Bluff Creek

In October of 1967 two men, cowboys, from the Yakima, Washington area spent three weeks in far northern California in a quest for a creature long reported but little believed by any other that those who had experienced it.  In this mountain fast, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin rode out of History and into Destiny…

Bob Gimlin

Roger Patterson












On the 20th of October, the 21st day of their search the two cowboys happened on something neither had ever seen before in their lives.  Roger had done a great deal of investigation on his own, but Bob had never even seen a well formed track.  He was here to support Roger and to enjoy the trip… until just after midday on that fateful Friday when, riding around a large root wad, they came on the creature shown in the photo above.  in the next few minutes, Roger created about a minute and a half of film that has generated forty-seven years of controversy… mostly from people that have their own prospective to advance.

In the ensuing years, there have been many of varying qualifications who have rendered their opinions on the authenticity of this film.  Roger and Bob were subjected to the most vile treatments from people who should have known better.  Bob retreated totally from the subject and did not return to it until after the turn of the new century.

Bob Heronimous with head from alleged suit

There have been people who have insisted, when tempted by unscrupulous writers, to claim they were the person in a suit that allowed himself to be filmed… Bob Heronimous said that he drove to their camp on Bluff Creek in northern California, even though he could not find it later, donned the suit, walked across the sandbar, leaving tracks that a HORSE could not match in depth, took the suit off and drove back to his home near Yakima.  It was

enhanced photo of Patty

done in ONE take… not rehearsal, nothing… he just put the suit on and walked across in front of  the camera then took off the suit and left…

The figure above is a photograph of Bob Heronimous with a suit he claimed he wore to make the film about Patty… on the right is an enhanced photograph of an isolation of frame 355 of the film… how much alike are they?  Who would mistake the one for the other?

In the controversy over this film, people become so heated in supporting their viewpoint, they forget to listen to important statements from people with particular knowledge.  Experts in their fields have stated that this film is beyond reproach… but too many people do not listen to these experts…

Statements of Veracity

I’m reading Bill Munns’ book presently which concerns his analysis of the Patterson Gimlin film…
Bill is a MAJOR special effects make up artist in Hollywood… he has been making creatures for the movies for almost fifty years… he has stated unequivocally that it would have been totally impossible to make a suit in 1967 that would do what that being did… John Chambers, academy award winning costume designer (Planet of the Apes for one) has stated that suit would be IMPOSSIBLE to make in 1967… Peter Brooke.. Director of Jim Henson’s Creature Shop (I’ll bet they know a bit about making costumes too) as well as Walt Disney Studios who stated to John Green in 1968 that they could not have made that creature do that… yet people IGNORE this and insist it’s a man in a suit….

How is this so? How can one do this and feel they are justified? I am afraid I’m at a loss here and need some help.

Now, if we accept the word of these questionable (?) experts… and it is not a suit… what is it? Whatever CAN it be?? If it’s not a suit.. then what?