Monsters are Real!

This Wednesday, October 28th my long awaited werewolf documentary will premiere on the History Channel (9pm EST), with a re-broadcast later that evening and then again on Halloween. For the investigation, I had the distinct pleasure of pairing with one of the top criminologists in the United States and together we traveled to France to look into one of the most famous legends in that nation’s history. La Beté (The Beast) as it became known, was allegedly responsible for a three year killing spree in the mountainous and remote Gevaudan region during the 1760s. Up to 102 victims, mostly children and women may have fallen victim to the monster, which witnesses described as resembling a werewolf. Eventually, the king became concerned and dispatched entire batteries of soldiers to deal with the blood thirsty menace. Hunts were undertaken and many wolves killed. But, in 1767 a hunter named Jean Chastel apparently dispatched the Beast with a lone silver bullet. Whatever became of the creature’s body is still unknown, though it was said to have been paraded around the region before being presented to the king in a smelly and decomposing state. Amazingly, my partner and I were able to reach some startling conclusions about this enduring mystery that spans more than two centuries. Tune in to see the story behind The Real Wolfman!

Today marks the 42nd anniversary of the famous Patterson Bigfoot footage that was filmed at Bluff Creek, California on October 2oth, 1967. Perhaps one of the most recognized film clips in history, it has sparked decades of controversy about whether or not a tall, hairy, humanlike creature could actually exist in North America. Ex rodeo cowboy and Bigfoot enthusiast Roger Patterson and his friend, horse handler Bob Gimlin, were riding along the creek searching for giant, manlike tracks, because they had heard that some had been found in the area a week prior. According to Gimlin, who I’ve had the great honor of meeting twice, the men suddenly rode up on a gigantic, hair covered being that resembled an ape, walking on its hind legs. When Patterson’s mount began to act panicky, Roger jumped from the saddle and drew his small movie camera. As he stumbled toward the retreating creature, Patterson was able to capture it on film for a minute or so. Gimlin dismounted as well and had a rifle at the ready, but had decided not to shoot at the animal unless they were threatened. The two men got the distinct impression that it wouldn’t be wise to follow the brutish monster, which appeared to be a female (based on her pendulous breasts). They did make plaster casts of several footprints that she left behind. Sadly, Patterson died just a couple of years after the film was shot. Reaction to the film at the time was widely skeptical. Most scientists that watched it were in disbelief at what they were seeing, many thinking that it was a man in a costume due to its upright posture. Dr. John Napier, a primate expert at the Smithsonian Institute acknowledged that there was a chance that the footage was genuine and if so, it was one of the most important discoveries in the history of anthropology. Canadian Bigfoot researcher René Dahinden flew to Russia in the early 1970s following Patterson’s death, in order to garner scientific opinions there. The film was subsequently studied at length by scholars Dmitri Bayanov and Igor Bourtsev, as well as a biomechanics expert named Dr. Dmitri Donskoy. All of them concluded that the subject in the film was genuine and displayed a gait that was definitely non-human and yet completely natural. Other scientists who were convinced of its authenticity include the late Dr. Grover Krantz of Washington State University, who agreed that the creature in the film illustrated a bent-knee walk and anatomy that were befitting of a massive hominid with re-designed leverage. Most recently, primate anthropologist Dr. Jeff Meldrum of Idaho State University has mad some strong statements in support of its authencticity. Strangely, the one surprising critic of the film is the father of cryptozoology, the late Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, who felt that it was a fake. Many claims have come forward that the footage was hoaxed by Patterson, but thus far no one has been able to produce the costume. One important thing to point out is that costume technology in 1967 didn’t include muscles and the type of realistic hair flow that the Bigfoot creature in the footage possessed. Even modern attempts to recreate the film, have looked fake in my opinion. Interestingly enough, recreations of ‘Patty’ portray her as having a very human looking face. The bottom line is that the Patterson Bigfoot looks exactly what thousands of eyewitnesses have reported all over the world for decades. To many cryptozoologists, it is the holy grail of photographic evidence. But, the fact that it is still controversial 42 years later, illustrates how difficult it will be to prove Bigfoot exists without an actual physical specimen.