Case file · Cryptid

Patterson–Gimlin film (Bigfoot)

A short film shot in California purports to show a walking Bigfoot.

1967 CE · 41.00, -123.70 · status: disputed

The account

The 'Patty' footage is the most analysed piece of cryptozoological evidence ever recorded.

The sceptical view

Widely regarded as a man in a suit; no verified physical evidence of Bigfoot exists.

The researched reading

The most debated 60 seconds in cryptozoology. A costume is still the likeliest explanation, given the circumstances and the absence of any physical remains.

ExplanationWeightWhy
Undetermined55%The share the reading had given to fabrication on doubt rather than evidence: the record does not settle it either way.
A hoax or fabrication15%Roger Patterson had been planning a Bigfoot film and had a financial stake; Bob Heironimus says he wore the suit and costume seller Philip Morris says he sold Patterson a gorilla suit, though their accounts conflict. The figure’s proportions are within human range and no physical evidence of the species has ever been found.
An unknown or out-of-place animal10%Anatomist Jeff Meldrum and costume expert Bill Munns argue the gait, muscle movement and limb proportions are hard to fake with 1967 costumes; but no bones, bodies or confirmed DNA of a North American ape exist.
A cultural story7%The film became the icon of Bigfoot and is reinterpreted through each new analysis.
Something known, misidentified5%A bear walking upright is suggested by some but the figure’s steady bipedal gait argues against it.
Perception, memory or mind4%Analysis of a low-resolution film invites seeing what one expects.
Genuinely anomalous4%Nothing in the film requires beyond-science explanations.

Official position: No official investigation; most scientists regard it as a person in a suit.

How the account grew

Fifty-nine seconds of 16 mm film shot at Bluff Creek in 1967 became the defining image of Bigfoot. Over the following decades it was screened to scientists, broadcast to tens of millions, contested in court, claimed as a man in a suit by a costume maker and by the man who said he wore it, and defended in book-length frame analyses.

YearWhoAdded
1966Roger Patterson, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?A self-published compilation of clippings, interviews and drawings; in 1967 Patterson starts filming a Bigfoot docudrama with Gimlin playing a tracker.
1967Roger Patterson and Bob GimlinOn 20 October a large hairy upright figure walks across a creek bar and looks back at the camera; footprint casts follow; Patterson promotes it on TV talk shows.
1973John Napier, Bigfoot: The Sasquatch and Yeti in Myth and RealityA primatologist sympathetic to the evidence critiques the film's subject.
1974CBS, Monsters! Mystery or MythA Smithsonian co-produced documentary watched by 50 million; Gimlin sues for his share of proceeds and wins in 1976.
1999Bob Heironimus; Gimlin to the BBCHeironimus says through his lawyer that he wore the suit; Gimlin concedes a hoax was possible if Patterson planned it well. A frame analysis claims to show a zip.
2002Philip Morris, Morris CostumesSays he sold Patterson a gorilla suit by mail order in 1967 for a 'prank'; no suit or record is produced.
2004Greg Long, The Making of Bigfoot; National Geographic recreationInterviews portraying Patterson as a con man; a suit recreation at Rimrock Lake is judged unconvincing by proponents.
2014Bill Munns, When Roger Met PattyA special-effects artist argues in 488 pages that 1967 costume technology could not produce the subject.
2025Unicode ConsortiumA 'hairy creature' emoji in the film's pose enters the Unicode standard.

Connections in the atlas

Sources

  1. Wikipedia
  2. Bigfoot
Open it in the living atlas