February 14, 2025 • 18 mins
George Noory and author Daniel Perez discuss the famous Patterson-Gimlin film of a Bigfoot creature in the wild, if the film is authentic, and photos of footprints of the creature taken at the film site.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now here's a highlight from Coast to coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And welcome back. George Norri with you, Daniel Perez with
us after fourteen years. He became interested in the subject
of Bigfoot at around ten years old by the way
of a movie, he said, east Side of Walking Theater,
called The Legend of Boggy Creek. Since January of nineteen
ninety eight, he has published an ink on paper postal
mail newsletter and is the last of its kind with
(00:27):
readers from all over the planet. Daniel, welcome back. Why
fourteen years? What have you been up to.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I've been busy working like everyone else, trying to make
a living. But it is what it is. It's been
a while.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well, good for you, have you been.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
I've been just wonderful.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Let's talk about this interest in Bigfoot, because it never waned.
It got better and better and better for you, didn't it.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
It's like the drug of choice.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Tell us more.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Well, like I said, or like I've written, I knew
nothing about the subject of Bigfoot, sesquatch, abominable snowmen until
I saw that one movie, The Legend of Boggy Creek.
And even then I didn't think are they asking the
people watching this to think that this is real. And
(01:19):
that's kind of what got me started. And I went
to the library and started checking books out and started
to realize, Hey, there seems to be something to this.
So that's how I got started.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
In nineteen sixty seven, there's an incredible event that has
been turned into what it's called the Patterson Gimblin Film.
What do we know about this.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Well, we probably know more than ever before, but I
will let's back up for a moment. One thing that
is unfortunate at this time in writing is that the
camera original film that Roger Patterson shot is lost, and
the camera original film of the footprints that he shot
(02:07):
the same day was loaned out to the BBC and
was never returned, and I guess a look at the
BBC archives never turned it up. We do have copies
of both, so it's kind of like the Mona Lisa
is on loan and somehow there's copies but you never
(02:27):
get the original back. That's kind of like the situation.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Explain what the film is, Daniel. The people who have
not heard about.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
It, Basically two people from Yakima, Washington or from the
Yakima Washington area. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were out
in northern California because there had been previous reports of
bigfoot prints, large bigfootprints up in that area. And so Roger,
(02:58):
being quite an active investigator at the time, told his
companion or friend from the rodeo circuit, Bob Gimlin, heyd,
let's go down and see if we could see some
of these bigfoot tracks. And so they sat on down
to northern California, the northwest corner of the state where
(03:23):
the ocean is and just below the Oregon border, and
they started patrolling the creeks and started patrolling the woods
there and instead of just saying footprints, they came upon
the footprint maker herself, and so that's essentially what it is.
(03:45):
And they were able to get on sixteen millimeter film
using the sixteen millimeter Kodak camera, a film of the
creature that lasts about a minute. And so that's and
since that time, it's been about six years since that
film was shot, it's become it has grown up to
be this cultural icon all over the world.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
What do you think of the film, Daniel.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
What do I think of it? Yeah, as I explained
in my book that, having been one of the great
students of the film, is that I'm one hundred percent
confident that what you see in that film is a
female Bigfoot, nothing more and nothing less. And so let
me explain when I say female, is that it becomes
(04:34):
obvious when you start to watch the film carefully that
it does have memory lens or breasts that are plainly
visible in the film. And you know, the obvious answer
to that is that it's lightly or female. So I'm
going to go with that answer.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
You make the analogy of Abraham's A Pruduce Shil with
a Kennedy assess Nation, which is probably the most scrutinized
film ever ever, But this one is way up there too,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Absolutely. In fact, the suppruder film of the Kennedy A
fashination from nineteen sixty three, is by far, even by
far the most scrutinized film because of what it depicts
a President John F. Kennedy being shot and killed and
(05:30):
so unfortunate. But in this instance it's something that's completely unknown,
and everyone, especially in the day of the Internet, the
day of social media, is jumped on the bandwagon in
terms of trying to understand more fully this film, and
(05:51):
a lot of work has been done to it that
perhaps they couldn't have done maybe twenty years ago. One
film stabilization, because when Roger Patterson took this film, he
was on the run, trying to close the distance between
himself and the subject that is walking on a sandbar,
and so there's a lot of jiggle in the film.
