide.
Friday, November 14, 2014
A Bigfoot Was Shaking Trees Behind Les Stroud On Alaska Episode
The Bigfoot Project
Published on Nov 4, 2014
Many commenters point out that this not shaking trees at all, but rather reeds moving as Les lays down his bundle of grass.
Published on Nov 4, 2014
Many commenters point out that this not shaking trees at all, but rather reeds moving as Les lays down his bundle of grass.
Giant Footprints in the Mud Spark Disagreement | Finding Bigfoot
A local man in Fairbanks captured some very interesting footprints on video a while back, which Ranae and Cliff can't agree on. | For more Finding Bigfoot, visit http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows/...
Related:
Finding Bigfoot - Full Episodes
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Colorado's Yellow Top Bigfoot
Published on Nov 11, 2014
I've seen the original version of this pop up again on the net and people involved in serious discussions about it. Oh My.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Bigfoot - Evidence, No Evidence and Debunkers
 |
| Bigfoot on trial |
This
post by Thomas Marcum, Thomas is the founder/leader of the
cryptozoology and paranormal research organization known as The Crypto
Crew. Over 20 years experience with research and investigation of
unexplained activity, working with video and websites. A trained wild land firefighter and a published photographer, and poet.
Bigfoot - Evidence, No Evidence and Debunkers
When talking about Bigfoot one can expect to get some raised eyebrows and maybe a few smirks. But mention that you have actually encountered the elusive creature and/or found evidence to support it and many people will quickly start calling you crazy, delusional or ask what drugs you are on. In other words they really bring into question your character.
The Bigfoot research field is full of lovable, but wacky people who have good intentions but see 92 bigfoot in every photograph. So the label of delusional might fit in some cases. I think some of them know there is nothing in their photos and they just do it to cause a stir or get attention, or maybe it's just for kicks.
The people most difficult to deal with are the people who hide behind the façade of being a true bigfoot believer and/or researcher, but continually discredit any and all evidence. They are the ones that say there is no evidence or proof of bigfoot and they use the same old rehearsed lines we all have heard many times over. They join Bigfoot group after Bigfoot group and follow the topic heavily. Any evidence that is presented is quickly shot down and statements made about no real evidence.
If someone states they have actually seen a Bigfoot, these phony Bigfoot Debunking believers quickly tell them they were mistaken and that it was probably a bear or tree stump. This could just be a play to get a "debate" started. They attempt to debunk any and all evidence, all the while saying they believe in Bigfoot and have years of experience and vast knowledge of ....well everything.
The thing is, they don't understand what constitutes evidence or what is considered evidence.
Lets look at three types of evidence - 1. Circumstantial evidence 2. Direct evidence and 3. Shoe and Tire Tread evidence.
Circumstantial Evidence - is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime, or in this case a Bigfoot track at a sighting area. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
Now the reason I brought this up is that these Bigfoot debunkers always dismiss witness testimony. This brings us to Direct evidence.
Direct Evidence - Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence.
So, if we have a creditable witness that says they saw a Bigfoot, this is direct evidence and should not be dismissed. Of course, the creditability of the witness can be questioned but when it comes to Bigfoot there have been witnesses from all walks of life including Policemen, Ministers, Firefighters, and many more good common down to earth people. Yet it is all dismissed by these Bigfoot believing debunkers.
Another type of evidence I want to cover is Shoe and Tire Tread Evidence.
Shoe and Tire Tread Evidence - Evidence which falls within this category includes shoes, tires, plaster casts, prints, and photographs of shoe or tire prints and impressions.
Shoe or tire "prints" are of a two-dimensional nature, having
length and width. These are commonly found on pieces of paper as
dust prints or can be made by tracking through mediums such as
blood, water, oil, and dirt.
Shoe or tire "impressions" are three-dimensional in nature,
having length, width, and height. This type of evidence is usually
found in soil and is collected and reserved by the use of a plaster
cast.
But yet, plaster casting of Bigfoot tracks are, for the most part,
dismissed by these debunkers. They always say they are faked. Again,
witness creditability would come into play.
Now, looking at these three types of evidence, it is very clear there IS
plenty of evidence surrounding Bigfoot, now whether you accept it or
not is on you but don't say there is no evidence when in fact there is a
lot of it.
Also, don't kid yourself, the government and some scientist have to know about Bigfoot. I just can't see a way that they couldn't.
But I have to ask, does it really matter or make a difference if Bigfoot is recognized by science, the general public or the government?
