The Problem of the Ray Wallace Hoax Tracks in Bluff Creek, and Their Contrast with the Jerry Crew and Other Tracks Found from 1958-1967

Originally Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:31 PM

I have to admit feeling rather disturbed by the Wallace feet when they were presented by his family to the public after Ray's death. They did look abominably familiar. Not long after that I, too, was looking back at my John Green books. Though the Wallace feet do not match many of the Bluff Creek historical footprints, they do match very closely the ones found in 1967, before the Patterson-Gimlin film was shot. They do not match with the P-G sandbar track casts, nor the original Jerry Crew one, nor Patterson's Laird Meadow print from 1964. The similarity with the Al Hodgson cast is, I think, debatable. 
 
The feature that stands out most is the so-called "double ball" on the side of the foot, with the "hourglass" general curvature. Also, the boxiness of the toes is a Wallace-foot feature. Looking at the photos from Onion Mountain and Blue Creek Mountain I have to admit that there is similarity. The OM trackway looks fairly artificial in photos, and the close-up taken by Rene Dahinden, especially, looks identical to a Wallace foot stomper. What can we say? The tale goes that the tracks led down from the hill and over the other side down an embankment. These tracks showed great variance and adaptability to the irregular terrain, not to mention covering ground where it would be exceedingly difficult to utilize Wallace's stated means of hoaxing. That method was supposedly to put the wooden feet onto one's boots and be pulled behind a truck on a rope while walking, achieving greater stride and depth of impact upon the ground. At least, that is the way the account goes. We weren't there, unfortunately, to witness these aspects. To my eye, the tracks in the photo that Kitakaze provides, above, DO look fake. They are too flat and too regular in placement; but that is just my eye, and it is such using an incompletely documented history and sets of photos. I'm sure there are many, many unpublished photographic examples still in the files of the Dahinden brothers and Mr. Green--if only we could see them all!
 
You surely have heard the "believer" defense on this matter: Wallace copied his footprint stompers from tracks they found earlier, i.e., from the REAL tracks. To me this is plausible, to some degree. 

 
Also, one has to ask was Wallace even THERE in 1967? He was employed on the earlier Bluff Creek Road project, but was he employed on the later Blue Creek Mountain ridgeline add-on??? Kitakaze, above, presents 1967 footprints in an attempt, I assume, to discredit tracks and events that occurred in 1958. I'm personally not sure that this makes sense. If the Wallaces weren't there, then what does it have to do with it? Did he pass on his footprint stompers to someone else? It's a bit of a mystery.
 Patterson's 1964 Laird Meadow Cast
Look at the photo of the tracks in the road dirt below the Hodgson cast... there are TWO different footprint shapes there. Also, look at the photo of Wallace (actually, that looks like Rant Mullens to me) with the row of fake footprints--NONE of these match, and ALL of them look ridiculous. In the case of the BCM prints there were supposedly THREE different trackways found, all differing in shape and size.
 Al Hodgson's footprint casts, as seen in A&E documentary.
It is so difficult to say anything concrete and verifiable in these matters. It is undeniable that Wallace and his brother(s) were around on and off in the late 1950s, up to some time in the early 60s. The article presented in Roger Patterson's book (Humboldt Times, October 14, 1958, by Andrew Genzoli) mentions Bigfoot-type events occurring two years or so BEFORE 1958. So, from this, we apparently know that the Wallaces were working in Bluff Creek in 1956. The fact that there was a Wallace presence through these years does cast some suspicion on the early Bluff Creek reports. But who knows? He may have picked up on reports and sightings that already existed in this area LONG before Mr. Ray arrived. These, also, have persisted after he left the area and after he left this earthly realm. Was Ray Wallace imitative, or originative? I think it was the first case, but that he started to play into the expectations of the media and the researchers of the topic. It is undeniable that there WERE hoax events going on back then; but one is hard-pressed to ascertain WHEN, and WHICH were Wallace or Wallace-influenced or -encouraged hoaxings.

I know from conversations with the fellow (Delaney, his last name, but he doesn't want his full name out there) whose father owned the Orleans Inn that there were good-old-boys and loggers and construction workers joking around about hoaxing Bigfoot. They used to sit on his porch at the Inn, when my contact was just a kid, and talk about doing it. Also, another old logger named Joe Ramos, who worked mostly up in the Blue Creek and farther north watersheds, up from Bluff Creek, that most of the local workers considered it to be a hoax. That is, according to him, and those he knew. Ramos used to own the store in Klamath, down on the coast, and would drive back and forth over Bald Hills Road regularly in the course of his business. He died recently at the age of 92. 
 