(06:13):
And what they've done is they've taken the jiggle out
of the camera, so you could see the subject on
the sandbar much much better. And you could anyone now
could jump on YouTube and see that film stabilized and
actually slowed down in slow motion, and so you could
appreciate her for all she's worth.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
A fellow by the name of Bob Heronymous claims that
he was in the suit, a bigfoot suit, and that
he was supposed to be paid for it. What do
you think of that story?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Well, let's back up a minute. Bob Hornymous is still living,
as is Bob Gimlin, who's from the Yakama, Washington area,
And just for everyone in the audience is that they
are physically next door neighbors across the street. I guess
you could walk might take you a minute to get
from one house to the other. So they knew of
(07:13):
each they knew each other. They were all friends back
in the day in the mid sixties, late sixties from
the rodeo circuit. Because they were neighbors and Yakama was
not a big town, everyone knew each other. So Bob
Ronymus claims that Roger Patterson asked him to Dawn a
(07:35):
bigfoot gorilla suit to make this film, but his claim
doesn't come to light till the late nineteen nineties, and
he said that Roger was going to pay him one
thousand dollars to do this, but he was never paid.
(07:57):
And so if you back up a little a bit
nineteen sixty seven, in Yakima, you could probably buy a
house for two thousand dollars at the time, and so
that was a considerable amount of money. And so because
of the publicity it received that Bob Hoeronymous, if his
(08:18):
claim was valid, he should have said something back in
the late sixties, but there's no evidence that comes forward
to indicate that he ever made that claim. It didn't
come till the turn of the century, till the late
nineteen nineties, probably nineteen ninety nine, and he essentially went
shopping with his story as to what transpired to get publicity.
(08:42):
And since that time a lot of people have latched
onto it and they said, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, bobonamous,
that must be the answer. The Patterson gamlenn film must
be just a man in a costume, and it was
Bob ranmus Now. In June of twan nine, I was
up at the Yakima Bigfoot Roundup, a conference on bigfoot,
(09:07):
and I actually knocked on Bob Hoeronymous's door on five
feet seven and I stood not next to him, but
face to face, and I would say he is at
the time maybe five foot nine, five feet ten at best,
(09:28):
And so you could imagine maybe he shrunk a few
inches over the years as you get older, but he's
not as tall as he claims.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Yeah, because that bigfoot in the Patterson Gimmelin film looks
like it's seven feet tall.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Yes, it's quite large based on the feet, based on
the testimony of the people who were there. And so
that's the first thing is if if Bob Hoeronymous's claim
is to be believed, he would have to be a
much taller person, and he is not. And so you
would have to severely question his claim that he was
(10:08):
the person in the suit.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
What did the skeptics say about it, Daniel.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
The skeptics, the doubters are one hundred percent convinced that
it is just not just a man in a costume,
and they've gone on and on and have written about it,
have done podcasts about it, television interviews. But here's the
thing is that if it really is just a man
(10:37):
in a costume, then you should be able to duplicate it,
and to date no one has. And so if you
stop right there on that point, is that you go
back and look at science in general, you look at
other examples, and I think in nineteen eighty nine there
(10:59):
were two science just by the name of Fleischmann and
Ponds who claimed they were able to do cold fusion.
So essentially that's what's happening in the sun. But they
were able to bring it to a tabletop and say like, yeah,
we are able to do this, and other scientists got
(11:20):
wind of it. Actually they had a press conference about
what they had quote unquote achieved. Other scientists got wind
of this and said, hey, this could power the entire
Earth for basically nothing. Let's duplicate what they were trying
to do or what they claimed to have done, and
(11:40):
the other scientists who were trying to duplicate what Fleischmann
and Ponds had achieved cold fusion, they were unable to do.
So they came to the conclusion that the cold fusion
was fraudulent, that what they were said that they did,
that they did actually was unachievable.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
And so go ahead, who in their right mind would
want to put a costume on out in Bluff Creek,
California where you might be able to get shot at.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Yeah, at the time it was hunting season. So if
someone if you take the position that someone did, they
risked an enormous chance of being shot because there's a
lot of people not just just in the woods of
Gorther in California, but in the woods of North America,
who will literally shoot it anything out in the woods.
