Patterson-Gimlin Footage: 39 Years Ago
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 20th, 2006
On this anniversary, my congratulations, once again, to two gentlemen for obtaining the best single, multifacted piece of evidence for the classic North American Sasquatch. Like a fine California wine, my sense is this one grows better with age.
Anthropologist Grover Krantz, one of the good guys who sadly passed away on Valentine’s Day a few years ago, once estimated that about "100 million potentially visible track events" have occurred "in the last 40 years in areas where people coexist" with Bigfoot; that’s about five possible track finds occurring every minute in the Pacific Northwest. Sightings, of course, occur much less frequently. A good piece of documentary-quality film footage of a Bigfoot is an even rarer event.
Why do I think the P-G footage is authentic?
I feel it combines many forms of evidence:
1. The event occurred in an area known for Native traditions of these forms of animal.
2. There are contemporary sightings, from the 1950s onward, here.
3. In this specific incident, the animal was seen.
4. It was smelled.
5. It was sensed by the horses.
6. A trackway of ten prints was found, the tracks casted and preserved - via film and in a physical state - for others to analyze. Such examinations reveal flexible, animate feet for this cryptid, known locally as a Bigfoot.
7. And finally, the apparent animal was filmed, and analysis of this footage by Americans, Canadians, Russians, and others verify this was authentic, probably made of an unknown primate, and it was not an elaborate or casual hoax, as assumed by debunkers in a few cases.
For me, all of the above combine into the virtual and visible vortex of the best pieces of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.
Here’s how the incident is described in my The Field Guide of Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates, which I coauthored with Patrick Huyghe.
October 20, 1967 Location: Bluff Creek, California, USA Witnesses: Roger Patterson, Robert Gimlin
While riding in the Six Rivers National Forest early one afternoon, Roger Patterson, an expert rodeo rider, and Robert Gimlin, a part Native American outdoorsman, rounded a bend and spotted a large upright creature on one of the creek’s sandbars. The dark, full-figured creature was covered with short hair (even on its large pendulous breasts) and possessed a sagittal crest. This bony ridge on top of the head, which supports heavy jaw muscles, has only been found, in primates, on certain fossil hominoids (especially Paranthropus) and among a few male apes, baboons, and other large modern species.
Patterson’s small Welsh pony smelled the creature and reared, bringing both pony and rider to the ground. But Patterson got up, grabbed his camera from the saddlebag, and while running toward the creature, took 24 feet of color film with the rented 16mm hand-held Kodak movie camera. The creature walked steadily away into the forest, turning its head once toward the camera. Gimlin, meanwhile, remained on his horse, a 30.06 rifle in hand, fearing his friend might be attacked. But the Bigfoot soon disappeared into the woods. The men then tracked it for three miles, but lost it in the heavy undergrowth. Immediately after the filming and in the days that followed, casts of the tracks were taken from the many footprints–each 14.5 inch long by 6 inch wide–the creature had left in the sandy blue-gray clay soil.
Similar footprints found in this area over the years had drawn the two men from Yakima, Washington, to search the area and now they had 952 frames of color film to support the existence of this 6-to-7 feet tall, 500- to 700-pound creature. While scientists who have examined this footage remain divided on its authenticity to date–claims about men-in-suits from Hollywood notwithstanding–no firm evidence has surfaced to cast serious doubts on the film or the events that produced it. In particular, the apparent movement of the muscle underneath the hair argues strongly against a hoax. Native Americans, First Nation Canadians, and Alaskan Inuits all have legends, going back centuries of giant hairy men and women like the one scene in this film.
- Similar Phenomena:
Ahhh…
Being a pup at 39, and also being a history major in college, it’s a comfort to know that one has grown up with an event.
I have no recollection of the end of Viet-nam, no memory of the Nixon era, or the Ford administration for that matter.
I remember going to see “Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot” in 1977 at age 10. Even before that, Bigfoot was on the Six Million Dollar Man, but somehow I recall knowing about Bigfoot before that and thinking Andre The Giant looked like a man in a costume and wasn’t convincing.
The Bluff Creek film site will always be a place I will always dream of going to. Perhaps someday I will.
Rob Carignan,
Portland, Maine
I saw the Patterson footage at the movie theater shortly after is was released. My father took us there to see it and they showed a closeup of the face. 39 years, man I feel old!
Apart from the Patterson-Gimlin film, the physical and circumstantial evidence for the existence of Sasquatch is pretty convincing, but I have always been on the fence about the legitimacy of the film.
There are plenty of indicators in the footage that say, yes, this would be extremely hard for two old-time cowboys with limited funds and technology to have faked so convincingly. But short of someone else filming another Sasquatch under similar circumstances, i.e., in the same clear and full view and along with similar corroborating physical evidence (footprint casts), I don’t think that the question about the film’s authenticity will ever be answered definitively.
