Patterson-Gimlin Film

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.

Ah, Bigfoot! These 952 frames of shaky 16mm colour footage have contributed more to the plight of cryptozoology than any piece of evidence besides Robert Kenneth Wilson's 1934 "Surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster {now widely considered a hoax}. Additionally, it might also be the second most widely-viewed amateur footage ever taken, runner-up only to Abraham Zapruder's grisly images of President Kennedy's assassination. To the untrained eye, 'Bigfoot (1967)' may simply appear to show a man in a particularly well-constructed ape-man suit traipsing through the forest, but those with experience can tell you better – it surely depicts a large, hairy bipedal apelike figure, a species unknown to science, which had momentarily emerged from its wilderness paradise to oversee the filming of Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin's Bigfoot documentary. If you think you can detect a hint of sarcasm in that remark, then you're completely correct, as nothing could convince me that the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin footage is anything but a hoax, albeit an ingenious one.

As a youth, I was consistently fascinated by the field of cryptozoology. Even more so than plain zoology, it really fired the imagination to consider what enigmatic creatures may be roaming the wilderness, just waiting to stumble across our paths and into science. Hell, I even once struck out into the Grampians in search of the black panther that is rumoured to roam the region, a species reportedly released into the Bush by American servicemen during WWII {our investigation was interesting but rather inconclusive}. However, I've never given much belief to the notion of Bigfoot; for me it seems wholly beyond the realms of credibility. Peculiarly, most continents have their own variations on a common theme – the Sasquatch or Bigfoot of North America, the Yeti of Tibet and Nepal, the Yeren of mainland China, the Orang Pendek of Indonesia, and the Yowie of Australia. Perhaps it's only natural for humans to envision a hidden human-like species, more closely related to us than the chimpanzee or gorilla.

I don't wish to launch into any in-depth discussion on the implausibility of an undiscovered hominid existing in North America. It would only serve to alienate those who do believe in such a thing, and what's life all about if we can't use our imaginations? However, given that I've established my stance that the film is a fabrication, I'd like to analyse a few details to ascertain why the footage has proved such a cultural phenomenon. First of all, the ape-suit is convincing, at least from a distance, and at least while being shot with a shaky camera. The actor {Bob Heironimus, allegedly} walks with a stooped back, uses padding to expand his frame but otherwise walks with an assuredly human-like gait. Most importantly of all, he looks back! Such a detail should not be underestimated, for it is this legendary frame 352 – an image of a potentially-inhuman entity glaring directly at the viewer with clear recognition and even a certain degree of contempt – that has enduringly captured the collective public consciousness.

Just one year before 'The Planet of the Apes (1968)' and '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)' unveiled very impressive ape-man costumes that were convincing at close range, it's not difficult to believe that Patterson got his hands on a simple animal suit that would have been quite sufficient for his purposes. When he passed away in 1972, Patterson gave no hint that he had fabricated his Bigfoot. Perhaps he was simply being noble, protecting the credibility of his fellow filmmaker, or perhaps there's even greater glory to be found in the fact that nobody will ever know the truth. Gimlin is still around, and delivers occasional lectures on the search for Bigfoot, but you sense that Patterson was the real mastermind behind the ruse. There's also the slight possibility that both filmmakers are completely earnest, and that a third party decided to take them for a ride, but surely such an elaborate prank would have been far too difficult without the filmmakers' cooperation. That this footage is fabricated certainly doesn't negate its importance or cultural value – the myth of Bigfoot owes its continued existence to 952 seconds of shaky home video.

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.

This original footage shot by Roger Patterson has become a permanent part of the American pop culture, almost as famous as the Zapruder film. The difference between the two, of course, is that Zapruder captured a genuine occurrence, as opposed to blurry shots of a man stomping around the woods in a cobbled-together fur coat. Still, for decades "cryptozoologists" (people claiming to be experts on bizarre animals) and conspiracy theorists of all sorts have carefully examined this film (and the many, many pseudo-documentaries such as THE LEGEND OF BIGFOOT, IN SEARCH OF BIGFOOT, THE MYSTERIOUS MONSTERS, all 1976, that re-used this footage or did recreations) and declared it to be absolutely genuine ("100% verified by all available methods of scientific testing" is the general phrasing that Bigfoot enthusiasts seem to cling to). They insist that there has never been any proof that Bigfoot doesn't or couldn't reasonably exist. Unfortunately, they only they do this is by ignoring or dismissing the good amount of proof to the contrary that IS out there.