Then again, there are other old-timers, including my neighbor, Jay Rowland, along with Al Hodgson, who INSIST that Wallace did not do those footprints. As a person trying to find out the truth on these matters, or rather, seeking to tell the truth from the baloney, it can get extremely frustrating. One hears so many differing historical points, often contradictory ones, that a lead often spins in on itself into a dead end culdesac. 
 Track casts at 2007 Willow Creek PGF Anniversary event. Photo taken by Steven Streufert.
We know from Patterson's book that Wallace moved to Toledo, WA "a few years back" before 1966. Assuming this was written in that year, then perhaps Wallace moved in 1963? We need to find out the dates of his time not only living down here in the Willow-Bluff Creek area, but also the dates of his presence on the work projects. With Shorty-Wilbur Wallace involved, though, who knows? And if their joke hoaxes spread to other workers who also wanted to try their hands...? Well, we're really hard pressed to say what is real and what is simulacra and farce. Look right at the cover of John Green's ON THE TRACK OF SASQUATCH and there it is, a life-sized image of the Wallace footprint stomper (or page 70 of the current "BEST OF..." edition). The classic Rene Dahinden (page. 45, BEST OF SASQUATCH-BIGFOOT) also looks suspiciously Wallacian. However, right next to it on page 44 one can see the Hyampom track from 1963, which looks much different, and to my eye at least, more authentic.
 Green's casts show great variation.
It's hard to explain all of this. In fact, some of it can't be explained. All I as an individual can do is take some things with a grain of salt. I'll stand up for John Green's great work any day, even if he may have fallen for a hoax or two. I will not say that I believe these Onion Mountain and Blue Creek Mountain tracks to be a hoaxes, but I will admit that they COULD have been. The last thing I think one should do is try to bend evidence to match one's expectations. And, as far as that goes, there is simply an amazing amount of stuff to suggest that Bigfoot is real, even without these possible Wallace tracks; and yes, even without the PGF.
 
I would like to suggest, however, that the PGF tracks are QUITE DIFFERENT from the Wallace stompers, and VERY variable, as cast by Titmus and Patterson.

All I can offer for now is to TRY to get more clarity from the memories of those who knew or worked with the Wallaces, or from those historian types who may have records of those days somewhere. It's a long shot. See, this is how human memory and reportage works: witnesses are unreliable, accounts vary, memories get blurred, the timelines get mixed up.... It makes the Patterson film timeline issues look simple in comparison.

Best,
Steve

'parnassus', on 18 Oct 2010 - 6:59 PM, said:

Did I write that I know where everybody was back then? or is that just a straw man?

If that is your way of asking for a source for what I wrote about the Wallace brothers in 1958, it's in a book written by Roger Patterson, back in 1966.

Parnassus,

I agree that those overly-straight trackways look absolutely faked, to my eye anyway they look just like what I saw in one news clip or documentary where one of the Wallace family was re-enacting how they faked footprints along the road. This was by being pulled behind a truck by holding a rope, while wearing the wooden feet. To accomplish this one would naturally be inclined to keep one's feet in a straight line with the axis of the rope, so as not to lose balance. I've had certain Bigfooters tell me that this linear stride alignment is just how Bigfoot creatures walk; but to me that seems an explanation after the fact, trying to make up things to make the theory of what a Bigfoot is and does match the ostensible evidence. Just how, I would ask, would a giant, broad creature such as the Sasquatch develop the habit (and evolutionary trait) of walking with steps in such a straight line? This would suggest a creature that actually turned its feet inward, a walking style that not only does not make any real anatomical sense, but would also incline the creature toward tipping over all the time. That big, adaptable foot, it would seem to me, would be more mobile, widely spaced, adapting to the terrain, certainly not tip-toeing around.
  
I am looking forward to Meldrum completing his online footprint track scan database. He was here in Willow Creek and scanned all of the Bigfoot Collection's specimens in 3-D high density. There are many casts from around this general area that do NOT match the Wallace classic stomper as shown by his family after Ray's death. There are many that match more closely to Patterson's casts. And then there are the famous ones from Hyampom.
 
Look again at that photo of the line-up of the Wallace prints Kitakaze presents, above--NONE of those look realistic at all. They don't even look as realistic as the foot stomper. They show a consistent pattern of shoddy craftsmanship, a tendency quite in line with his other presentations of Bigfoot to the world--ridiculous letters (See them on the NABS site), bad recordings, tall tales and exaggerations. Those Wallace tracks wouldn't even fool the most credulous child at his road-side display.
 
