The Patterson – Gimlin Bigfoot Footage

The Holy Grail of Bigfoot tapes. For a variety of reasons, this clinches the argument over whether or not Bigfoot exists.

In 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin left Yakima, Washington and went to Willow Creek, California. They were both cowboys and worked seasonally. Patterson had been hunting Bigfoot for a long time; in fact, he was more or less a fulltime Bigfoot hunter for half the year. He had also written a book about Bigfoot. Despite all of that, he was just a cowboy, and he was not a particularly educated man.

Patterson brought Gimlin along because he wanted the best horseman he could find, and Gimlin is one of the finest cowboys out there. They went to Willow Creek because many Bigfoot tracks had been seen in the area recently as logging roads were opening up, so they figured it was a good place to look. These tracks were first noted in 1958 by Jerry Crews, a road worker.

The family of a recently deceased man named Ray Wallace has claimed that he created the Bigfoot myth by walking around in the woods wearing wooden shoes. The family has produced the shoes. However, the tracks left by his wooden feet do not match at all to the many known Bigfoot prints on many variables.

On October 20, they went to Bluff Creek, California, near the border between Humbolt and Del Norte Counties. They were riding along a trail along Bluff Creek when they came to an uprooted tree stump as large as a room in a house. As they moved past it, they looked down in the creek bed. There had been huge storms in the spring and much of the tree cover around the stream was washed away. In order to get to the creek, animals had to move across the open creekbed to get to the water.

Both men saw the Bigfoot at once. Patterson’s “unspookable” horse spooked and flipped him off of it. Patterson struggled to pull himself from under the horse, which had fallen tot he ground, then to get his camera out of his bag. He then began running across the creekbed pursuing the Bigfoot. He got about 15-20 seconds of the finest footage anyone has ever made of a female Bigfoot, 24 feet of 16mm film with a 16mm Kodak camera.

People went back the next day and made classic Bigfoot casts of the footprints in the soil. Bigfoot footprints have been found all over and many casts have been made. They share common abnormalities that would make them hard to fake. They lack an arch, and have a bone present that is not in a human foot. There are several other ways that they are different.

Mathematical calculations based on the prints showed that “Patty” weighed 550 pounds and that she was 7 feet 6 1/2 inches tall. The prints were 14.5 inches long and 6 inches wide.

Since that time, several people have all come forward with different stories that they wore a monkey suit for the footage. Each person has a different story and some even have the suits. Some keep dragging out new suits every year, trying to make them better and better, since in general, they look nothing like the footage.

Hollywood filmmakers have said it would be difficult or impossible to make a suit like that and that probably no human could be trained to walk the way Patty walks, or if so, only with extensive training. Patty displays a completely non-human method of locomotion would be difficult, if not impossible, for a human to imitate.

Note in the footage where Patty turns to look at the camera. Note how she turns her whole upper body around, including her shoulders, not just her head. A human generally only turns their head, but apes turn their upper body around, since they can’t turn just their head. Who would have thought of that?

Note the hairy breasts. Even apes do not have hair breasts.

Movement of thigh muscles can be seen as Patty runs. This movement is perfect, exactly the way a huge thigh would move. The muscle would not be visible under a costume.

Patty has a hernia on her left thigh. A hernia would not be visible under a costume.

Notice the absolutely natural way that Patty walks in a manner of locomotion that is utterly nonhuman.

Notice how long her arms are compared to the rest of the body.

Patty’s knee operates at a completely different angle when walking than a normal human knee does – it is not fully extended. This may be an adaptation to supporting a great deal of weight.

Patty has huge shoulders, calculated at 34 inches wide. The average man has shoulders 25 inches wide. A wide shouldered man is 28-29 inches. Humans with shoulders over 30 inches are nearly unheard of. Even Andre the Giant’s specs do not match Patty’s.

In 1998, the BBC paid special effects people to make a perfect Patty costume, then had an actor run along to imitate Patty. The documentary was billed as destroying the Patterson footage once and for all. The effort failed completely. To this day, no one, not even the finest Hollywood special effects designers, has been able to use an actor and a monkey suit to recreate this footage. Keep in mind that 43 years ago, special effects was still in its infancy and it is orders of magnitude better now than it was then.

