The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 7:112-116 (2018) Guest Editorial The Patterson-Gimlin Film in Light of the Linnaeus and Porshnev Teachings: A Report Presented on the Occasion of the Film’s 50th Anniversary Dmitri Bayanov * State Darwin Museum, Moscow, Russia 117292 Fifty years ago, on October 20, 1967, in Bluff tology, and consequently a paradigm shift in Creek, northern California, Roger Patterson, anthropology. helped by his friend and assistant Robert In this connection Porshnev recognized the (Bob) Gimlin, captured on film a female reality of the so-called “snowmen.” On his specimen of the higher bipedal primates initiative, the Soviet Academy of Sciences set known in North America as Bigfoot or up a special commission to study the sasquatch. Up until now, according to the snowman question. During two years of its science of anthropology, Homo sapiens is the existence the Snowman Commission, using only representative of the bipedal primates on ancient, medieval and modern sources of earth. The others are nonexistent because, information, gathered and published a lot of according to paleoanthropology, man’s material pertaining to the existence of bipedal closest and most recent evolutionary relatives primate relicts. died out tens of thousands of years ago. Such Some time later, Porshnev’s ideas were is the scientific paradigm today. For this strongly attacked by influential conservative reason American scientists rejected the film scientists, who accused him of creating and out of hand, largely without studying it, spreading pseudoscience. The Snowman calling it a fabrication showing a man dressed Commission was disbanded. When publica- for deception in a special costume imitating tion of the book On the Beginning of Human natural hairiness – “a man in a fur suit.” History, the main work of his life, was In 1971, sasquatch hunter René Dahinden interrupted and cancelled, Boris Porshnev visited Moscow and handed over to us, suddenly died of a heart attack in 1972. followers of professor Boris Porshnev, a copy Study of the film began while he was still of the Patterson-Gimlin footage for study and with us and continued after his passing. The verification. Porshnev was the author of a main investigators were members of the fundamental work on relict hominoids. permanent seminar on the problem of relict According to his concept, Homo sapiens is not hominoids formed at the State Darwin the only bipedal primate in the world, there Museum in Moscow by its chief curator Pyotr are others, including relict Neandertals, which Smolin, after the academy commission were of special interest for him. This means, stopped functioning. As a result of the film’s he declared, a scientific revolution in prima- comprehensive study, with valuable advice of *Correspondence to: Dmitri Bayanov, Science Director, International Center of Hominology, email: [email protected]. © RHI THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM AND LINNAEUS AND PORSHNEV 113 specialists, such as Dr. Dmitri Donskoy, author, the Patterson-Gimlin film cannot be expert of biomechanics, in particular, we came demonstrated to be a forgery at this time.” to a firm conclusion that the film really shows (http://www.photekimaging.com/Support/rptc a female Bigfoot. Our analysis was published ol2.pdf). In 2014, the film was validated by in the books by Peter Byrne, The Search for William Munns, Hollywood specialist on cos- bigfoot: Monster, Myth or Man? (1975) and tumes and special effects, in his book, When Don Hunter with René Dahinden, Sasquatch Roger Met Patty. We note with satisfaction (1973) and what’s more important, the film’s that the American investigators of the film, authenticity was noted and stressed in our using better technology than was available to article published in the authoritative inter- us, have supplemented and affirmed our find- national journal Current Anthropology, De- ings back in the 70s. cember 1974. In 2004, a $100,000 reward was announced This became one of the main reasons for for anyone who could definitively disprove holding the first scientific conference in the Patterson-Gimlin film. The reward re- Vancouver, BC, in 1978, on the problem of mains unclaimed. All attempts by debunkers sasquatch and other bipedal primates. As re- by means of films and videos showing a man ported by American newspapers, our report on in an ape costume have spectacularly failed. the Patterson-Gimlin film was the high point The actors demonstrate wrong biomechanics, of the conference. It is published in full in the wrong movements, wrong gait and anatomy, book, America’s Bigfoot – Fact, Not Fiction. including the intermembral index (ratio of U.S. Evidence Verified (1997) in Russia. [A upper limb to lower limb), all of which are copy of the book was sent to President Bill quite different from what is characteristic and Clinton, he confirmed receipt and