The Patterson–Gimlin film is a famous (especially among cryptozoologists), short motion picture of an unidentified subject the film-makers said was the cryptid known as “Bigfoot.” The film-makers were Roger Patterson and Robert “Bob” Gimlin. Patterson died of cancer in 1972 and “maintained right to the end that the creature on the film was real.” Patterson’s friend, Gimlin, has always denied being involved in any part of a hoax with Patterson.

The film has been subjected to many attempts both to debunk and authenticate it. Some scientists who have studied the film have judged it to be a hoax with a man in an ape suit. Other scientists have done studies concluding the subject is perhaps non-human.

Here’s the original (very shaky) Patterson-Gimlin footage:

Now, reddit user ajs_uk stabilized the footage so that is significantly more clear.  Spoiler alert:  it really looks like a man in an ape suit.  Click the image below to play the gif:

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film Stabilized
Click the image to see the Patterson Bigfoot Film stabilized.

In 2002, Philip Morris of Morris Costumes claimed that he made a gorilla costume that was used in the Patterson film.  But Bigfoot “truthers” argue that Morris’ claim was used to garner attention to himself and his shop.  And besides, what about the way the creature walks?  Humans don’t walk like that, right?  Morris responded with the following:

The Bigfoot researchers say that no human can walk that way in the film. Oh, yes they can! When you’re wearing long clown’s feet, you can’t place the ball of your foot down first. You have to put your foot down flat. Otherwise, you’ll stumble. Another thing, when you put on the gorilla head, you can only turn your head maybe a quarter of the way. And to look behind you, you’ve got to turn your head and your shoulders and your hips. Plus, the shoulder pads in the suit are in the way of the jaw. That’s why the Bigfoot turns and looks the way he does in the film. He has to twist his entire upper body.

And so, claims of the film’s authenticity will remain unknown for now, but the evidence surely stacks up on the side of hoax or prank.  For more details, be sure to read through the whole article on Wikipedia.