Would it mean that there would be more bigfoot? I'm sure it would have some positive and some negative effects, most of them directly effecting Bigfoot itself. Would the government, science or the general public recognizing Bigfoot change what you saw? Other than feeling validated, it would not change the fact of what you saw. Many hair samples have been tested over the years. Some results came back as "Unknown" or "Unknown primate", did it change anything? Not really.
It's just funny how some people go to great lengths telling others what they saw or didn't see.
While I do like science and trust science for the most part, but it does not have all the answers. I'll take an actual experience over science just about every time. Would you rather have a doctor who had only read books but never preformed a heart surgery working on you or the guy who had preformed over 1000 heart operations. Maybe not the best example because doctors have to do both but it should illustrate that experience is the best teacher. I often use this example, it's like someone who has never ate an apple telling you what one taste and feels like, it's just not the same as the person who has actually ate an apple.
In many cases it is just going to take having a personal experience or sighting of a Bigfoot to convince some people.
But the question remains, Why would people, who say they believe in Bigfoot go to such great lengths to try and prove it don't exist? Could they be party of some attempt to discredit belief in Bigfoot? We have seen this for years in the UFO community. Could it be that these people just like to argue and fight on the Internet? Maybe in some cases. Could some of these debunkers be hired or work for some disinformation or discrediting agency? I think it is possible, it was done and now admitted to, in the UFO community. Watch the movie Mirage Men, it tells about it.
Now, here is my pitch of a TV show idea - We get a judge, a jury, and some lawyers and put Bigfoot on trial. We have the "Skeptics and Debunkers" Vs. the "Believers and Researchers". Both sides would present evidence, witnesses and experts, the jury would come back with a verdict, is Bigfoot Real or Fake? I'm sure the answer would be "The jury finds that there is sufficient evidence leading to the conclusion that Bigfoot is indeed Real!" Sounds like a good show to me. (I'll take a 20 Percent lifetime royalty, please)
I guess in the end it really don't matter, at lest to me. No amount of doubt, belittling, debate or skepticism could ever change the fact of what I have found and encountered, Bigfoot is real.
It also does not change people who have had a real Bigfoot sighting. They, like me, don't really care who believes them or not. They know what they saw and you could never change their minds.
One thing about it, the Bigfoot community is full of the wild, the wacky and the wonderful. Just pick a side. You're gonna love it!
Thanks
~Tom~
[Sources: firearmsid, Wikipedia]
Bruno Howls
For two days in late October, 2013, an unseen vocalizer made loud
moaning howls, whoops and wood knocks in the hills near Bruno, West
Virginia. A local resident managed to capture four clips of that
vocalizer with their cell phone, and those clips were quickly shared
with the BFRO. This video spectrogram is an illustrated playback of the
vocals captured in those clips. They are fairly to exceptionally clear,
but head phones are recommended to achieve the best possible listening
experience.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Bigfoot In China Documentary
Take a journey to the Far East, to the remote Chinese province of Hubai
to discover what locals have dubbed the "Wild-Man." Witnesses have
reported seeing a creature that is covered in reddish-brown hair, walks
on two legs and is anywhere from five to seven-feet tall. Chinese
authorities have collected over one hundred samples of unidentified
hairs from the alleged monster and claim that it is just a matter of
time before they capture this "Wild-Man." Join an international team of
experts in a search for answers.
The Story of Jacko, 1884
Link .. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/crea...
Animation is from Patterson sighting.
Please visit my website at http://www.YouRTubeNews.ning.com
The Story of Jacko
The story of Jacko – that of a small, apelike, young Sasquatch said to have been captured alive in the 1800s – is a piece of folklore that refuses to die, despite a superb investigative article published in 1975, co-authored by John Green and Sabina W. Sanderson.
The investigation into the Jacko story did not began until decades later. During the 1950s, a news reporter named Brian McKelvie became interested in the then-current stories of the Sasquatch being carried by his local British Columbian papers. McKelvie searched for older reports. What he found was the Daily British Colonist July 4, 1884, article about Jacko. The account detailed the sighting of a smallish hairy creature (“something of the gorilla type”) supposedly seen and captured near Yale, British Columbia, on June 30, 1884, and housed in a local jail.
McKelvie shared the Jacko account with researchers John Green and René Dahinden. MeKelvie told them this was the only record of the event due to a fire that had destroyed other area newspapers of the time.
In 1958 John Green found and interviewed a man (August Castle) who remembered the Jacko talk of the time, but he said his parents did not take him to the jail to see the beast. Other senior citizens remembered the talk of the creature, but no one could produce any truly good evidence for or eyewitness accounts (other than the British Colonist story) of Jacko.
