Patterson/Gimlin Bigfoot Film



Thursday, July 18, 2002






Bigfoot Film

'...the most important piece of wildlife film, ever!'

(December 23, 2001)

- - -

One, two or even ten accounts of a hard-to-believe
event may warrant dismissing the thing, but dozens or
more of such testimonies make doubters appear as
ignorant fools.

There exist thousands of accounts of Sasquatch, or
bigfoot--the legendary ape-man of North America.

The extant records of testimonies about bigfoot
sightings over the last 100 years, here and in
Canada ((the records go back much farther)), are so
extensive, that it is the doubter who appears to be
the ignorant fool; and so-called scientists being the
most ignorant.

- - -

This is an analysis of Discovery Channel's "The X-
Creatures" program called "Bigfoot and Yeti" (2001):
- narrated by Mike Pengra
- written by Chris Packham
- edited by Mark Fox
- produced by Jenny Ash
- BBC/Discovery Communications Inc. co-production.

- - -

I HAVE IN MY POSSESSION, in my humble opinion, "the
most important piece of wildlife footage, ever!"
[those are the words of the narrator of The X-
Creatures program, but in the context of dismissing
the likelihood of such evidence ever being authentic].

I came into possession of the footage a couple of
months ago, after my son handed a video tape to me
containing, this scribbler believes, near-irrefutable
evidence of the existence of the famed/legendary
bigfoot creature.

It was a copy of that Discovery Channel report.

I'm 53, and over the past several decades I've seen
still shots from frames of that footage in magazines
and books, but not any copy of the running film

My first reaction?: "That's an animal!" – but, then,
the narrator of the program had already been dropping
negatively biased points of view, which had raised no
doubts in me about authenticity, but had raised
concerns about the inductive/deductive reasoning
skills of narrator, writer and producer of that show.

Now why would the creators of that "documentary"
plant doubts in the mind of viewers from the get-

The reason is given near the end of the segment:


"The bigfoot of legend runs
contrary to primate
philosophy and the fossil

Well, we can't have anything upset the apple cart of
contemporary primate philosophy and the fossil record,
can we?

Too many professional careers and opinions would need
adjusting. And think of all the textbooks in need of
revising or discarding.

- - -

My transcription of the Patterson/Gimlin bigfoot
segment follows, with analyses behind double
brackets, and with any necessary clarifications about
the presentation's contents put between single


It's a far-fetched story, men attacked and
even injured by irate giant apes in the
U.S.A. Yet, it was taken seriously,
reported on the front page of the state
newspaper along side the world news.

[[ That loaded comment follows reenactment of the
Estacada, Oregon, miners' story, about being
attacked by one or more of the critters, after one
of the miners had shot one with his rifle.

[[ The narrator's intonation leaves no doubt about his
intention to cast the story in a negative light.

[[ Read bigfoot researcher John Green's account in his
book, "Bigfoot" ((1973)); and read John Green's
response to this report at the bottom of this page.


Could there really be a giant ape living
in modern North America?

The Pacific Northwest is bigfoot country.
These forests cover 21,000 square miles,
from Alaska in the north all the way to
California in the South . . .

[[ So begins the biased segment of the program dealing
with bigfoot in North America, and which negative
bias is made perfectly clear with these words:

"Yet, it [the story of miners being attacked
by giant ape-men] was taken seriously."


How often do people come across bigfoot?

In British Columbia, John Green has logged
many of the modern encounters, 3000 in the
last 30 years. But he thinks these are
only a fraction of the sightings that
actually occur.

One of them has a piece of film attached,
shot in California by the late Roger
Patterson and Bob Gimlin in October 1967.

John Green:

[running Patterson film on his projector]
This is the start of the role that they
eventually got the picture of the
creature on . . . riding their horses up
the bed [see one horse rider leading
another horse carrying supplies in a
heavily wooded area] of Bluff Creek . . .
There's Bob now, with the pack horse . . .


It all looks a bit like a home movie. And
with just a minute left on the film, it
changes dramatically [bigfoot is seen near
the edge of the forest, walking from left
to right while the camera shakes badly].

[[ Well, it is a “home movie”! But the comment was
made for purposes of planting a doubt in the
viewer's mind, about any authenticity of the critter
captured on that film.


Whatever your first impression of this
footage, there is no in-camera trickery.

[[ This is a nice touch, presenting an air of
objectivity after planting a strong doubt.


Examining the film shows that something
really walked in front of Patterson's
camera. And let's be clear on one thing,
either this footage has to be a hoax or
FILM, EVER [my emphasis]!