But I have always *wanted* it to be true! Happy Anniversary, Patty.
As a young man I thought this was great stuff, proof that Bigfoot was real. As I’ve aged and studied cryptids for decades, I am now at a point that when a cryptid photo is accompanied by “We lost the negative,” “We can’t remember where we took the photo,” or in the case of the Patterson film “I can’t remember what speed the camera was set at” my response is Gee, how convenient. When critical information needed to analyze a cryptid photo is missing, the best case scenario is “not proven” and usually we must conclude “hoax.” I’d love for clear empirical evidence of bigfoot to be discovered tomorrow, I hope I read about it here.
But I’m not holding my breath.
I remember the first time I saw the Patterson/Gimlin film, as a child many years ago. In this type of case, there’s always people saying this n that, and it can be hard to determine who to believe or not. Never the less, I trust my own eyes, and this piece of footage is the one thing that convinced me, all those years ago.
I’m not one who believes in Bigfoot’s existence. By this, I mean to say that I do not possess the preconceived notion that Bigfoot exists and seek evidence to confirm by believe. I believe in the possibility of Bigfoot. One of the biggest reasons for this is because of the P-G footage that, while many people dismiss it as fake because it’s visibility and familiarity, when you look at it, only demonstrates its troubling veracity.
I would like to believe that the P/G Bigfoot film is legit. I have just never thought it looked really authentic.
With all the questions about the authenticity that have arisen over the past few around this film, I tend to view it very skeptically. I am just not convinced.
That’s not to say that I think Bigfoot doesn’t exist. I think the jury’s still out on that, and I still think that there must be some large bipedal cryptid out there. I’m just not convinced that the P/G film is anything more than a lucky success for a brilliantly orchestrated hoax.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and there are a lot of people who do believe that the film is legit. For all I know they may be right. But it just rings false to me.
I admit, the main selling point of the P-G film for me is the gender of the animal. Why would anyone think to fake a *female* bigfoot?
I have and will continue to remove all messages about the death of Bob Gimlin, for he is alive and well. Any talk about Bob being dead is misinformed, and these comments here live long beyond today. There’s no reason to fed a rumor mill that is based on incorrect data.
I was with Bob as recently as the 2005 Bellingham conference, and I know he’s still out there, talking on programs and being interviewed about this footage. As of October 20, 2006, Bob Gimlin is alive.
Thank you.
Like some of the others have said, I grew up with this piece of evidence. I recall as a child when the film was new how it had been ‘debunked’ by all sorts of folks. All sorts of TV specials, and what not. The one thing that sticks in my mind is how one guy said it was a fake because the bottoms of the feet appeared ‘white’.
I started to go hunting with my dad when I was 11 years old. It took many years to learn to track, and to recognize things, and to survive in the wilderness. By the time I was 21 I had become a very able hunter and outdoorsman. I had a chance happening to be able to see that very show where the ‘expert’ was commenting about the ‘white’ feet again. This time instead of taking the man’s word for it, I was able to see things for myself. I had taped the show this time, VCRs were very new then and folks taped everything. Anyway I watched the footage over and over. I very quickly came to the conclusion that the ‘white’ feet argument was a no starter. The creature was walking in light colored sand or earth, probably wet to boot. So that explained the ‘white’ feet for me. However as I watched it, I started to notice a few other things that it seemed were being over looked, at least I thought they were. This was before the internet had become popular, and you could find just about anything on any topic, so I had no idea that there were people that had seen the things I had.
What caught my attention at first was the calf muscle shaking as the foot hit the ground. That made me begin to look for more muscle movement in the film. I found the muscle movement in the shoulders, I then noticed the swing of the arm. What struck me was the length.
Anyway, what I am trying to so here is that the Patty film had sparked an interest in me that has lasted over 30 years now. At the ripe old age of 21, I had no doubt that those two cowboys had caught a live animal on film.
Imagine my surprise and delight when I moved to Florida, found a track quite by accident, found out about Skunkapes and started to research them! I had hunted all over the country, and other countries, but I had never actually LIVED in a place where there had been credible BF reports. I am just very glad that two men, one dying, with limited funds had gone out to try and prove that these creatures exist. No matter their motives, ie; a movie deal, these two men had undoubtedly sparked many, many people to look a little deeper into the subject. They also managed to take a good bit of the ‘laugh’ factor away. SO I would like to say THANK YOU Mr. Patterson and Mr. Gimlin, where ever you may be now.
Loren thanks for that. Please pass on my best wishes to Bob the next time you see him. Wish I could help with your comp problems, I definitely feel for you on that front.