expressed looks natural in Patterson’s film-star dubbed gratitude.] Patty. The actors’ hair cover is also wrong, The film’s serious examination and valid- since Hollywood masters of special effects ation happened in Russia twenty years earlier have repeatedly stated that they are unable to than similar work done by our colleagues in produce a costume looking equal to Patty’s North America. In 1992, the authenticity of hair cover. Noted costumer designer and the film was argued for and approved by Dr. animal actor Janos Prohaska concluded that Grover Krantz, professor of anthropology at the hair would need to be glued directly onto Washington State University, in his book Big the actor – a ten-hour make-up job. If it was a Footprints. He did so as a result of his cotume, he said, it was the best costume he personal study of the documentary. In 2006, had ever seen. To him it looked “very, very the film was described as authentic by Dr. Jeff real.” Meldrum, professor of anatomy and It’s appropriate to mention here one more anthropology at Idaho State University, in his interesting fact. After Patterson died, Bob book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science. In Gimlin, who had not earned a cent from the addition, the on-line refereed journal The film, was offered big money if he would say Relict Hominoid Inquiry, has published a that Roger had faked the film. The bribery was number of papers on the subject by both indignantly rejected, which tells a lot about American and Russian authors. In 1995, Jeff both Gimlin and film. Glickman, a certified forensic examiner, Thus fifty years of the film’s existence released his unpublished report on the convincingly testify to its authenticity. A intensive analysis of the Bigfoot film over a question arises: Why were the Russians first period of three years. His conclusion: “Despite in the film’s examination and validation? The three years of rigorous examination by the answer is: Because, unlike our American DMITRI BAYANOV 114 colleagues, we were from the very beginning pology. Using the information of ancient in possession of Boris Porshnev’s revolu- naturalists and travelers of his time, he tionary concept of relict hominoids. This proposed the existence of two species of man: provided us with a solid scientific basis for the one is Homo troglodytes (caveman in Greek), analysis. described as sylvestris (woodman) and Question number two: Why were these nocturnus (nightman); the other is Homo relict primate beings not known to modern sapiens, described as diurnus (diurnal), the science? The shortest answer is because there term applied to modern man. It is only in was no science to know them – that is natural, contrast to Homo troglodytes that the term biological science. Fortunately, we have it Homo sapiens was coined and used by now. As to humanities academic discilpines, Linnaeus, and not because he was of such high such as folkloristics and demonology, they opinion of representatives of our species. have always known such beings by names In an age when religion was dominant bold which make scientific scholars think it’s the innovations in science, introduced by subject of pure fantasy and mythology. Linnaeus, were soon rejected. After his death, In Russian the principal name for these the Primate Order was banned and restored beings is leshy, from the word les (wood); in only a century later by Darwin’s close English it is translated as wood goblin. The associate Thomas Huxley. As for Homo words devil and shaitan (the latter in the troglodytes, it was declared to be a mistake by Turkish languages) are widely used; pan, the great naturalist, who allegedly took satyr, silenus in ancient Greek, faun in Latin, anthropoid apes for people. The term etc. This factor has been and remains a serious troglodyte was then applied to the chimpan- obstacle to accepting the reality of leshys and zee: Simia troglodytes (cave ape). Absurd! It wood goblins by those who do not realize that was not Linnaeus but his critics who erred. mythology is not pure fantasy, but a mixture Two centuries later, justice was restored of truth and fantasy. and Linnaeus rehabilitated in this most In his monograph Porshnev writes of the important question. This was done by emergent science of relict hominoids, referr- Porshnev in his 1963 work, The Present State ing at the same time to Carl Linnaeus, the of the Question of Relict Hominoids, in which famous Swedish naturalist of the 18th century, he calls the “snowman” by the scientific name creator of the system of classification of of Homo troglodytes Linnaeus. In the same animals and plants which is still used today. work the author substantiated the thesis that Linnaeus borrowed the ecclesiastical term the discovery, or more accurately, re- primatus and used it in biology, having laid discovery of troglodytes by modern science the basis for the science of primatology.