That's the footage. Here's the story that
goes with it.

It was around 1 p.m. on October 20th, 1967.
Patterson and Gimlin were riding north, up
the Bluff Creek in California.

They rounded the bend and saw the creature.
Patterson pulled out the camera from [his]

saddle bag and began filming.

After about 11 seconds, he began to run
closer. And as he did, Bob rode closer
still, within 60 feet of the creature,
covering Roger with his rifle until the
creature walked away.

Using a computer, we've stabilized the
footage. It looks like a man in a suit,
but so would the bigfoot of legend.

The question is, which is it?

[[ Does a gorilla look like a man in a suit? Gimlin
reported that his first reaction was, ‘that is

an animal.' So bigfoot researchers/believers
take two hits here: 1) "It looks like a man in a
suit," 2) "[B]ut so would the bigfoot of legend."

[[ In other words, because all sightings appear to be
men in suits, they’re ALL MEN IN SUITS.


From what we can see, the fur is pretty
convincing. It flows correctly down the

[[ Yes, and if one looks closely at the enhanced
footage, one sees - to put it coarsely - the
creature's butt-crack defined by its hair pattern,
as well as itd spinal column and more.

[[ But something not mentioned is how oily the
"suit" appears to be.

[[ That's one glossy critter, as sunlight reveals a
highly glossy sheen reflecting off the critter's
hair, which is strong evidence of sebaceous glands
at work--evidence of skin glands secreting sebum
to coat the hair.

[[ No suit would appear so animal-like---such as
how, say, the black hair of a teen-age boy would
appear if he hadn't washed it for a few days.


And in some places you can apparently see
muscles moving under the skin.

[[ The narrator fails to inform the viewer here, or
anywhere else in the segment, that moving/pendulous
breasts are clearly visible when the creature turns
its upper torso to glance at Patterson and Gimlin
((in the enhanced - or magnified - version of the
film clip)).

[[ This oversight, purposeful or not, is a major one!

[[ Why would that not be mentioned? Well, what
hoaxer would go to the trouble of fitting an ape-man
suit with pendulous breasts while a successful
hoaxing would depend so much on NOT providing a
too-close and too-detailed filming of a suited man?
Such an effort would be a waste of time and money
if not clearly seen on film, keeping in mind that the
narrator makes a point ((later on)) that shaky
camera work and distance were used to fool the


Reacting to men on horse-back by just
strolling off is very strange behavior for
a shy, wild animal.

[[ Actually, the creature is not strolling but moving
at a near-clipped pace, as if in a purposeful
hurry. So the narrator continues to distort and/or
omit facts.

[[ To say that that is "very strange behavior" is a
very strange exaggeration, as animals often just
turn and go off in another direction when seeing
a human in their habitat.


Film is one thing, but animals leave
traces. And there were footprints in the
creek sand.

They were deeper than the ones left by
Bob's horse when he rode along side the

[[ Those tracks, and their apparent depth, are an
important clue to the authenticity of the sighting.


Their combined weight was almost 1500 lbs.
The depth of the prints suggest the
creature was even heavier. Yet the average
weight for a male gorilla is 400 lbs.

[[ How many gorillas have a standing height of over
6'5"? The critter on the film appears to be massive.

[[ So, allowing for a margin of error here, resulting
from misjudgment and mismeasurements, it's not
unreasonable to put the creature's weight at 800
pounds or more.

[[ In his book, John Green gives these dimensions:

"No precise measurements are possible, but
taking as a standard the length of the
foot, which is known from the track to be
about 14 1/2 inches, the creature measures
about seven feet in height and not much
less than three feet in width across the
shoulders. This is half again as wide as
a heavy-built man, and other dimensions
are proportionately heavy. Her thigh is
as big as a normal man's chest, her ankle
as big as his thigh. Her arms are long
enough to span close to nine feet; two feet
more than her height, but her body is also
very long, so that her arms do not appear
to hang very low. Her legs are shorter
than those of a normal man. These dimen-
sions . . . add to the problems for those who
would like to dismiss the film as a hoax."


Roger reloaded his Kodak and filmed them
[footprints]. Then they took plaster
casts. Some measured 15 inches.

John Green:

[He's shown displaying one of the Bluff
Creek footprint casts] This is perhaps the
best of those casts.

You have to remember the track is not the
shape that the foot makes, necessarily.
It's the shape that the foot made in the

This one, for instance [he points to one
in a display case], it looks as if it had
stepped on something. But, in fact, that's
the way it drove the heel in and shifted
the weight to the front of the foot.


