The Patterson-Gimlin Film

On October 20, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were riding horses in the forests of Northern California when they encountered something that would change cryptozoology forever. Patterson captured 59.5 seconds of 16mm film footage showing a large, hair-covered bipedal creature walking through a clearing at Bluff Creek. The figure turned to look at the camera, revealing apparent breasts, then continued into the forest. The Patterson-Gimlin film remains the most analyzed and debated piece of Bigfoot evidence ever recorded.

The Filmmakers

Roger Patterson

Background:

• Former rodeo rider
• Bigfoot enthusiast
• Had written a book about the creature (1966)
• Was actively searching for evidence
• Rented a camera before the expedition

Bob Gimlin

Background:

• Patterson’s friend
• Experienced outdoorsman
• More skeptical about Bigfoot
• Came along as backup
• Would carry a rifle for protection

Their Purpose

They were in the area:

• Specifically looking for Bigfoot
• Had heard of recent sightings
• Brought camera equipment
• Were prepared to document anything

The Encounter

October 20, 1967

Around 1:15 PM:

• Patterson and Gimlin were riding on horseback
• Along Bluff Creek in Del Norte County
• They rounded a bend in the creek
• Their horses reared in alarm
• They saw a creature across the creek

What Happened

The sequence:

• Patterson’s horse threw him
• He grabbed the camera
• He ran toward the creature, filming
• The creature walked away at an angle
• It turned to look back at frame 352
• Then disappeared into the trees

Gimlin’s Role

Meanwhile:

• Gimlin controlled the horses
• He considered shooting the creature
• Decided against it (might be human in suit)
• Watched from a distance
• Later confirmed Patterson’s account

The Film

Technical Details

The footage:

• Shot on 16mm Kodak film
• Approximately 59.5 seconds
• 954 frames
• Color film
• Shot at either 16 or 24 fps (debated)

What It Shows

The film captures:

• A tall, hair-covered bipedal figure
• Walking through a clearing
• Near a fallen log
• With apparent arm swing and stride
• The famous “look back” at the camera
• Continuing into the forest

The Creature

Visible features:

• Height estimated 6’6” to 7’4”
• Covered in dark reddish-brown hair
• Apparent breasts (suggesting female)
• Heavy build
• Long arms
• Distinctive walking gait
• Muscular movements visible

Frame 352

The most famous image:

• The creature turns its head
• Looks directly at the camera
• Face partially visible
• Brow ridge, flat nose
• Has become iconic

The Aftermath

Patterson’s Actions

After filming:

• They tracked the creature’s footprints
• Made plaster casts (14½ inch prints)
• Left the area
• Developed the film
• Began showing it publicly

Public Response

The film:

• Caused a sensation
• Was shown on television
• Was analyzed by scientists
• Drew skeptics and believers
• Became the most famous Bigfoot evidence

Patterson’s Death

Roger Patterson:

• Died of cancer in 1972
• Maintained the film was genuine
• Never admitted to a hoax
• The controversy outlived him

Gimlin’s Position

Bob Gimlin:

• Has consistently maintained the film is real
• Passed polygraph tests
• Says he saw a real creature
• Still speaks about the encounter
• Now in his 90s

Analysis

Scientific Examination

The film has been studied by:

• Anthropologists
• Biomechanics experts
• Film analysts
• Special effects professionals
• Computer specialists

Pro-Authenticity Arguments

Muscle Movement

• Visible muscle flexing under the hair
• Difficult to fake in 1967
• Suggests real anatomy

The Walk

• Compliant gait (bent-knee walking)
• Different from human walking
• Would be hard to fake

Proportions

• Arm-to-leg ratios unusual for humans
• Consistent with reported Bigfoot descriptions
• Hard to replicate in a costume

Technical Limitations

• 1967 costume technology was limited
• A suit this good would be remarkable
• Hollywood couldn’t do better

Anti-Authenticity Arguments

The Convenient Timing

• Patterson was looking for Bigfoot
• He had a camera ready
• He needed money
• Motivation for hoax

Alleged Confessions

• Various people have claimed involvement
• Bob Heironimus claims he wore the suit
• Philip Morris claims he sold the suit
• None proven definitively

Film Speed Controversy

• If shot at 24 fps, the walk is more human-like
• The debate about frame rate continues
• Affects analysis of gait

It’s Just a Person in a Suit

• Simple explanation
• Don’t need exotic creature
• Occam’s razor applies

The Confessions

Bob Heironimus

Years later:

• Claimed he wore a gorilla suit
• Said Patterson never paid him
• His story has inconsistencies
• Size doesn’t quite match the figure
• Gimlin denies his involvement

Philip Morris

A costume maker:

• Claims he sold Patterson a gorilla suit
• But timing and details are disputed
• No documentation exists
• His account has changed

The Problem

None of the confessions:

• Have been proven
• Are fully consistent
• Explain all features of the film
• Have been accepted as definitive

Modern Analysis

Computer Enhancement

Digital technology has allowed:

• Frame-by-frame analysis
• Movement pattern study
• Stabilization of footage
• Enhanced detail viewing
• Ongoing debate

The Documentary Evidence

Recent documentaries have:

• Interviewed new witnesses
• Examined the original footage
• Applied new techniques
• Reached different conclusions

No Resolution

After 50+ years:

• The film hasn’t been definitively proven or disproven
• Experts remain divided
• The debate continues
• It may never be settled

Cultural Impact

The Image

Frame 352:

• Is one of the most recognized images in cryptozoology
• Has appeared in countless media
• Defines what “Bigfoot” looks like
• Shaped public imagination

Influence

The Patterson-Gimlin film:

• Sparked serious Bigfoot research
• Created a template for evidence
• Remains the standard
• Is referenced constantly

Ongoing Relevance

Even today:

• New analysis is published
• Documentaries are made
• Arguments continue
• The film remains central to Bigfoot studies

The Question

On a autumn afternoon in 1967, Roger Patterson’s camera captured something in the forests of Northern California.

Was it a real creature - an unknown primate, a relict hominid, what we call Bigfoot?

Or was it a man in a suit - an elaborate hoax by men who needed money and attention?

Fifty-plus years of analysis haven’t answered the question.

The creature’s muscles seem to move under the hair. Its proportions don’t quite match a human. Its walk is strange.

But Patterson was looking for exactly this. He had motive. People have confessed - sort of, inconsistently, without proof.

Bob Gimlin still swears it was real. He’s in his 90s now, still telling the same story.

The film remains.

59 seconds of footage.

A figure walking through a clearing.

Turning to look.

Walking into the trees.

Into history.

Into mystery.

The Patterson-Gimlin Film. The most important - and most controversial - evidence of Bigfoot ever captured.

Real creature or clever costume?

After all these years, we still don’t know.

We may never know.

But we keep watching.

Frame by frame.

Searching for the truth in those 59 seconds.