Patterson-Gimlin Film

10/10 alone for all the fun research and mystery this famous filmstrip has created for so many people.

Stabilization and 4K scans have added even more to the mystery. If it's a fake, the faux skin and muscles is damn impressive. Unbelievable for the age in which it was made, and the guys who made it.

I think anyone that is "sure" it is fake hasn't given this film the research it deserves.

I want to believe!

Patterson-Gimlin Film (1967)

This footage shot by Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson is perhaps the most famous amateur footage every recorded next to the John F. Kennedy assassination. These 39 seconds have been debates endlessly for decades and the debate only continues to grow with each passing year. As a "film" this is impossible to really rate, although there's no denying its historic nature no matter whether you believe it's real or fake. As for me, I like to pretend that the footage is real and that it was a one-in-a-million shot that they were able to capture it. The rough nature of the footage, to me, shows some proof that perhaps it wasn't staged. I mean, these two men weren't professional filmmakers so they probably wouldn't think to make it look like raw footage in hopes people like me would think this proved it to be real. In other words, there are so many sighting videos out there that just look too clean. Too professional. Too well-shot. This here is none of them and it does have that look as if these men just came across something and rushed to get what footage they could.

Okay, I have heard the myth that Patterson gave a death bed confession. This is a common misconception. The actual person that did this was the man who took the picture of 'Nessie,' which has, since then, become canonical. Patterson swore to his dying day that the footage was REAL. Gimlin was the one who disputed this fact, but only after Patterson died. He claimed he was in the suit, and came out to the public because Patterson did not give him the money promised for the hoax. How exactly this is possible is beyond me, considering he was with Patterson during filming...

Also, scientists and cryptozoologists alike have disputed the fact that muscles are CLEARLY VISIBLE! In the section where the creature turns back to look over her shoulder, you notice that her chest, arm, pectoral, and leg muscles are shifting, along with glute muscles. This is impossible in costumes back then, even costumes made by the man who designed those for Planet of the Apes, as has been alleged. This lends credence to the thought that the creature must be real.

Despite thoughts that it is all a hoax, I disagree. You can define muscles, and close-ups of the face are convincing. It may not be a Sasquatch, but, it was a living creature.

Anyone who denies this should check their facts before posting nonsense.

I'm a very open minded person, but I will admit legit proof or seeing something with my own eyes REALLY helps. This short clip is the end all be all footage of Bigfoot. But from documentaries and research I've seen from the 1970's up till now, this is my opinion.

Patterson was making a documentary ON BIGFOOT at the time of this footage. I believe for the documentary, he shot footage of a costumed preformer to put into the documentary, but after seeing the footage, and how realistic it looked as a genuine encounter and the subject being far enough away from the camera to look really good, he ditched the documentary all together and sold the "encounter" footage off as legitimate footage of Bigfoot being real. He needed money too, and got ALOT of name recognition as well.

Lastly, the thing that really gets overlooked is the breasts of the creature. In nature, most mammalian animals, and humans, female breasts are usually not fully covered in hair/fur. And the Bigfoot in the film has a pretty large rack, and they have a "stuffed" look to them, as they don't move or sag. Aside from that, it looks very authentic, thanks to the 16mm film which leads enough open to interpretation, especially when using modern technology to add to the paradolia.

Rating- 5*****stars out of 5

One day on October 22, in the 60's, Roger Patterson and his friend were researching on the legendary creature named Sasquatch or Bigfoot. While they were both on horses in Northern California, one horse was startled by something in the woods. Roger fell on the ground and grabbed his camera it was the bigfoot! A real live action shot of the creature. No Hollywood costumes it's all real I could not even believe it. The creature on film!!! A minute of footage of the creature walking back and forth then it turned it's head. And walked right into the woods. Although Patterson died in 1972 with that peice of evidence, more biologists have used his work to find the creature that lives up in the northwest. That footage could not have been someone in a costume it's the most popular footage ever taken. There have been over a thousand sightings of this creature and it does resemble the Yeti in the Himilayas. One question remains is this creature real? I would like to go to the place Patterson saw it and maybe I will look for it myself. I only live six hours away from were it was taken over 30 years ago. And to this day that creature is still being seen. The movie Snowbeast dramatizes what the creature is like as a killer and National Geographics and Unsolved Mysteries and still been researching on it ever since that footage was filmed. If you believe in the unexplained see this three minute documentry and find the creature for yourselve. I know I will. And I do believe after watching it it does exist!