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.



  1. The analyst has picked out different things, at different times from different angles. Now, he doesn’t know why the creature did them, but he knows that he did. And so, we have confirmed that he doesn’t know what he’s looking at or what it’s supposed to be, and he sounds pretty sure about it.

    • My native friends call him a shape shifter,this is why he is hardly seen and can vanish quickly into any surrounding.The natives going back hundreds of years before whiteman was even on this continent seen them,and i am white,so explain that you non believers!

  2. Anyone who believes in Bigfoot is a moron. Although there is more evidence of Bigfoot ( be it fake ) than of any God, and just look at how many people believe in that. The more spectacular the story the more people want to believe it.

  3. I have some film; amazing stuff. I filmed Santa walking in the snow from about 50 feet away. He turns and looks at my camera for a moment and then continues walking away (the opinion is he is returning to his sleigh and reindeer which are off-screen).

    It cannot be a human in a Santa suit; it has to be the real Santa. The beard cannot be fake, even a make-up artist of some renown has confirmed this. The beard is just too real looking. The suit is so uniform in color that it would be extremely hard to fake. If you look closely you can actually see Santa blink and his leg muscles are so different from human legs that he must be an elf!

    Sure, there are lots of Santa hoaxes but you have to see my film. I will soon produce photos with measurements comparing the movement of Santa’s arm to that of a normal human. It’s uncanny and fascinating. There are plenty of scoffers, but they will come around once they are presented with the evidence. We are hoping to submit a DNA sample soon to prove the elf nature of the being. Stay tuned.

  4. It does not look like a man in an ape suit, furthermore the film shows a female with pronounced breasts. A biometric study of the film has shown the movement of muscles beneath skin, and motion in walking that is not that of a human being.

    • If anyone would take the time to study Patterson and Gimlin, they would find themselves more inclined to believe the authenticity of the film. Not to be unkind, but P&G were hicks, simple backwoods knuckleheads and there is absolutely no way they could have come up with the planning and the execution of the Bluff Creek film. One is therefore faced with a simple problem: believe in the existence of another member of a well-researched and attested taxonomic family of creatures (homonidae) or believe that two economically challenged, mid-level intellect men suddenly had the finances and the wherewithal to come up with the greatest Bigfoot suit ever created, in 1967.

  5. I Believe there are alot of creatures both on land and sea that haven’t been discovered yet.. I don’t know if bigfoot is an ancestor. ..or just where he came from but I watched that film they didn’t have costumes like that back then…esp with breasts…I watch how that bigfoot walks the arms are long down to the knees and the stride is huge….I’m open to the possibility that this is a relative of ours but for some reason our govt. Doesn’t want us to know too much about his existence. WHY? THERE’S THOUSANDS OF SIGHTINGS AND EVIDENCE PROVING HIS EXISTENCE. ….I WANT THE TRUTH.

    • its a major hoax that gained steam and then other pranksters wanted to perpetuate it seeing it as an easy target. If you can make up a decent bigfoot story you’ll get attention and we have many an attention seeker in this world. There’s a group devoted to keeping the hoax alive and a member told me the trademark saying s they al use and just how they do it to fool the dimwitted. Theres not proof and there never will be its a joke!

  6. If this is a fake, where is the supposed gorilla suit? Until that’s been dug up from somewhere and analyzed as closely as Bigfoot has been demonized, I’ll continue to believe there *is* a bi-pedal great American Ape out there. Next I’ll be told there’s no such thing as a giant squid…

  7. Anyone who does not believe in even the possibility of Bigfoot is not an atheist nor are they an evolutionist. Ignorance is bliss, obviously, but a brief flip through the pages of any Paleontology 101 textbook will reveal hundreds if not thousands of strange creatures that should be much more difficult to believe in than a large, hairy, bipedal member of the hominidae family.

    • Sure, but those things left behind proof. What evidence there is for Bigfoot, one of the world’s biggest / most popular cryptid franchises, is inundated with easily faked, and often proven to be fake, evidence. Biological samples that people get so excited about inevitably come back bear, canine or human / contaminated.

      Anything is possible. But we don’t live in a world where belief supercedes fact. Fact is that Bigfoot is less and less likely to be real with every passing hoax. Hope for the best, expect the worst. Until something concrete shows up, this is just one more Jersey Devil with infinitely more public attention. Hence the proportional enormity of hoaxes / unacceptable evidence.

  8. Looks fake. The only man in the world who can even remotely walk like that has come forward, already. Fake….

    Not saying BF is fake…just the footage is.

  9. Pretty easy to prove if its fake and the guy who made the suit is telling the truth. Re-create it. Oh wait. They tried and guess what they can’t The only BS here is people making baseless claims. The film is there. If it is fake and you say you did it, then you should have no problem doing it again with the same technology of the time. But just as this film has, your recreation has to endure the scrutiny of todays technology. If you cant do this then STFU! Plain and simple!

  10. They are out there. I have personally heard them. The whole fake suit story was debunked years ago. Any Hollywood costume person will tell you that the craftsmanship didn’t exist at the time to make a suit like that. Also, they made a suit with breasts? Come on. Can’t fake rippling muscles, which are clearly visible in the new stabilzed version, in a suit.

    • where do you see rippling muscles? the entire ass doesn’t even move, its like a skirt draped over the top of the legs!
      and “craftmanship didnt exist then”? really? they were making fake robots for movies in the 50s.
      you dont know what you heard “out there”

  11. The magnified closeup analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film convinced me that this footage is authentic and this creature is real. If this is a hoax, then the people who created this “costume” would have had to possess great skill in adding random detail to the face in the form of scars and markings – and all done in 1967 no less.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.