(12:35):
So that would be a huge risk for anyone to take.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
And the shooter at the time could just simply say
I thought it was a bear or an animal. He's
not going to get charged with anything, is he?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
No, No, absolutely not, he says. Well, he says, I
I can't believe there's a big foot out there. It
must be a bear. So I shot at a bear
because maybe it was approach or whatever the case may be.
But yeah, whoever, if you take the position that it's
just a man in a costume, there was a huge
(13:09):
risk of getting shot at.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Tell us about your book, of course, Bigfoot at Bluff Creek.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Now Bigfoot at Bluff Creek A Pictorial Discussion is a
self published book by me because I wanted to have
control of everything rather than have an editor doing stuff
with it, yes, exactly, And so in nineteen ninety four
and then in two thousand and three I wrote a
(13:39):
booklet that was twenty three pages long, Bigfoot at Bluff Creek,
so that I'm the author about as well. And so
that was me back then trying to write about effectively
about this film subject because at the time I don't
know if you knew, but I had direct Coneck with
(14:00):
two of the principal investigators of the film, reade To
Hindon and John Green. So they were a colleagues of mine,
of mind when in the day when people wrote postal letters,
so I knew them from the late seventies, and they
knew a lot about the film, and so when I
had questions, they were able to ask answer effectively the
(14:22):
questions I had about it, so that on the twenty
fifth anniversary in nineteen ninety two, that's what inspired me
to write about it, because not a whole lot was
written about it, and what was written about it was
essentially rehashed, And so I wrote a book, but twenty
three pages long they put at Bluff Creek, and so later,
(14:42):
much later, like January of twenty twenty five. Last month,
I made a decision, well, this has been going on
for some time, but to publish a real book, one
hundred and thirty pages long, with an index and all
sorts of photos hence the term pictorial in the title
about the PG film, the Patterson Gimlin film. And this
(15:07):
is essentially bigfooted, block creeped original booklet but on steroids
now or supercharged, the supercharged version. And so this is it,
and I'm very proud of it. And just yesterday I
was looking on Facebook an individual from Mississippi who had
critiqued the book, by the name of Henry May. He said,
(15:28):
he says, I'm not giving this book a ten or
an eleven or a twelve. I'm giving it a twenty
on a ten scale. So I was just simply delighted,
and I saw that comment on Facebook, so I'm very
very happy.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
I'd give it about a twenty five. Daniel Well.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
I appreciate that because it's a very good discussion about
a good sensible discussion with feet on the ground about
the PG film, the Patterson Gimlin film. And so in
the book there are never never before seeing photos that
(16:07):
the late George Hass took all the film site. And
so people might ask, well, that's not a big deal,
these are just photos. But say, for instance, you could
think of an iconic movie star from Hollywood, Marilyn Monroe,
and so she's fascinated the public for decades and decades,
and people have seen all sorts of images of her,
(16:32):
and then when a new image comes out, people are saying, oh, wow,
we've never seen this or we've never seen that photo.
And so this is an opportunity to get to see
those images. And if you were to go back in
time and you'd say like, oh, I wish I could
see around the corner. Literally, this is that opportunity to
(16:54):
see the Patterson Gimlin film. What you could see on YouTube,
but you could literally now see around the corner as
to what's not seen on his film, but what's seen
on the film site, and those photos are packaged here
in this book.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
How were you able to get the photos from him?
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Well, here, George passed away. He was a chainsmoker and
he passed away back in the seventies. And so when
he passed away, he had an organization called from the
Bay Area Group of California. He had an organization called
the Bay Area Bigfoot Group, the Bay Area Group, and
(17:34):
so one of his colleagues was Warren Thompson. And unfortunately,
I guess around two thy twelve twenty fourteen he passed
away from Alzheimer's and I guess he was early seventies.
And so all the information that George Hoss had when
(17:54):
he passed away, Warren Thompson got. And when Warren Thompson
passed away, he passed out all that information on to me.
And so that makes me now the person with the
most physical, the largest physical files in the world on Bigfoot.