I am of the persuasion that there was a lot of hoaxing then, just as we today have a lot of silly blobsquatches and fake game camera images. However, I am quite persuaded by all the other reports I hear, and the other track casts, and by the PGF itself, that there IS something real roaming around out there in the Klamath-Trinity-Siskiyou wilderness.
  
Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/

'parnassus', on 19 Oct 2010 - 1:48 PM, said:

Great post, BFBM; Ray moved to Toledo WA in 1961. The Wallasoid tracks, according to a couple of sources, match all of the tracks found at Bluff Creek between 1958 and October 1967 with the exception of: 1) the one cast by Jerry Crew 2) and those "found" by Roger Patterson, and possibly one or two of the three found after Labor Day, 1967. This link has some good info. The Wallace brothers and Rant Mullens had been in the hoaxing culture since 1924, and there is no reason to believe that they didn't sell or distribute their creations, and/or inspire others. The Wallasoid trackway seen in the 1967 Green photos, at least, could hardly have been made by a bigfoot. The axis of the feet is straight ahead and the straddle appears to be nonexistent. Not to mention the monotonous adynamic nature of the prints.

The truck tracks are clearly seen. However, Green and others speak of the tracks coming down the hill and then eventually heading off the opposite bank in at least one of the trackway finds. So? One has to wonder. I'll have to go back to the Green books to clarify which track find this was in reference to. Anyone here recall?

I will hold to the opinion that some tracks were hoaxed and others were not, at least until any evidence proves otherwise. I mean, there were reports of sightings, too, and vandalism of work sites, and not just from the Wallace crew.


s.

'nycBig', on 20 Oct 2010 - 3:17 PM, said:

I am suprised that no one was skeptical that the wallace trackways seem to always follow the path of a large truck..

READ MORE ON THE COALITION FOR REASON, SCIENCE, AND SANITY IN BIGFOOT RESEARCH DISCUSSION GROUP PAGE ON FACEBOOK, HERE:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartbigfoot/permalink/713142528717855/

Melba Is Toast: A Biochemist with a Ph.D. from Harvard Analyzes the Ketchum Bigfoot DNA Paper

BIGFOOT'S BLOG
Mid-September 2013 Edition

A longtime friend of mine, a tenured faculty member in biochemistry at a research university, with a Ph.D. from Harvard, has analyzed the Ketchum "Bigfoot DNA" paper, its techniques and methods, and its aftermath. Here is his statement:

"Melba Is Toast

The paper by Melba Ketchum and co-workers, published in an online journal Ketchum purchased just to publish her results, appears to be the product of careless work on impure samples and highly improbable conclusions. Here is a list of problems with the work. It is no doubt incomplete, but these are the obvious points.

1) The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method for amplifying DNA. Ketchum and her team used it to obtain analyzable amounts of DNA from their samples. Since PCR amplifies DNA exponentially, any contaminating DNA can yield artifacts. This can reveal itself in products of unexpected size and sequence. The most likely interpretation of their observation of unusual products resulting from PCR of the samples is contamination. If one is not extremely careful with how one handles the source of the DNA samples, like hair, and the isolation of the DNA and all steps prior to PCR, then contamination is not just a possibility but a likelihood. Contaminating DNA can come merely from superficial contact, as it is on skin and hair. It could already be the sample (for instance, if the animal had killed and eaten another animal). It can originate from humans handling the samples or from any other organism whose DNA is present at any point, not only on site or during transport of the sample but also in any of the labs or facilities from any material that comes into contact with the sample (bench tops, improperly washed or autoclaved tubes or other lab implements, etc.) or even from bacteria on dust particles, which can be a problem if samples are exposed to the air for long. With regard to dust particles, much of the dust present in any normal setting under non-sterile conditions comes from human skin flakes (all people are constantly shedding very tiny flakes of skin, which contain not only human DNA but also microbes that feed on the skin). So there are myriad possible sources for contaminating DNA. One must be extremely careful to minimize such contamination in handling samples, especially for a very sensitive technique like PCR.