The tracks are varied but very natural, and
with the dynamics of a flexible walking

But the depth suggests that the weight of
the creature was over three times the
weight of a gorilla the same size. And
Patterson's film of them has vanished.

[[ So the creature must be a man in a suit because
there are no gorillas the same size?

[[ No doubt, that film had been stolen by someone
wishing to possess an important piece of evidence
pointing to the existence of bigfoot.


So, is there more biological evidence
about these creatures?

These forests stretch South from British
Columbia, through Washington State and
Oregon, to California. And John Green has
investigated many stories from the Sixties
and Seventies.

Seventy years of stories about bigfoot
have failed to produce a single, credible
photograph, let alone a body. So we're
back to footprints.

[[ How many still photos are there in that film
footage? Maybe seventy years of stories about
bigfoot have produced hundreds of photo frames con-
nected in a movie strip, presenting us with THE MOST

[[ We're to ignore the movie strip of bigfoot, to
dismiss it because there has been no "single"
photograph of the critter in the past?


In 1969, near Bossburg, Washington, there
were a staggering 1,009 of them [foot-
prints] left in the mud and snow--the
tracks of a very long-legged creature.
But, curiously, also a crippled one.

It's right foot had twisted toes and mis-
placed bones, something that would be
unusual but very natural.

[[ The "very natural" remark is strategically placed
at the end of the description, to have the viewer
dismiss the inhuman-like long stride between foot-
prints. Those long-legged footprints - barefoot in
mud and snow, and with one crippled foot - point
away from human categorization and toward the
legendary bigfoot, as the extant record of such
bigfoot prints is extremely large and compelling.


At Washington State University, the
prints have been studied by primate
anatomist and bigfoot author Grover

Footprints are just dents in the ground,
but they can tell an expert about the foot
that made them.

Grover Krantz:

From the position of these bulges [he
displays plaster cast of a Bossburg
print, with line drawings outlining the
relative position of bones producing the
bulges] I was able to deduce some of the
key bones in the center of the foot and
reconstruct all the bones of the foot--
and found, most interestingly, that the
center of weight of the angle was substan-
tially forward of where it is for a human.

If we had an erect biped 8-feet tall, and
it was going to walk in a human manner,
how much farther forward would the ankle
have to be placed?

I did some simple arithmetic calculations
on that - got an exact answer - and, then,
went back and measured my reconstruction.
It was exactly correct.

That was enough for me to be absolutely
sure that those feet [prints] were made
by a living creature.

[[ Krantz ought to have been bold here and used
"bigfoot creature," not "living creature," since a
man on stilts fitted with the chopped-off feet of
a giant/crippled human cadaver could also have made
those prints. No?


Is there no way that these could be

Grover Krantz:

If the Bossburg tracks of a crippled
individual were made by a hoaxer, there are
several considerations.

One is that he had to know human anatomy
with great detail; he had to be able to
devise distortions of the anatomy; and he
had to calculate exactly how an enlarged
individual would have to be constructed in
order to walk properly.

That requires an elaboration of thought
and knowledge that I don't think anybody
in the world has.


John Green was the first to investigate
the [Bluff Creek] bigfoot film.

He reconstructed the event just nine months

This is Jim McClarin [shown walking the
Bluff Creek river bed where bigfoot was
filmed by Patterson], 6'5" tall, walking
the same route as the bigfoot.

He'd been to Bluff Creek when the tracks
were still plainly to be seen. So he knew
the route it took.

With a digital-effects device, we can pre-
cisely match the two separate pieces of
film, and show that the creature was only
a bit taller than McClarin, and definitely

[[ The creature may have been three to four inches
taller, given the difference between how far
McClarin's weight drove him into the river
bed and how far bigfoot's feet sank.


But the footprints make it four-times

The movement has always been controver-
sial, as well. Grover Krantz thinks the
gait of the creature is definitely in-

Grover Krantz:

The Patterson subject walks with the body
leaning forward [Krantz is shown imitating
the gait of bigfoot], and knees largely
bent, so that when it takes a step it
supports the leg with a bent knee--and
keeps both feet on the ground for an un-
usual length of time. It also lifts the
foot very high behind each step, like
so [he demonstrates].

In addition to all those things, it also
swings the arms, which is very difficult
to imitate, like this [he demonstrates, as
a child laughs off-camera].