The story’s appearance in Ivan T. Sanderson’s 1961 Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life propelled the Jacko incident into history. Other authors, including John Green, René Dahinden/Don Hunter, Grover Krantz, and John Napier, would follow. The story was repeated again and again.
John Green continued digging into story and finally discovered that microfilms of British Columbia newspapers from the 1880s existed at the University of British Columbia. Green then found two important articles that threw light on the whole affair.
The New Westminster, British Columbia, Mainland Guardianof July 9, 1884, mentioned the story and noted: “The ‘What Is It’ is the subject of conversation in town. How the story originated, and by whom, is hard for one to conjecture. Absurdity is written on the face of it. The fact of the matter is, that no such animal was caught, and how the Colonist was duped in such a manner, and by such a story, is strange.”
On July 11, 1884, the British Columbian carried the news that some 200 people had gone to the jail to view Jacko. But the “only wild man visible” was a man, who was humorously called the “governor of the goal [jail], who completely exhausted his patience” fielding the repeated inquiries from the crowd about the nonexistent creature.
As Green has pointed out, the Colonist never disputed its critics. Green (with Sanderson’s widow) wrote of the Jacko story as a piece of probable historical journalistic fiction in the article, “Alas, Poor Jacko,” in Pursuit published in 1975.
Unfortunately, a whole new generation of hominologists, Sasquatch searchers, and Bigfoot researchers are growing up thinking that the Jacko story is an ironclad cornerstone of the field, a foundation piece of history proving that Sasquatch are real. But in reality Jacko may have more to do with local rumors brought to the level of a news story that eventually evolved into a modern fable.
Loren Coleman © 2003
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That ends the retelling of this tale from my book, Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America (NY: Simon and Schuster, 2003), on pages 41-42.
Artist Mordicai Sulk’s unique view of a young Sasquatch.
Some additional thoughts might be helpful to consider.
The complete description of this apparently newspaper cryptofiction creation, Jacko, is as follows: “Something of the gorilla type standing four feet seven inches in height and weighing 127. He has long, black, strong hair and resembles a human being with one exception, his entire body, excepting his hands, (or paws) and feet are covered with glossy hair about an inch long. His fore arm is much longer than a man’s fore arm.” (from “What Is It? A Strange Creature Captured Above Yale ~ A British Columbia Gorilla,” Victoria, British Columbia, Daily Colonist, July 4, 1884).
John Green’s 1978 book, Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us expresses his feeling that “it doesn’t look good for Jacko,” but people have uncritically reported the Jacko story, with elder citizens’ remembrances of the media attention to it, as if that is evidence for the reality of Jacko. Anyone re-researching this story should be aware that there are those who wish to continue to “believe” this journalistic tale tall. One part of their argument is that the media excitement of those times is justification for a factual basis in the creature, even though, of course, there is no direct correlation between those two elements of this hairy melodrama.
Other overblown claims have been made about how thoroughly the subject has been investigated.
For example, it has been widely disseminated, incorrectly, that Myra Shackley “did perhaps the most exhaustive effort in the search for Jacko.” Those writing such statements appear to have not read Shackley’s recycling of the news item and her brief paragraph following it. They do not seem to realize how illogical their comments are, for Shackley merely referenced and rehashed John Green’s early research.
Dr. Myra Shackley conducted remarkable and outstanding research on hominoids, but most of her work on Sasquatch was limited to a review of others’ findings. Her speciality was Eurasia. Here above she is shown in 1980, on “Arthur C. Clarke’s Mysterious World” television program.
For Bigfoot researchers to say that Shackley “actually found a resident by the name of August Castle whom confirmed the newspaper report,” belies the facts of the case. She did not.
The youthful newspaper editor John Green spent several years interviewing oldtimers in Western Canada about their earlier Sasquatch encounters.
The Castle interview was conducted in 1958, by Green, when Castle was 80 years old and when Shackley, living in England, would have been 13 years old! Shackley’s research into relict Neanderthal populations took her to Mongolia in 1969, when she was 29, not to British Columbia to do “exhaustive research” on Sasquatch.
Shackley abandoned her hominological research in the late 1980s, after she wrote Wildmen: Yeti, Sasquatch and the Neanderthal Enigma (London: Thames & Hudson, 1983). No doubt August Castle was deceased by the time her long-distance Sasquatch research began and her writings were published.
Few have commented on the use of the name “Jacko,” or that it was called a “gorilla,” so let me share some historical context notes on these aspects of the 1884 story.
During the early days of finding great apes and talk of monkeys, there was a tendency to name them “Jocko,” or by corruption, “Jacko.”