No one has been able to prove that this footage is a fake. The worst one can say about it is that it is a mystery.

Patterson died of cancer in 1972. Gimlin is still alive, but he never made a dime off the footage. Both men were of high moral caliber, which cannot be said of the numerous fakers who all said they worse the costume that day.

Here a Hollywood animator says that the footage obviously shows and unknown animal, and that footage could not possibly be faked with a  costume and actor via modern techniques.

I am a CG animator by profession. As part of my craft I have an intuitive sense of natural human movement. I animate human characters for games.

When I view the Patterson-Gimlin film, I see a mode of movement that is not human, but humanlike. The arm swing and movement of the shouler girdles are clearly that of a truly massive frame. The musculature of the creature is very thick, but not restrictive to the range of motion in the shoulder joints.

In the trapezius muscle group, the diamond shaped set of muscles that anchor the shoulders, nape of the neck and upper thoracic vertebrae, the contraction of these thick muscle sheets is visible. In the cadence of the walk, and the amount of bobbing up and down, the presence of great and compact body mass is evident.

Also the creatures knee, not reaching full extension, is certainly an adaptation to supporting great weight. A fully extended knee has poor resistance to twisting forces. In conclusion, the reality of the film subject as an uncatalogued animal is self evident.

It simply cannot be a costume, the boundaries of the human form do not even fit within the form of the creature. Furthermore, the mass of the creature is so great and carried with such poise, a man could not even be trained to carry such great weight or walk bearing weight in such a fashion.

The muscle masses, if they had been padding, would have been static and restrictive. The presence of visible muscle contraction, the freedom of movement, the cadence of the walk, all fully support the claim that the footage documents a living hominid outside of the genus of man.

23 Comments

Filed under Americas, Animals, Apes, Bigfoot, California, Mammals, North America, Regional, USA, West, Wild

23 Responses to The Patterson – Gimlin Bigfoot Footage

  1. Hacienda

    Doesn’t walk like a human?

    You’re kidding right? “Bigfoot” walks like he’s just attended
    a investment conference.

    • tulio

      Yeah, I found it’s walk to be rather human-like myself.

      Okay, so if these things are real, any theories on how they’ve managed to evade capture for centuries?

      • There are a number of reports from the 1800′s of Westerners shooting and killing them. The bodies often fell down steep canyons. In one case, the body was taken to San Diego, but was not seen again.

        Many of the Indian tribes tell of the existence of these things, and describe them as just another creature in the woods or as another tribe of men. The Indians usually say that there used to be lots of them, but they retreated with the coming of the White man. They hunted with stones and sticks.

        The lack of a body is an excellent argument against their existence.

        I will only say this: I am certain the Patterson footage is real. So at least one Bigfoot existed in California in 1967. I feel they are declining and may even be going extinct.

        They have probably been avoiding humans for 100,000′s of years, and some feel that they are highly intelligent. There are suggestions that they may even bury their dead.

        They may be Gigantopithecus, which supposedly went extinct 100,000 years ago, but in truth, no bones have been found for 100,000 years. Even prior to that, only a few bones have been found.

        All I will say for sure is that one Bigfoot existed in 1967 at the time of that footage. Since then, they may have gone extinct for all I know.

        • Wade in MO

          “They have probably been avoiding humans for 100,000′s of years, and some feel that they are highly intelligent. There are suggestions that they may even bury their dead.”

          Indians buried their dead, yet we still find their remain. There are also fossils founds everywhere, even fossils of very small animals.

          ” They hunted with stones and sticks.”

          You mean despite the fact that they and the indians knew about each other, the never adapted any indian technology like bladed edges or, for some natives, the bow and arrow? If they were intellegent enough to bury the dead they would be intellegent enough to do that. Also, it would be very hard to hunt with blunt objects like sticks and stones. Even if you managed to get close enough to hit it once, the animal could still get away easily unless you hit it just right.

          “The Indians usually say that there used to be lots of them, but they retreated with the coming of the White man.”

          That’s just silly. Why didn’t the Buffalo retreat then?