I saw this film when it first came to light. Thought it was genuine then, and I still think that it is legit. What’s amazing is, with all the claims that this filmed encounter was hoaxed, it still stands up. That really can’t be said of too many other pieces of evidence such as this. “Patty” has become a cryptozoological icon, and not without good reason. The greater the science for film analysis grows, the greater the chances are that this film is what it appears to be; that there rally is a bigfoot, and Roger and Bob made science history that day. Yarri
Whether the Patterson/Gimlin is real or fake, one thing it did do was to create an passion for cryptozoology in many, many people who otherwise might never have shown an interest in unknown creatures. So regardless of its authenticity or lack of it, it has earned its place in history and in the cryptozoological hall of fame.
I agree with what kittenz wrote above: the true legacy of the film will always be the fact that it generated — and continues to generate — a burning interest in the study of the Sasquatch question.
The Bigfoot world simply would not be quite the same without it!
The Patterson/Gimlin Film is a true icon for those of us who know there are giant, hairy bipeds around the world. Is it a real film of a Sasquatch? I think so. I am 90% convinced it shows a real Sasquatch. I am also deeply convinced by Bob Gimlin and his honesty. I called him earlier this week and he sounded quite sincere with me over the phone as we talked about the film. I believe he saw a real Sasquatch that day and will not be swayed otherwise. There is that 10% margin of error, but it has nothing to do with Gimlin. I think he is an unimpeachable witness and a true gentleman. We talked like we’d known each other for years. Happy birthday, “Patty.” Can’t wait for the 40th anniversary.
I first saw the footage as a child, and am still awed by those few seconds of mystery. If the film is fake, it is the best hoax in the past 200 years, surpassing the Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant and other famous hoodoos.
A masterpiece that has captured public imagination and fancy and seems to have no end in sight.
If real, it is still the best evidence we have of an amazing creature that tantalizes our imagination and draws us closer to the campfire. I am a hopeful skeptic that the last glance of the she-beast as she strides away is an invitation to keep looking, keep following the footprints and stay close to fire.
Happy Anniversery.
I agree with most that this piece of footage is real. People have been trying to tear it down since day one-but like others have said: It has withstood criticism of every degree all these years. I too was a young pup when I first saw the film, and at that time it defined what a sasquatch looks like. If somehow it was faked, could we imagine the cost and time put into a costume like that, especially considering 39 years ago? They can’t come up with a costume that even resembles the Patterson-Gimlin film figure in this day and age. I have often wondered how long this particular female Sasquatch lived and how many offspring it brought into existence.
Good work Mr. Gimlin and Mr. Patterson.
The P/G film has also kept me on the fence. But I don’t think even a recreation would prove anything. After all, for recreation purposes, we have the film for a ‘type specimen’. All that would be proved is that someone was able to reproduce what has already been filmed. In other words, we still wouldn’t be sure whether or not the hoax or a real sasquatch had been recreated. The fact it hasn’t yet is more telling, in my opinion.
Happy anniversary everybody! I’m not sure exactly what to make of this footage. Sometimes I feel it definitely must be real, othertimes I’m not so sure. It is hard to believe they could have got so lucky when no one else has since, or that really could be a bigfoot in the footage and not simply a man in suit? Anyway, it would be really nice to know for sure one way or the other if this film is genuine, even if it isn’t! It certainly is a great piece of footage, I must have watched it dozens of times. It represents the best visual evidence yet and has stood the test of time. I just hope the animals existance will be proved once and for all in time for the 40th anniversary. That would be so awesome!
As the former owner of a photo and film lab for nearly 30 years, I have seen millions of pictures. Many of Bigfoot and UFOs. We also made 8 and 16mm commercials and wedding films.
In my opinion the Patterson film is of a real Bigfoot. I feel certain of this and would bet my photo reputation on that!
Today I held a garage sale at my home. Somehow a photo of Bigfoot in the Patterson film found its way for sale there. A customer saw it and made smart remarks about the Patterson film. He said that some guy confessed to making the film and that another guy saw a zipper in the monkey suit. I could see that there was no way to turn him, so I laughed along with him. Yeah, a big gorilla in the woods… ha, ha ,ha! I needed the laugh anyway.
It is obvious that the public seems to know little about Bigfoot. That is too bad.
The fact that none can prove the Patterson film a fake after all these years, indicates a real Bigfoot to me. I challenge skeptics to duplicate it, even with today’s technology. Then put their best work under the microscope for the world to examine.
While I tend to think the PG film shows a real animal, a hoaxer who did his homework might have made it a female to remind people of the William Roe/Mica Mountain sighting.