2) Other issues that can result in strange results are degraded DNA, as well as trivial but common things such as DNA polymerase enzyme that is no longer functional because of denaturation, forgetting to add a component of a reaction like the nucleoside triphosphate cocktail, not using the right buffer, etc. Experiments can fail and yield "false negatives" in addition to "false positives" or results that are "erroneous" in that they do not reflect what one thinks one is testing. This happens all the time. It is just the nature of experimentation, where there are many variables and many things that can go wrong, often without one ever knowing what went wrong. This is why it is so critical to be very careful with samples, perform the appropriate controls and repeat the experiments several times over (at least) to see if the results are repeatable.

3) Ketchum and co-workers found some European haplotypes from sequencing of their PCR products. They conclude, implausibly, that this is supported by the Solutrean hypothesis, an obscure idea that humans came over from Europe. The only basis for this hypothesis is that tools of the Solutrean culture, which existed in Europe between 17,000 and 20,000 years ago, seem to resemble tools from the Clovis culture, which developed in North America around 13,000 years ago. There are huge problems with this hypothesis - that Europeans came to North America around 13,000 years ago and spread tool-making to the mostly Asian-derived Native American population. Most archeaological and carbon-dating experiments emphatically do not support it. So why do Ketchum and co-workers jump to the most unlikely and assumption-laden conclusion to explain their data? Applying Occam's razor - that one should first go with and test the simplest of hypotheses when there are multiple explanations for something - would lead one to conclude that the sample was contaminated by one of the team members of European extraction.

4) In addition to the genotyping and sequence analysis, Ketchum and co-workers used electron microscopy to look at the DNA samples and found that some of the DNA would base pair with one complementary strand, but other parts would not base pair with anything at all and remain single stranded or base pair with another DNA molecule. Such DNA, if it originated from a single source, would be very strange. Even if they were, as they claim, looking at DNA from a hybrid of a female human and a non-human hominid male, the DNA would form double helical molecules. (A single or very small related source of maternal inheritance is concluded by Ketchum and her team since the mitochondrial DNA is human and seems to be from one source; mitochondrial DNA, unlike nuclear DNA, is inherited exclusively from the mother.) Ketchum and her team's assumption that their data support the notion of a single or very limited mating between a female human founder and a male non-human hominid is highly problematic, to say the least. First of all, the DNA would have undergone extensive DNA recombination since the time that the human and non-human hominid mated. Secondly, for successful mating to occur, the non-human hominid would have to be very closely related to humans. In that case, the DNA, even the non-coding regions, would be very similar and hybridization between the two would occur with nucleotide mismatches not going for long stretches of DNA for any given length of DNA; mismatching resulting in looped-out single strands would therefore not be observable by electron microscopy. Thirdly, even if the mating was between a human and a relatively distantly related non-human hominid (so that there was more extensive base mismatching) and was a relatively recent mating (so that much recombination would not have occurred yet), the two complementary strands of DNA from each chromosome from both the human and non-hominid ancestor would base pair with its own perfect complement rather than the other molecule (since that would be the most stable base-pairing pattern).

5) To reiterate and add to some points above related to the way their conclusions were an implausible stretch of the imagination, only relatively related species can mate and have fertile offspring. So the DNA should be very closely related one to the other. Even if they were more distantly related and bore fertile offspring, the sequences would be highly similar due to DNA recombination (and after 13,000 years or many hundreds of generations, there would be extensive recombination). Another weird assumption they make is that, while the hybridization resulted in fertile offspring, the offspring then did not mate with other pure humans or pure non-human hominid. Why did the hybridization occur only once or a limited number of times at the same period and place? Why was the hybridization confined to a human female and male non-human hominid? Why not a female non-human hominid and male human also (which is ruled out, even in their strange paradigm, by their not seeing non-human mitochondrial DNA)? How was an initial population big enough to support a breeding population generated? Obviously, there would have to have then been a lot of inbreeding, but how were enough even generated from a limited hybridization to lead to a non-out-breeding Sasquatch lineage from 13,000 years ago to the present? If the non-human hominid could breed with a human, why did it only breed with a supposed European-derived human in America 13,000 years ago and not also with Asian-derived humans, who obviously came over the ice bridge from Siberia to establish the Native American genome (by the way, there is no evidence of the presumed European ancestor in the Native American genome at all)? Also, why would all of the hybrids go off, live an isolated existence and not leave tangible evidence of this existence? What happened to the presumed non-human hominid that was the male founder of the Sasquatch lineage? It went extinct without leaving any archaeological or anthropological evidence of its existence? One could go on. It's all so very unlikely. It's a house of cards made of one flimsy card after another. It defies all evidence, any logic and is the product of pure faith.