          “There are a number of reports from the 1800′s of Westerners shooting and killing them. The bodies often fell down steep canyons”

          ALL OF THEM fell down steep canyons? That’s ridiculous. There are reports of westerners seeing sea monsters. Do you believe in them?

          It just seems kind of ridiculous that people could discover the Ceolacanth in the depth of the ocean when the thought it had gone extinct, but now they can’t find a huge primate wondering around populated areas.

          How could all of these things be discovered or rediscovered, but no one can even get a decent shot of this huge primate?

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxxbQVKM1Xw&feature=related

          When some one sites a Dodo bird I’ll be more interested.

  2. The Patterson footage is an excellent shot of a Bigfoot.

    Large mammals, completely unknown to science, have just recently been discovered. See the Sora from Laos.

    According to Indian legends, Indians killed some Bigfoot and some Bigfoot were killed by Indians.

    They didn’t all fall down canyons. We have reports of Indians killing them. We also have a report of one being hauled off to San Diego. We also have a report of one being killed in Manitoba in 1941. The guy who shot was so freaked out that he left it there.

    Many hunters have seen these animals, but as a general rule, they refuse to shoot it because it looks so much like a man.

    I agree that the “no body” is a good argument against their existence, but I don’t think it is probative. After all, we have Bigfoot fur, Bigfoot foot casts, Bigfoot hand casts and now a full Bigfoot body cast.

    The absence of evidence is not proof that something does not exist. You know that very well. One could turn up anytime, and I am certain that one will.

    • Wade in MO

      “The absence of evidence is not proof that something does not exist.”

      True, it is much harder to prove something doesn’t exist than to prove something does, but I still doubt the Bigfoot story.

  3. Davey

    It’s so obviously a man in a monkey suit. Even the walk is just a normal human walk. “The creature’s walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk,” one analyst said. You can actually see the suit crumpling under the buttock as he walks.

    Patterson was a Bigfoot obsessive for years before making the film. What are the chances that he would actually film one too? Must be coincidence – ha!. He was even planning to make a fictional film about bigfoot.. so there would have been reason for him to make a costume.

    Movie cameras outside the movie industry were quite rare at the time. Now everyone has a video camera in their phone. You would think there would be 100s of such movies a week…. but no, none.

  4. Dirty Bull

    It’s very obviously a hoax and a man wearing a ‘gorilla suit’.
    Come-on Bob, It’s April Fool’s day and all that.

  5. Shawn

    The Wikipedia article on this debunked the video in my mind. The guy who’s in the costume has came forward — he is wearing football shoulder pads and the film speed is such that the movements could be imitated by a man. The filmers just happened to be making a documentary on bigfoot; how convenient it was to find bigfoot!

    • Wikipedia takes the position that Bigfoot is pseudoscience, and as such, does not exist. That is reflected in all of their articles on the subject.

      The video has not been debunked. There have been several individuals who have all come forward saying that they were the man in the monkey suit. However, residents of Bluff Creek say that Patterson and Gimlin were alone when they went down there.

      The people who say that they were the man in the suit have produced a number of suits that they say were used in the video. None of them could have possibly been used in the video. One guy keeps producing new suits all the time, claiming it’s the real monkey suit. They still have not produced the monkey suit that was supposedly used in the video.

      Bigfoot is sufficiently rare that probably only a professional or fulltime Bigfoot hunter is ever going to find one.

      Many attempts have been made down through the years to imitate this video. None have been successful, even with modern special effects and costume design techniques.

  6. Bigfoot’s existence is pretty doubtful. Even conceding the fact he may be averse to human contact, that still cannot explain the fact that there have been no documented encounters or clear photos with humans in the hundreds of modern years of exploration, logging, hunting throughout the Northwest. At the very least there would have to be some physical evidence scattered about. Not all Bigfoot carcasses would be “natural” deaths. I can’t imagine how one would fare in hand-to-paw combat with a Great Grizzly, but I would put my money on the bear that we know.