And part of those physical files were slides thirty five
(18:19):
millimeters slides that George Hass took of the film site
in June of nineteen sixty eight when he was there
with the Canadian Bigfoot researcher John Green to do a
recreation film of Patty on the film site.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast to coastam dot
com for more
Now here's a highlight from Coast to coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
And welcome back. George Norri with you, Daniel Perez with
us after fourteen years. He became interested in the subject
of Bigfoot at around ten years old by the way
of a movie, he said, east Side of Walking Theater,
called The Legend of Boggy Creek. Since January of nineteen
ninety eight, he has published an ink on paper postal
mail newsletter and is the last of its kind with
(00:27):
readers from all over the planet. Daniel, welcome back. Why
fourteen years? What have you been up to.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
I've been busy working like everyone else, trying to make
a living. But it is what it is. It's been
a while.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well, good for you, have you been.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
I've been just wonderful.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Let's talk about this interest in Bigfoot, because it never waned.
It got better and better and better for you, didn't it.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
It's like the drug of choice.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
Tell us more.
Speaker 3 (00:57):
Well, like I said, or like I've written, I knew
nothing about the subject of Bigfoot, sesquatch, abominable snowmen until
I saw that one movie, The Legend of Boggy Creek.
And even then I didn't think are they asking the
people watching this to think that this is real. And
(01:19):
that's kind of what got me started. And I went
to the library and started checking books out and started
to realize, Hey, there seems to be something to this.
So that's how I got started.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
In nineteen sixty seven, there's an incredible event that has
been turned into what it's called the Patterson Gimblin Film.
What do we know about this.
Speaker 3 (01:44):
Well, we probably know more than ever before, but I
will let's back up for a moment. One thing that
is unfortunate at this time in writing is that the
camera original film that Roger Patterson shot is lost, and
the camera original film of the footprints that he shot
(02:07):
the same day was loaned out to the BBC and
was never returned, and I guess a look at the
BBC archives never turned it up. We do have copies
of both, so it's kind of like the Mona Lisa
is on loan and somehow there's copies but you never
(02:27):
get the original back. That's kind of like the situation.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Explain what the film is, Daniel. The people who have
not heard about.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
It, Basically two people from Yakima, Washington or from the
Yakima Washington area. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were out
in northern California because there had been previous reports of
bigfoot prints, large bigfootprints up in that area. And so Roger,
(02:58):
being quite an active investigator at the time, told his
companion or friend from the rodeo circuit, Bob Gimlin, heyd,
let's go down and see if we could see some
of these bigfoot tracks. And so they sat on down
to northern California, the northwest corner of the state where
(03:23):
the ocean is and just below the Oregon border, and
they started patrolling the creeks and started patrolling the woods
there and instead of just saying footprints, they came upon
the footprint maker herself, and so that's essentially what it is.
(03:45):
And they were able to get on sixteen millimeter film
using the sixteen millimeter Kodak camera, a film of the
creature that lasts about a minute. And so that's and
since that time, it's been about six years since that
film was shot, it's become it has grown up to
be this cultural icon all over the world.
Speaker 2 (04:10):
What do you think of the film, Daniel.
Speaker 3 (04:13):
What do I think of it? Yeah, as I explained
in my book that, having been one of the great
students of the film, is that I'm one hundred percent
confident that what you see in that film is a
female Bigfoot, nothing more and nothing less. And so let
me explain when I say female, is that it becomes
(04:34):
obvious when you start to watch the film carefully that
it does have memory lens or breasts that are plainly
visible in the film. And you know, the obvious answer
to that is that it's lightly or female. So I'm
going to go with that answer.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
You make the analogy of Abraham's A Pruduce Shil with
a Kennedy assess Nation, which is probably the most scrutinized
film ever ever, But this one is way up there too,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (05:09):
Absolutely. In fact, the suppruder film of the Kennedy A
fashination from nineteen sixty three, is by far, even by
far the most scrutinized film because of what it depicts
a President John F. Kennedy being shot and killed and
(05:30):
so unfortunate. But in this instance it's something that's completely unknown,
and everyone, especially in the day of the Internet, the
day of social media, is jumped on the bandwagon in
terms of trying to understand more fully this film, and
(05:51):
a lot of work has been done to it that
perhaps they couldn't have done maybe twenty years ago. One
film stabilization, because when Roger Patterson took this film, he
was on the run, trying to close the distance between
himself and the subject that is walking on a sandbar,
and so there's a lot of jiggle in the film.