Well, this is something I can do for a
few steps, rather poorly, but the Patter-
son subject did it for over 300 feet. I
doubt that any human being can be trained
to do that.

[[ Krantz did not mention doing that while one is
carrying hundreds of pounds of extra weight, to

drive the feet into the ground.


Is seems that everything about bigfoot
leads to that footage, so what about the
location, Bluff Creek, in northern Cali-
fornia? Because if this was a hoax, it
was a good one. And details about the
right location would be essential to its

[[ So, credit is given when credit is due: "[I]f this
was a hoax, it was a good one." And "everything
about bigfoot" DOES NOT lead to that footage, as
the evidence for the creature's existence was
convincing to all but those misinformed, uninformed
and/or deaf and blind critics.


So what are the options?

[Option #1] Roger and Bob are innocent,
hoaxed by a separate party in a suit.

But how could they guarantee a meeting
in a suitable spot and, more important-
ly, be sure not to get shot?

Both men were armed. And remember, only
a body will satisfy science.

[[ This last line is very telling - and true! - as
it presents the crux of the matter of why extant
testimonies/materials are ignored by orthodox

[[ Because testimonies/material evidence ((sighting
reports and footprints)) ARE compelling!, it MUST
be rejected as near-perfect proof, because the
existence of such a creature necessarily rewrites
the primate orthodoxy and fossil record.

[[ In other words, so-called scientists don't want
their comfy boat rocked.


[Option #2] Could Roger and Bob set the
whole thing up themselves and made the

Well, Roger was a resourceful man with
lots of contacts. But the suit is too
good, which suggests professional
special-effects design.

[[ This is a critical admission.

[[ A too-good suit might cause a viewer to see an
actual ape-man, rather than a man in a suit posing
for Patterson and Gimlin.


Grover Krantz says the walk isn't human,
but he can almost do it.

[[ But, again, not with hundreds of pounds on

his back to drive those feet so deeply into

the ground!


So was there a third man, a director of

There was certainly money to be made.

After the film was seen, a TV company
Los Angeles offered Roger $50,000 for the
rights--a modern equivalent would be over
a quarter of a million.

Could Roger have been employed to film
the creature, even told to use a partly
exposed roll of film and bring Bob Gimlin
along to corroborate his story?

OPTION THREE has Roger leading Bob into
an event he's rehearsed; a performance.
And Roger was in control.

[[ It's notable that option #4 is not presented:
There had been no hoax, but an actual event
providing Patterson and Gimlin - and the


The two had conspicuously agreed not to
shoot the creature, unless it attacked

[[ How would a couple of cowboys inconspicuously
agree not to shoot the creature?

[[ Carrying rifles on a bigfoot search would require
that the subject be addressed, conspicuously so!

[[ The narrator is grabbing at anything to cast doubts
on the two principals' motives by using that term.


Bob Gimlin doesn't talk to the media,
but in 1992 [he] recorded the story on
October 20th for his friend, John

Bob Gimlin:

I left early in the morning, and, of
course, Roger slept in. My horse
loosened a shoe up, so I came back in
to tack the shoe on tighter. And Roger
was gone when I got back, and . . .


So Roger and Bob were apart on the morning
before the filming.

Bob Gimlin:

He [Roger] asked me what area I had
covered that morning, and I told him.
And he said, "So why don't we ride up
into this area . . ."


And Roger led Bob out in the afternoon.
It's a vital detail. But Bob still
maintained that what he saw was an animal.

[[ Well, Roger was in charge of the expedition. So
his providing directions is not necessarily a
suspicious "vital detail."


He [Bob Gimlin] hasn't spoken to the media
in 13 years. But he was a crucial eye-

On the phone, he was willing to accept the
theory that he had been fooled.

[[ The telephone monologue does not reveal

this at all:

Bob Gimlin:

When I first saw this thing, it was just
like the adrenaline flow[ing], you know.
I was shocked, excited--just like, golly,
they do exist, you know.

At one time in my life, right shortly
after the film footage, I was totally con-
vinced that no one could fool me. And,
course, I'm an older man now, and I see a
lot of things. And I think there could
have been a possibility.

But it would have had to have been really
well planned by Roger, and I feel they
would have had to have been very careful,
because I had a 30.06 loaded with 180-
grain bullets. And had that thing had
turned and rushed me, I would've shot it.

So I feel that if that was a hoax, some-
body was taking an awfully big chance
with their life.

[[ In other words, Gimlin doesn't believe it was a
hoax, as the narrator suggests above.