    I love these enigmatic mysteries. My favorite is the Devil’s footprints of Devon in 1855. This is truly bizarre!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Footprints

    • tulio

      There would be fossil evidence going back thousands of years if there was a primate that large walking the forests of N. America. If they are here, it’s not like they just got here yesterday. They would’ve been here a very long time and we would have evidence of their migration pattern. These things have been claimed to have been seen as far north as Alaska, but really, isn’t it a bit strange that you’d have a large ape walking around in Alaska(humans non-withstanding) when apes are entirely confined to the tropical habitat?

      I’ve even heard some far-out theories that Sasquatch is a Chewbacca-like extra-terrestrial and that’s why it’s rarely seen and nobody can capture one. But now we’re getting really far out there!

  7. Shawn

    I’m on to you Robert, this is a total pre-April Fool’s post

  8. Davey

    OK, I was too cynical. I’ve just discovered this amazing video – it has finally convinced me of the reality of Bigfoot. Best seen full-screen:

    • mott69

      Ha ha. Let me guess- that’s a person. Compare to Patterson footage. The Patterson footage needs to be viewed at its original resolution- not zoomed in. The zoomed stuff is blurry and this makes it look much less real than it actually looks at regular resolution.

  9. johnUK

    @Robert Lindsay

    Bigfoot debunked?

    The mystery of Bigfoot finally revealed.

    http://youtu.be/0vz2nxdM0qc

  10. K Eggers

    RL is correct, the PGF has never been debunked. Every few years, someone pops up claiming to have been the guy in the suit and/or the creator of the ape costume (most recently Greg Long in 2004, who pushed Bob Heironimus as the suit guy, but they can’t keep their stories straight and it fell apart).

    My position is, and has always been since I saw the film as a kid in the 1970s, is that “Patty” is either exactly what it seems to be or is an unprecedentedly good fake. While some prominent Bigfooters, including serious ones with science credentials, have considered PGF a hoax, most are credulous, or at least think the preponderance of evidence points to Patty being a real hominid.

    Certainly RL is correct that the state of special effects in 1967 was rudimentary and, frankly, Patterson was both too dumb and too poor to have pulled off a perfect hoax like this.

    The more that PGF is examined, the more convincing it becomes, I think.

    • The Patterson footage could not have been faked in 1967 or 2167. It’s an animal. You can’t make one animal up to look like another animal. Can you dress a lion up to look like a tiger? Don’t think so.

      PGF is the Holy Grail. That’s why the deniers are so invested in destroying it.

      If it’s a hoax, it’s the greatest of hoax of all time.

  11. mac

    this is a very factual piece of bigfoot proof. It contains detail on how almost everything can prove “patty” did or does exist. I have always believed in bigfoot. If there are apes in africa, why cant they be in north america? Like a lot of other animals they could adapt to their surroundings. And also anyone can come forward saying they were the bigfoot. Its all for attention. How many times did that exact same thing happen to movie stars, politicians, and athletes?

  12. uncle tancred

    The pinnacle of ape makeup technology in 1967 was seen in the film Planet of the Apes. This was a big budget major studio production. The best that skilled makeup artists could do. It looks primitive and clumsy to us today, far beneath what we see in the muscle movement, bone movement, expressions of the subject, and the display of a heriated muscle in the quadrecep area seen in the P/G film. Makeup artists today, looking at the film, say they could not do it today or back then, without a computer. To assert that an impoverished rodeo rider at that time could have underwritten a hoax technically superior to what a major movie studio could produce dulls Occam’s Razor. Yes, Patterson was looking for a bigfoot. Based on reports of activity and footprints found in the area, he had been searching there for 10 days to two weeks, as I remember, before having his encounter. Yes, several old guys have come forth claiming to have been the man in the monkey suit, but none of them can say exactly where the footage was shot, who made the suit or what became of it. (Refer to the BFRO site for a debunking of the debunkers). And people incredibly still say; “The creature walks like a man, not a monkey.” Why in the world would a 600 pound primate adapted for bipedalism walk like a gorilla, chimp or gibbon which are not so adapted? The creature walks exactly as you would expect for its body mass and way of life. A folk legend does not leave hairs, DNA, 11 inch high piles of scat that contain bacteria only found elsewhere in primates originating in Asia, and footprints showing mid tarsal flexion, and dermal ridges and that go on for 18 miles. Real creatures do, however.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s