The footage shot by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin on October 20th, 1967, in Northern California is one of the most hotly contested pieces of evidence in cryptozoology. The film has remained a divisive subject in the cryptozoological community over the last five decades, although the number of experts who have examined the evidence and found it to be favorable is slightly higher than the film's detractors, and all claims of proof that it was a person in a suit have since been debunked. Both Patterson (now deceased) and Gimlin have consistently maintained that the film is genuine.
Anyone who insists that Bob Gimlin is a con artist need only listen to him talk about how he wishes he'd never made the famed footage he shot with Roger Patterson public. It nearly ruined his professional life and cost him his marriage. I can't help but wonder what exactly it is that people like professional debunker Greg Long think that Gimlin had to gain. I mean, con artists—as Long describes Gimlin—are usually out for material gain, and Bob Gimlin certainly never saw much of that as a result of his sighting, or the recording he took with Patterson. I'd wager that it's Long pulling the con, and throwing an innocent man under the bus in order to sell his own book debunking bigfoot. Now, I don't know what exactly Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin saw or filmed on that day in 1967, but given the circumstances, if Bob Gimlin insists he didn't perpetrate a hoax, well, I believe him.
Yours in Impossibility,