Maybe that's why the creature just walked
away. And what a brilliant piece of cast-
ing: Honest Bob, the eyewitness.

[[ At this point, there isn't any pretense to giving
a balanced report on the events of that day.


So how would the hoax have been created?

The first job is to find out more about
the suit.

In Burbank, California, Optic Nerve
Studios specializes in building creatures
around people. It's run by John Vulich
((or Beulich?; sp?)).

John Vulich:

In my mind, it's undoubtedly a suit [he's
sitting at his desk, in front of a TV
screen running the Patterson footage].

[[ What would one expect from a man running a
Hollywood special-effects studio to say---that he
believed it to be a real ape-man? How many clients
would he lose for being so "out of it"?

John Vulich:

Generally, what we would build is a two-
layered suit. We'd have a musculature
underneath where the muscles are actually
separate pieces sewn together, so they
can slide up against each other the way
muscles would on a real person. Then, on
top of that, the first suit goes on as a
separate layer, so we get some kind of
sliding in between the fur and the
muscles. It does tend to look more


And what about the locomotion? How easy
would that be for a man?

John Vulich:

To my mind, the movements of this crea-
ture are no where near as dramatically
different than as a man playing a gorilla
or chimpanzee. And you're talking about
very, very different body language--very
different style. And, so, if a human
being can master that type of movement,
he can certainly master this that much
easier. And I think an amateur would be
able to achieve this kind of locomotion
very easily.

[[ It's one thing to play like a gorilla but quite
another to master subtle, and unusual, movements
seen on the Patterson film--to walk over 300 feet
carrying, say, 800 pounds and drive the feet into
the ground while (1) leaning a bit forward, (2)
breaking at the knees with each step, and (3)
lifting up the feet at the end of each stride.

[[ A university trained anatomist, Grover Krantz,
explained the difficulty, yet a special-effects guy
knows best?


A lot of expertise is required to make a
convincing suit.

[[ The Patterson subject's "suit" isn't just convinc-
ing, as compared with what John Vulich is about to
show the viewer, but stunningly real!

[[ It appears like the pelt of an animal, rather than
something put together. And, again, those
pendulous breasts aren't mentioned by the


That's made from a spandex under-suit [he's
half-dressed in a red ape-man suit, show-
ing the padding and other features]. And
onto that we put real animal hair. In
this case, yak hair.

[[ The yak hair flies everywhere on the suit, like
a shaggy dog having a bad hair day.

[[ The Patterson subject's hair is well groomed, oily
and showing hair-growth patterns natural to an
animal’s anatomy, as the sun glistening off its back

- in one segment - clearly reveals natural-appearing

hair growth down the back and buttocks.


What about the body shape?


It's simply foam pads sewn with a spandex
material, to enlarge the collar bone,
biceps, the calves and so on.

[[ Then the Patterson subject appears to be all pads,
as there clearly is no room for spaces between
padded sections.

[[ That creature is a massive hulk.


Detail is the key. But for bigfoot, eyes
are less important than feet.

[[ Yes, let's ignore the massive hulk of the creature - and
its pendulous breasts and its oily hair - and focus instead
on its feet--but not so to explain, adequately, the deep

tracks the critter had made in the ground.


If you wanted a greater impression [he
displays the bottom of the suit's large
foot], you'd simply put a stiffer material
into the bottom.

[[ If you want a greater impression, you'd need more
weight on smaller feet!

[[ The larger the feet, the shallower the impression,
per any given weight, depending on soil conditions.

[[ The Patterson creature's feet were wide and long,
so a great weight would have been necessary to make
the Bluff Creek prints. Maybe Patterson and Gimlin
had slipped a couple of giant bigfoot booties on
the back hooves of Patterson's horse, then had it
walk on its hind legs, using long strides. No?


And, finally, someone has to be able to
work with the suit.


One of the things I noticed, is that as he
steps down, he tends to break at the knee.

[[ The actor had to have been coached about this
trait, as the phenomenon is very subtle to the
untrained eye while notable to a trained anatomist.


And if the suit and movement can be repro-
duced, so can the event.

[[ It is not clear that the suit and movement of the
Patterson subject can be reproduced.

[[ Where is that suit--that state-of-the-art effort

in special-effects? Why hasn't anyone come

forward to take credit for that masterful piece

of brilliant suit-making?


Using the same distances recorded at Bluff
Creek, the same camera and lens, and an
amateur operator, it's possible to re-
create the action of 1967.

[[ This is not even close to being a re-creation!