(06:13):
And what they've done is they've taken the jiggle out
of the camera, so you could see the subject on
the sandbar much much better. And you could anyone now
could jump on YouTube and see that film stabilized and
actually slowed down in slow motion, and so you could
appreciate her for all she's worth.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
A fellow by the name of Bob Heronymous claims that
he was in the suit, a bigfoot suit, and that
he was supposed to be paid for it. What do
you think of that story?
Speaker 3 (06:51):
Well, let's back up a minute. Bob Hornymous is still living,
as is Bob Gimlin, who's from the Yakama, Washington area,
And just for everyone in the audience is that they
are physically next door neighbors across the street. I guess
you could walk might take you a minute to get
from one house to the other. So they knew of
(07:13):
each they knew each other. They were all friends back
in the day in the mid sixties, late sixties from
the rodeo circuit. Because they were neighbors and Yakama was
not a big town, everyone knew each other. So Bob
Ronymus claims that Roger Patterson asked him to Dawn a
(07:35):
bigfoot gorilla suit to make this film, but his claim
doesn't come to light till the late nineteen nineties, and
he said that Roger was going to pay him one
thousand dollars to do this, but he was never paid.
(07:57):
And so if you back up a little a bit
nineteen sixty seven, in Yakima, you could probably buy a
house for two thousand dollars at the time, and so
that was a considerable amount of money. And so because
of the publicity it received that Bob Hoeronymous, if his
(08:18):
claim was valid, he should have said something back in
the late sixties, but there's no evidence that comes forward
to indicate that he ever made that claim. It didn't
come till the turn of the century, till the late
nineteen nineties, probably nineteen ninety nine, and he essentially went
shopping with his story as to what transpired to get publicity.
(08:42):
And since that time a lot of people have latched
onto it and they said, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, bobonamous,
that must be the answer. The Patterson gamlenn film must
be just a man in a costume, and it was
Bob ranmus Now. In June of twan nine, I was
up at the Yakima Bigfoot Roundup, a conference on bigfoot,
(09:07):
and I actually knocked on Bob Hoeronymous's door on five
feet seven and I stood not next to him, but
face to face, and I would say he is at
the time maybe five foot nine, five feet ten at best,
(09:28):
And so you could imagine maybe he shrunk a few
inches over the years as you get older, but he's
not as tall as he claims.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
Yeah, because that bigfoot in the Patterson Gimmelin film looks
like it's seven feet tall.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
Yes, it's quite large based on the feet, based on
the testimony of the people who were there. And so
that's the first thing is if if Bob Hoeronymous's claim
is to be believed, he would have to be a
much taller person, and he is not. And so you
would have to severely question his claim that he was
(10:08):
the person in the suit.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
What did the skeptics say about it, Daniel.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
The skeptics, the doubters are one hundred percent convinced that
it is just not just a man in a costume,
and they've gone on and on and have written about it,
have done podcasts about it, television interviews. But here's the
thing is that if it really is just a man
(10:37):
in a costume, then you should be able to duplicate it,
and to date no one has. And so if you
stop right there on that point, is that you go
back and look at science in general, you look at
other examples, and I think in nineteen eighty nine there
(10:59):
were two science just by the name of Fleischmann and
Ponds who claimed they were able to do cold fusion.
So essentially that's what's happening in the sun. But they
were able to bring it to a tabletop and say like, yeah,
we are able to do this, and other scientists got
(11:20):
wind of it. Actually they had a press conference about
what they had quote unquote achieved. Other scientists got wind
of this and said, hey, this could power the entire
Earth for basically nothing. Let's duplicate what they were trying
to do or what they claimed to have done, and
(11:40):
the other scientists who were trying to duplicate what Fleischmann
and Ponds had achieved cold fusion, they were unable to do.
So they came to the conclusion that the cold fusion
was fraudulent, that what they were said that they did,
that they did actually was unachievable.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
And so go ahead, who in their right mind would
want to put a costume on out in Bluff Creek,
California where you might be able to get shot at.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Yeah, at the time it was hunting season. So if
someone if you take the position that someone did, they
risked an enormous chance of being shot because there's a
lot of people not just just in the woods of
Gorther in California, but in the woods of North America,
who will literally shoot it anything out in the woods.
(12:35):
So that would be a huge risk for anyone to take.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
And the shooter at the time could just simply say
I thought it was a bear or an animal. He's
not going to get charged with anything, is he?