Real. Now what do we do? No-one has ever had the gumption or savvy of these two tough cowboys. Why? I often think that everything converged favorably for them that day. First there WAS a female Sasquatch in a vicinity known for them, Patterson and Gimlin were pursuing them, as they had before, and VERY importantly they were on horseback, I think this could have masked “man scent” and the creature may have thought it heard elk hoof beats in the soft sandy ground so decided to see if it could lay in wait. By the time P and G got within close range the bigfoot had figured something was wrong and decided to call it off. She was sort of embarassed I think, and almost does a look back and make sure I’m not seeing things type of movement before striding away nervously. These are not subtleties that hoaxers get or would have a clue about performing. I’ve watched it forwards and backwards hundreds of times and studied every detail I can think of. It’s real.
I do like the idea of a competition show. Let someone finance a competition in stages, with increasing amounts of funding and access to experts and technology. See just how much cost and effort it takes nowadays to produce a costume that replicates the quality of what is shown in the P/G film. And then subject it to the level of scrutiny the P/G film has undergone. See how well it fares there. Show just how hard it is even now to make a hoax of that level. Maybe even have someone do the cost conversions, and access comparisons to show what it would have taken back then.
Sorry…just a little pipe dream.
I had seen the film in a movie theater when I was younger. Just as fasinating now as it was then.
Since then, I have only seen short, low-quality web versions of this. Is there somewhere a person can get the full-length, high quality version?
It’s impressive if it’s a hoax, poor if it’s a documentary. However, I agree with bambookid, I would really like to be able to look at the footage in detail, not just the low quality analog tape encode. It would be nice to have a proper high-quality “digital-rip” of the film.
You may want to check out “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.” (DVD) The documentary film originally aired on The Discovery Channel 1-9-03. It’s got the full length Patterson-Gimlin Footage in digital format plus two other films. It’s available from Whitewolf Entertainment.
Anyway the P-G Film is a phenomena in itself. There is no other film like it, somewhat reminiscent of the famed Zapruder Film of the JFK shooting. They’ve been analyzed and scrutinized frame by frame by experts, so-called experts, the media, laypersons and just about everyone else who happen to have a deep profound abiding interest. I have the same recollections of those from the posted comments about seeing the film for the first time and it continues to pique the curiousity after all these years.I’ve read and studied as much I could from all the various books, magazines and other periodicals that have dealt exclusively with this film. And the conclusions are always the same. It’s one of the greatest hoaxes of all time or it’s a genuine film of a large unknown species of primate yet to be discovered. My belief is that it is authentic. This film has set the standard for all other Bigfoot films to follow. An arduous and difficult task at best.
My first encounter was 1957, ten years before the P/G Patty film, and two more in later years on expeditions.
So, I’m a believer. It changes your life’s perceptions when you know “they” really exist, and that Modern Man isn’t the only intelligent “high order” sharing this planet.
I was a believer before seeing the land mark film of P/G. The P/G film aided me into understand what I had witnessed in the mid to late 70’s as I hadn’t seen the film till after my sighting. The problem was it appeared the film footage I was always seeing was blurry, til later seeing it clear did I realize it was a Betty. I believe it to be real; eventhough, some don’t. Of course it helps if you’ve seen one in real time. One day I may have to put out a book on the subject as I live in a area that is a hot spot where many Pats and Bettys still roam free. The very best to you Mr. Gimlin for your bravado.
Thanks stillserchin, I was unaware of this one and it seems just what the doctor ordered. I’ll pick it up. Have you seen this? Does anyone know the screen resolution of the P/G video file?
I’ve always leaned more to the ‘believing it’s real’ side of this debate but three things sealed the deal for me:
1. The bigfoot is female. If it’s a ‘Hollywood hoax’ I find the prospect of them making bigfoot female unlikely. After all there was never a ‘Harriet and the Hendersons’ was there?
2. Muscle movement - even to the point that some sort of muscle injury can be observed in the right thigh. Again, who would think to fake this and how could it even be done?
3. Failed attempts to reenact the film - I think it was Craig that posted on here a few months back a side by side comparison of the P-G film and a ‘recreation’ that Discovery Channel or some network like that had done only a few years ago. The most noticeable difference? Anatomically speaking ‘Patty’ is definitly not human. Her arms hang much lower and are much longer than a human’s yet she walks upright. TV’s attempt at recreating this fell very short.
So Patterson-Gimlin, in my humble opinion, is one of the few true film images of a real, live bigfoot. Hopefully it is not the only one we will ever see!
I have one question for detractors of the PGF:
If you were going to hoax a bigfoot and catch it on film, taking along someone to witness the event, would you allow them to carry a 30.06 rifle during the time when your cohort was in a Monkey suit? How about if you were the guy in the suit? Would you agree to “do the walk” if you knew there was a good chance you might get shot in the process?
But on the other side, I have recently seen reports that there are a few frames of bigfoot footage immediately before the classic PGF sequence. Anyone have access to the entire footage to confirm or deny?
Regards
It’s been said before, but:
This film shows a real animal until someone can uncover a shard of evidence that it isn’t.
I haven’t heard of one.