Off-Camera Voice:

Action! [A suited actor - in the yak-hair
suit - and a cameraman are shown attempting
to re-create the bigfoot event at Bluff


The most important revelation of [this]
exact re-creation, is how close Roger
and Bob were to the creature. They were
right on top of it, which makes the be-
havior less natural. It walked away,
utterly unconcerned.

[[ Not true!, as the creature wasn't strolling but
force-walking away from the two men. And, more
importantly, it turned to look back and make
certain it wasn't being pursued, which action
shows concern.


Even so, it's conveniently difficult to
see much detail in the suit. It's very

[[ Well, as Gimlin said: "[I]t would have had to have
been really well planned by Roger, and I feel they
would have had to have been very careful, because I
had a 30.06 loaded with 180-grain bullets. And had
that thing had turned and rushed me, I would've
shot it."

[[ Not only is there no detail in the "re-creation,"
but there is no oily sheen glinting off the yak
hair. And, curiously, the suited actor does walk
at a near-clipped pace, as if in a purposeful
hurry, just like the subject in the Patterson film.


The whole thing was beautifully designed:
suit, location, camera work.

[[ It's a first-rate Hollywood production! One waits

for the narrator to begin mentioning the Academy

Awards here.


Now days, a lot of commercials deliber-
ately use confusing, shaky camera work.
But they always have an image that sells
the product, like frame 352 [a frame show-
ing the creature turning its upper body to
its right, to face Patterson and Gimlin]:

"I'm bigfoot, buy me."

[[ "And millions of people have," opines the


And now there's a strong case that
bigfoot simply doesn't exist.

[[ There is no strong case, only a contrived attempt
to debunk what scientists fear most: a real
challenge to their primate orthodoxy and fossil

Narrator Concludes:

The bigfoot of legend runs contrary to
primate physiology and the fossil
record. And Patterson's footage is
most likely a brilliant hoax.

[[ Consider for a moment what putting those two
thoughts in the same paragraph reveals:
There sit both the ready-made PREMISE and
CONCLUSION for producing a program that would
purposely slant and/or distort evidence supporting
the existence of bigfoot.


Even Bob Gimlin, the only man who saw
what Patterson filmed, has serious

[[ Again, Gimlin aired no "serious" doubts.

[[ But he had admitted to the POSSIBILITY of a hoax,
which any reasonable person would do, to avoid
appearing the narrow-minded dolt.

[[ It's too bad those involved in creating The X-
Creatures program couldn't shed their own narrow-
minded view.


So unless these forests reveal a
creature that rewrites the rules of
biology, this is the end of the road.

[[ And so ends the Discovery Channel segment about
bigfoot and the Patterson film.

[[ It ends with a closed mind, not "the end of the

[[ Nothing closes a mind more tightly than one's own
professional orthodoxy, it appears.


Go to the BFRO page and read those testimonials:

TO REITERATE: One, two or even ten accounts of a
hard-to-believe event may warrant dismissing the
thing, but dozens or more of such testimonies make
doubters appear as ignorant fools.

Of course, borrowing Bob Gimlin's cover-all-bases
approach, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE--even a

state-of-the-art, Hollywood-award-winning hoaxing

effort on the part of Roger Patterson and/or others.


my e-mail address:



Postscript :

“Dear Friend, I had not seen your analysis of the BBC film before, thank you very much for sending it to me. I was so disgusted with what they did, that I have not paid further attention to it, but I am glad to have their ridiculous commentary in a printable form. As to your comments, I think you are dead-on. I would guess, however, that besides being afraid to stick their necks out in favour of a movie that would upset current primate philosophy (it would not upset the fossil record in any way I can think of) their attitude was predetermined by the fact that they were making not just this show, but a series of shows designed to debunk several “X-Creatures”. That being what they had received authorization and financing to do, they could hardly turn around and claim one of the creatures was real.

“Actually they were very impressed with the movie. They were at my home for two or three days, and they spent a lot of time talking about how remarkable it was. I ended up expecting them to produce the first really professional and scientific documentary on the subject. That they instead did a hatchet job on it was a nasty shock. My wife reminded me, however, that the producer had said in the beginning that they had set out to do a debunking series---it was a mistake on my part to assume from their apparent enthusiasm that they had changed their approach.

“It would be easy and entertaining to do a documentary tearing this one to shreds, but of course there is no one to finance it, and probably no one who would show it. Hadn’t thought of that possibility before. I will think more about it. Thank you very much. -John Green”

RB - 9:37 AM