Speaker 3 (12:48):
No, No, absolutely not, he says. Well, he says, I
I can't believe there's a big foot out there. It
must be a bear. So I shot at a bear
because maybe it was approach or whatever the case may be.
But yeah, whoever, if you take the position that it's
just a man in a costume, there was a huge
(13:09):
risk of getting shot at.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Tell us about your book, of course, Bigfoot at Bluff Creek.
Speaker 3 (13:16):
Now Bigfoot at Bluff Creek A Pictorial Discussion is a
self published book by me because I wanted to have
control of everything rather than have an editor doing stuff
with it, yes, exactly, And so in nineteen ninety four
and then in two thousand and three I wrote a
(13:39):
booklet that was twenty three pages long, Bigfoot at Bluff Creek,
so that I'm the author about as well. And so
that was me back then trying to write about effectively
about this film subject because at the time I don't
know if you knew, but I had direct Coneck with
(14:00):
two of the principal investigators of the film, reade To
Hindon and John Green. So they were a colleagues of mine,
of mind when in the day when people wrote postal letters,
so I knew them from the late seventies, and they
knew a lot about the film, and so when I
had questions, they were able to ask answer effectively the
(14:22):
questions I had about it, so that on the twenty
fifth anniversary in nineteen ninety two, that's what inspired me
to write about it, because not a whole lot was
written about it, and what was written about it was
essentially rehashed, And so I wrote a book, but twenty
three pages long they put at Bluff Creek, and so later,
(14:42):
much later, like January of twenty twenty five. Last month,
I made a decision, well, this has been going on
for some time, but to publish a real book, one
hundred and thirty pages long, with an index and all
sorts of photos hence the term pictorial in the title
about the PG film, the Patterson Gimlin film. And this
(15:07):
is essentially bigfooted, block creeped original booklet but on steroids
now or supercharged, the supercharged version. And so this is it,
and I'm very proud of it. And just yesterday I
was looking on Facebook an individual from Mississippi who had
critiqued the book, by the name of Henry May. He said,
(15:28):
he says, I'm not giving this book a ten or
an eleven or a twelve. I'm giving it a twenty
on a ten scale. So I was just simply delighted,
and I saw that comment on Facebook, so I'm very
very happy.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
I'd give it about a twenty five. Daniel Well.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
I appreciate that because it's a very good discussion about
a good sensible discussion with feet on the ground about
the PG film, the Patterson Gimlin film. And so in
the book there are never never before seeing photos that
(16:07):
the late George Hass took all the film site. And
so people might ask, well, that's not a big deal,
these are just photos. But say, for instance, you could
think of an iconic movie star from Hollywood, Marilyn Monroe,
and so she's fascinated the public for decades and decades,
and people have seen all sorts of images of her,
(16:32):
and then when a new image comes out, people are saying, oh, wow,
we've never seen this or we've never seen that photo.
And so this is an opportunity to get to see
those images. And if you were to go back in
time and you'd say like, oh, I wish I could
see around the corner. Literally, this is that opportunity to
(16:54):
see the Patterson Gimlin film. What you could see on YouTube,
but you could literally now see around the corner as
to what's not seen on his film, but what's seen
on the film site, and those photos are packaged here
in this book.
Speaker 2 (17:11):
How were you able to get the photos from him?
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Well, here, George passed away. He was a chainsmoker and
he passed away back in the seventies. And so when
he passed away, he had an organization called from the
Bay Area Group of California. He had an organization called
the Bay Area Bigfoot Group, the Bay Area Group, and
(17:34):
so one of his colleagues was Warren Thompson. And unfortunately,
I guess around two thy twelve twenty fourteen he passed
away from Alzheimer's and I guess he was early seventies.
And so all the information that George Hoss had when
(17:54):
he passed away, Warren Thompson got. And when Warren Thompson
passed away, he passed out all that information on to me.
And so that makes me now the person with the
most physical, the largest physical files in the world on Bigfoot.
And part of those physical files were slides thirty five
(18:19):
millimeters slides that George Hass took of the film site
in June of nineteen sixty eight when he was there
with the Canadian Bigfoot researcher John Green to do a
recreation film of Patty on the film site.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one am Eastern, and go to Coast to coastam dot
com for more
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.