The Patterson-Gimlin Film Part 4

It's easy for the uninformed, casual observer to make a declaration on a website's Comments Section, but what do the experts think about the Patterson-Gimlin Film? If we look to science to provide answers about the subject in the PGF, then we should consider the evaluations of physical anthropologists who specialize in primate morphology and authorities in biomechanics and bipedal locomotion. Fortunately, the academics and costume professionals who did weigh in ignored the gossip about character and focused only on the film. Unfortunately, most of the scientific community wouldn't bother giving the film any consideration and those that were asked to, dismissed it outright after limited viewing with no careful examination. What's interesting is that the few scientists who did analyze the film thoroughly and gave a favorable conclusion did so with a detailed report, while those that were doubtful about its authenticity had more superficial observations or disagreements about the other scientists' findings. This is to say there doesn't appear to be a point-by-point scientific argument disproving the creature's existence. Perhaps the most widely acceptable objective scientific review is akin to anthropologist David J. Daegling's assessment, generalized as, although the film's subject is compelling, the possibility of a hoax cannot be ruled out. But if it is a hoax, then the film must show a human in a suit, which then leads to the question, how could such a convincing costume be fabricated, especially by a layman? For that answer, who better to ask than the professionals in that field, the Film and TV Special Effects creature creators? Please join us for the fourth installment of our series on the PGF as we hear from the experts.For more information on this episode visit our website!