6) A more minor point is that the Ketchum paper contains mistakes in interpretation or representation of the published literature. This reflects poor scholarship. In addition, there are many typos in Ketchum's response to the reviewers that was leaked. While this in and of itself does not necessarily mean that their handling of the samples or conclusions was sloppy (the above points do), it does show that they can be hasty, not pay attention to details and make statements without thinking too deeply about them. It is only human to view someone who is sloppy about a lot of little things as sloppy in big ways too, and it is often a correct conclusion.

It appears almost certain that the team was dealing with mixed samples of DNA, including contamination from team members or other people who may have handled the samples, and that they grasped at the least plausible answers to their results over and over again. They wanted to prove the existence of Sasquatch. Moreover, they were willing to go to very strange "places" in their interpretation of data that again and again most likely reflected contaminated DNA samples. They kept looking at the data and saying how can this prove that Sasquatch exists, reaching the least likely conclusions to support a more and more outlandish Sasquatch. This creature is as unlikely as the proverbial little green men."

SKEPTOID BOTCHES ANALYSIS OF THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN BIGFOOT FILM

BIGFOOT'S BLOG
AUGUST 15th, 2013 Edition

The latest episode of my favorite podcast, SKEPTOID, by Brian Dunning, covers the PATTERSON-GIMLIN Bigfoot film.

Here is the link:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375 

Though I love this podcast (yes, I really do!), as I listened to it this time I couldn't help but feel that his answers to problems and refutations of issues were too facile, in the way of skeptical dismissal rather than true skeptical analysis. Yes, there is a difference, folks. Many of his points raised were actually based upon fallacies and misinformation. I re-read the transcript, cutting and pasting parts that I found to be erroneous. These are just off the top of my head, but based upon some ten years of studying the history of this film here in Willow Creek and doing extensive research in the Bluff Creek area.

So, for what it is worth, here are the points I found troublesome. Go to the transcription page for the podcast and read the whole thing for yourself. Can you find any more problems? Are there problems with the problems I have raised? Well, post them in the comments below. Documentation of these issues surrounding Bigfoot in Bluff Creek can be very tricky, as they have found scattered publication (no, Greg Long's book is not the end-all of information), and much of it is based upon oral history here in the local area. I'm open to additions, subtractions and corrections to the following list. Thanks!

SKEPTOID PGF ERRORS: 