Some of this evidence is scientific, such as the propagation limits of any species. For a group of Bigfoot-type creatures to survive year after year, for example, they would have to be breeding in great enough numbers to be spotted FREQUENTLY by forest rangers and the general public, not just by the infrequent storytellers who carry on the myth. The Patterson Bigfoot in specific, however, has been more specifically debunked by more traditionally investigative evidence. It has been two years since the release of Greg Long's book THE MAKING OF BIGFOOT, which goes into the details behind the hoax (not terribly elaborate) that Roger Patterson created with his Bigfoot film. Among other documentation, it contains interviews from a couple of important/involved parties. The first of these is Philip Morris, a maker of sideshow gorilla suits (in 1967 one of the ONLY makers) who admits to selling Patterson a suit shortly before the Bigfoot film was shot, as well as giving the man instructions on how to customize it to give the suit longer arms, broader shoulders, etc. (not knowing what Patterson's plans were). The second, more confessional account comes from Bob Heironimus, a man Patterson hired (although he never actually paid the man his promised $1000) to wear the suit. Also in the book is the testimony of several people who saw Heironimus in possession of the suit (since then Heironimus has also passed a lie detector test in order to solidify his claims).

Consider this: In 1967 Roger Patterson, a man deep in debt, rents a camera and tells friends that he's going into the wilderness to find irrefutable proof of the existence of the Bigfoot creature. He then returns ALMOST IMMEDIATELY with footage of the beast casually strolling past his camera. Conveniently enough, though, the film is just a little out of focus and at enough of a distance that the grainy image, four decades later, still has true believers arguing that they see a beast "500 pounds" with "clearly delineated muscle movement that isn't possible from a man wearing a suit" and "pendulous breasts that obviously denote it as a female of the species". They insist that what is on screen could "never be recreated by even the most skilled Hollywood special effects craftsmen", and when various documentary filmmakers produce similar results using materials that would have been available in the late 60s, the believers then shout out that the suits don't look "at all like the real thing; look at how fake the fur looks!" (not acknowledging, even to themselves, that the modern video cameras that shoot the new suits have not been "dumbed down" to photograph them with as LITTLE detail as the original film showed)

How much evidence, how much testimony is needed to dissuade the true believers? Answer: No amount will ever be enough. Some die-hards still demand, for example, "100% accurate evidence" (sic) that this creature doesn't exist, two years after the hoax has been thoroughly debunked. For that matter, it has been THREE years since the family of Ray Wallace (the man inadvertently responsible for turning a set of vaguely related man-beast myths into one giant myth) admitted after his death that he TOO had hoodwinked the public (back in 1958) by originally planting dozens of fake Bigfoot prints. Just as there are people who are absolutely convinced that John F. Kennedy is alive and hidden on a private island, and that Elvis still shows up occasionally at Burger King, there will always be people who will insist that "no suit has been produced to prove Bigfoot is fake" or "no human's arms could be extended to flex the way the creature's do in the film". This is how it is now, and this is how it will be decades after the rest of humanity has filed the Bigfoot phenomenon away with such "mysteries" as the Loch Ness Monster and Pyramid Power.

BIGFOOT, the original short film, is at best a pop culture icon, a reminder of a more innocent, pre-Watergate age when the American people accepted what they saw or were told without question. At the least it's an amusing diversion, and one that has given the Hollywood B-movie community another creative outlet. Some fun results have been SNOWBEAST (TV movie, 1977), the incredibly bad BIGFOOT (MANY films used this generic title; this one is bikers vs. Bigfoot, 1970) or any of the inept but harmless BOGGY CREEK entries. Each and every one of these flicks is ultra-cheesy, which makes sense, really. Bigfoot flourished during the drive-in era; it is only appropriate that he find his greatest tribute there. Any one of these above-mentioned films should rightly be shown on a drive-in screen, perhaps preceded by Roger Patterson's original BIGFOOT movie. It could be a "nature short subject", just before the dancing boxes of popcorn paraded across the screen to tempt people to run to the concession building, before the beginning of the main feature.

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.