One famed painting from France that appeared entitled Le Jocko, in the late 18th century speaks to how some primates were named “Jocko.” The painting below is by Jean-Baptiste Audebert (1759-1800), and is listed in auctions and libraries as Le Jocko / Simia Satyrus. The beautiful rare print is dated 1797 [-1800], and is from one of the greatest monographic work on mammals ever published, Histoire Naturelle des Singes, which appeared in only 138 published copies.
What species do you think it might have been?
For those that wish to tie the British Columbian “Jacko” with P. T. Barnum, it must be pointed out that the appearance of “Jocko” occurred from August 28, 1865 through September 2, 1865, at Barnum’s American Museum in New York City, fully 19 years before the news article was published of “Jacko’s capture” in Canada.
It appears that since 1849, a play involving a monkey-man role on Broadway was being performed in a pantomime called “Jocko.” Barnum merely provided a temporary setting for this famed play.
As the anthropologist Jane Goodall explained during a November 1, 2002 ABC radio interview:
In the show business, Jocko was an old friend and familiar who could stage his return in any guise he pleased, and be confident of a warm reception. The story of “Jocko or the Brazilian Ape’ involved a child and monkey in parallel roles, and the pantomime, first performed in Paris in 1825, was choreographed so that their movements offered mirror images. Jocko the ape has been adopted by an enlightened plantation owner. After being rescued from a killer serpent the plantation owner is determined to educate him. And Jocko repays the favour by rescuing the owner’s son from a shipwreck, then saving him in turn from the killer serpent. The plantation workers, not as enlightened as the boss, become suspicious of the ape and attack him. But he’s rescued again, and in the finale, Jocko and the child dance side by side, as adoptive brothers.
The idea that there was an ape in the family, supposedly so shocking to the Victorians, was evidently hugely enjoyable to popular theatre audiences who’d embraced it long before Darwin put his particular spin on it.
When the pantomime was recreated for New York audiences, it became less precious and sentimental, more acrobatic. And it set off a craze for burlesque imitations. Jocko, variously camped up, was soon making appearances in the minstrel shows as a character in his own right, a cult figure who could be relied upon to get the audience cracking up. He was the outsider who was on intimate terms with them, communicating through comic mime with expressions and gestures that became a well known code.
If things were not confusing enough, P. T. Barnum began “exhibiting” a Russian man in 1884, billed as “Jo Jo – The Dogfaced Boy.”
The use of the name “Jocko” to denote apes and monkeys continues into modern times. In the 20th century, The Adventures of Jo, Zette and Jocko (1936-1957) was a comic book (or bande dessinée) series created by the famed Hergé, the Belgian writer-artist Georges Prosper Remi (May 22, 1907 – March 3, 1983), who was best known for The Adventures of Tintin (1929-1983). The heroes of the series are two young children, brother and sister Jo and Zette Legrand and their pet monkey Jocko. The monkey Jocko sometimes appeared on the back covers of various editions of The Adventures of Tintin (one of the best of which was about the Yeti).
What of the use of the word “gorilla” in British Columbia in 1884?
In North America, at the end of the 19th century, the use of “gorilla” in article references (as I detailed in a Fortean Times column in 1997), is directly related to the media attention about gorillas whipped up by Du Chaillu’s sensationalistic travels in Africa and his book that came out in 1861.
Vernon Reynolds (in The Apes, 1967. p. 137) writes: “After (Du Chaillu’s) trip, which lasted from 1856 to 1859, Du Chaillu returned to the United States, where he received widespread acclaim.”
In 1863, another famous gorilla/travel book was published, written by American explorer Winwood Reade, after he spent five months in gorilla country. Nineteenth century articles about “strange creatures” – whether real or imagined – often thus labeled them as “gorillas.”
While a parallel tribe of wild men and women, often hairy and uncivilized, in the Pacific Northwest, living harmoniously and contemporarily with the Indians, was taken somewhat for granted by the First Nations people, it would not be until the 1920s when J. W. Burns introduced “Sasquatch” and in 1958 when Andrew Genzoli disseminated “Bigfoot” via a national media, that non-Indians would more widely begin to acknowledge the hairy giants of the woods.
If “Jacko” had been real and shown in sideshows, zoos, or at universities, the entire history of anthropology and zoology in the Americas would be different.
But one journalistic tall tale does not undermine hundreds of years of Native traditions, folklore, and sightings that point to a reality-based foundation of true apes in North America.
Harry Trumbore drawing from The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates.
Keep the research alive; please take a moment to…
Thank You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)