* Bob Gimlin remained silent for 25 years
* he began speaking about it in the 1990s
* The original film no longer exists (unknown)
* no record of anyone ever having possessed the original print
* The original also would have included any other shots that were taken (we do have a copy of the full film roll, with all shots)
* Patterson covered his tracks very effectively (fallacious assumption of hiding the truth not following lack of records)
* full-time slacker (he did work, on his own projects, with determination)
* Few who knew him had anything positive to say about him (FALSE)
* lied about it (evidence?)
* knew everything better than anyone, and nobody could tell him a thing (not demonstrated by the accounts of his friends)
* DeAtley ... who provided money whenever it was needed ("whenever" is not true)
* Gimlin had developed a strong interest in Bigfoot (not before 1967, and at Bluff Creek he still wasn't a believer)
* they rented the movie camera (no, only Roger did)
* went off on horseback (they drove a truck)
* creature obligingly stepped out of the woods (no, it was by the creek)
* Gimlin chased it on horseback, lost it, but found its footprints (they never saw it again, only going up the creek where they thought it went, and only found a possible water mark on a stone, not a foot print)
* 5 kilometers back to camp (slightly high)
* drove 40 kilometers on rough fire roads back to Willow Creek (not the right distance, plus much of the way was on a real paved highway, and before that they were on forest service roads, not "fire roads")
* loaded their horses into the trailer (it and horses were left in camp)
* It was about 4:00 in the afternoon (NOT when they arrived in Willow Creek, but when they left the camp site... 6:15-6:30 apprx. arrival in W. Ck.)
* glaring impossibility of this timeline (NOPE, so far it is just about right, if they were quick about doing things)
* holes and contradictions in those stories. In the end, the version Patterson and Gimlin settled on (as in any telling of events, there will be inaccuracies, plus... how could they "settle" on a story if Gimlin "wasn't talking," and they always told basically the same story anyway?)
* the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded (not necessarily true if a willing pilot had been found, and there was a break in the weather)
* Since then, few serious researchers took Patterson and Gimlin's story seriously. (MANY have)
* Throughout the 1970s, Patty Patterson, Al DeAtley, Bob Gimlin, and a wildlife film company fought numerous lawsuits with one another over the rights to the footage (DeAtley was not in lawsuits, but there was one involving Patricia and Gimlin with Rene Dahinden. They wildlife film company was sued for using the film without paying for it. That isn't the film's fault.)
* Long... met face to face with all of these characters who were still alive (NOT Gimlin, though)
* American National Enterprises, turns out to have been pivotal (they were involved AFTER the film was shot)
* Patterson had been driving down to Hollywood a lot (I think three times total, not a lot)
* trying to sell the idea of a pseudo-documentary about Bigfoot (among many other projects, like his prop-lock and toy inventions, NOT just the idea of a Bigfoot film)
* based on Patterson's own self-published 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?  (NOT REALLY, as it was a fictional docudrama thing, but the book is written as non-fiction)
* It was with their money that Patterson rented his camera (NO, it was not)
* took some pre-production stills of his buddies allegedly on a Bigfoot hunt, but actually in Patterson's own backyard (not in his backyard, but in the hills outside of Yakima, and not "allegedly," but dressed in fictional character roles)
* ANE's movie was to be titled Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman. (BUT, that was NOT Patterson's film, but a later production idea)
* for a day's work on a film set (a day just in driving, a day there, and a day back, PLUS, it was not a "film set"  but a real wild location.
* He met with the men once or twice to try on a gorilla suit and make some adjustments (THIS MAY HAVE BEEN EARLIER THAT YEAR, as part of the docudrama project)
* Then one day, he drove down to Willow Creek (nope, that is TOO FAR, quite a ways  past the film site and Bluff Creek)
* ANE's money had also been used to buy the gorilla suit.
* It came from Philip and Amy Morris, established makers of gorilla suits for carnivals. (NOT as Bob H. described it, with horse hide and such)
* they had recognized the suit when they saw Patterson's film on television (pure anecdote, plus the Morris suits are TOTALLY different)
* Patterson had asked their advice in modifying the suit (not necessarily the same thing as at Bluff Creek)
* They also advised him to put a football helmet and shoulder pads on the suit wearer to make him look enormous. Not surprisingly, when Greg Long asked Bob Heironimus about the suit, he also mentioned that he wore a football helmet and shoulder pads inside of it. (Conflation FALLACY... the story about the football gear comes SOLELY from Heironimus)
* Patterson never paid Heironimus a dime (perhaps he didn't have to, if Bob H. is lying)
* nor ever spoke up about it to anyone (he bragged about it for years locally, in bars, to friends, etc.)
* ANE lost every penny of their investment (not involved)
* Patterson immediately abandoned their pseudo-documentary and, in essence, stole the film clip that was rightfully their intellectual property (TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS, the docudrama already had been abandoned)
* we now have a reasonably solid reconstruction of the film's complete history, with plenty of space in the gaps to fill (CONTRADICTORY, either it is solid or full of holes... which?)
* too lazy to take a regular job (no, he just didn't LIKE "regular" work... he was more the independent entrepreneur type)
* too much in love with his wife Patricia, and too many stars in his eyes to stick within the confines of the even the flamboyant rodeo (non sequitur in the extreme, rodeo was a part-time affair at best, and he loved his wife like any normal husband, and so what if he had big ambitions... that contradicts the "lazy" assertion)
* He was inwardly happy but outwardly grumpy (TOTAL ASSUMPTION, with no basis)
* while still being the rascal that he needed to be (bizarre assertion)
* Roger may have had a year left or five, and his thoughts were consumed with providing for his beloved wife (what is wrong with that? BUT... Roger expected to live, and said so constantly, while mass-consuming health foods)
* Nor was it with the deliberate mischief of a hoaxer. (But... you just called him a hoaxer repeatedly)
* He never paid his bills. (He was an ill man, struggling to make ends meet, and he paid the bills as he could.)
* But, then you claim he is totally rich: "The film had been a great success, and brought in a constant stream of money" ... surely if this were the case he could have paid his bills.
* He never sold hours of his life. (NOT TRUE. He did work jobs here and there.)
* He never sacrificed his lack of principles. (Nonsense sentence)
* Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made. (Really? It is just a minute and a half of a mystery creature, saying little more than that.)

Anyway, that is all for now.
When it comes to the PGF issues, the "Hoax Theory" feeds itself with its own presumptions, just as the "Believers Camp" feeds on its own wishful thinking much of the time. That is just the way it is, sadly.

No ANGRY BIGFOOT these days, sorry to say....