The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

The true history behind the iconic Bigfoot film that launched the legend.

Filed under Cryptozoology, Urban Legends

Skeptoid #375
August 13, 2013
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
Bookmark and Share

You've seen it a hundred times: the iconic picture of Bigfoot striding heavily through the clearing, arms swinging, head and shoulders turned slightly toward the camera. This famous image is frame 352 of a 16mm silent color film shot in 1967 in northern California by rancher Roger Patterson, accompanied by his friend, Bob Gimlin. The impact that this film has had on Bigfoot mythology is inestimable; and correspondingly, so has its impact upon paranormal, cryptozoological, and pop culture mythologies in general. I might well not be doing the Skeptoid podcast today if the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film had not turned legend and fancy into concrete, tangible, see-it-with-your-own-eyes reality.

Whether or not Bigfoot exists is one question — the answer to which has not exactly whitened the knuckles of science — but the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film is something else. If Bigfoot were known to be a real animal, an investigation into the authenticity of the film would make sense. If Bigfoot were known to not exist, then it would be logically moot to study the film at all; it must be a fake. But for today's purpose, we're going to brush aside the larger question (which should never be done in real science) and focus only on this detail. We'll assume that the existence of Bigfoot is an open question (a big assumption), and just for fun, let's see what we can determine on whether this famous film clip is a deliberate hoax, or whether it shows a real animal, or whether there might be some other explanation. Maybe it's a misidentification, or an elaborate film flaw, or an unknown third party hoaxing Patterson and Gimlin. There are many possibilities.

Roger Patterson died of cancer only a few years after the film was shot, and never offered any clue other than that the film was genuine. Bob Gimlin remained silent for 25 years, and ever since he began speaking about it in the 1990s he has firmly stated that he was unaware of any hoax, but allowed for the possibility that he may have been hoaxed himself. Nobody else is known to have participated, and so the only two people whom we can say for certain were present when the film was shot are both stonewalls. So we must look elsewhere.

The original film no longer exists (only copies), and there is no record of anyone ever having possessed the original print. We don't know why, but we're left without the original film's leader, which would have included the date when it was developed. Thus, we have only Patterson's word for when it was developed, so we can't verify that the film was shot and developed on the days he claims it was. The original also would have included any other shots that were taken, such as possible alternate takes. If these were ever seen, we'd know for a fact that it was faked. So that's one more line of evidence that is unavailable to us.

No one has ever produced documentation like receipts showing when and where the film was developed. We know when and where Patterson rented the camera, but that's not really in dispute. He had it in his possession for plenty of time before and after the alleged date of the filming. So that's yet another dead end. Patterson covered his tracks very effectively (no Bigfoot pun intended).

He was quite a character, and had always been. He'd been a competitive rodeo cowboy, part-time rancher, and full-time slacker. Few who knew him had anything positive to say about him. His reputation was that he never paid his bills. He borrowed money, lied about it, and never paid it back. He was physically very strong — not an ounce of fat, and thick with muscles — and was fond of showing it off. He knew everything better than anyone, and nobody could tell him a thing. He never kept interest in one career very long. One day he'd build stagecoaches for miniature horses; the next day he'd repaint junk found at the dump and sell it. But his one saving grace was his wife Patricia. Patty had a brother in Yakima, WA, Al DeAtley, a successful asphalt contractor, who provided money whenever it was needed. It was this even keel that got Roger Patterson through.

The story goes that Patterson and Gimlin had developed a strong interest in Bigfoot, and in October 1967 they rented the movie camera and went off on horseback for a couple weeks to look for it. Next thing they knew, they'd become the luckiest Bigfoot hunters in history, when the creature obligingly stepped out of the woods and strode across the clearing for Patterson's camera, in the early afternoon of October 20th. Gimlin chased it on horseback, lost it, but found its footprints; then they rode about 5 kilometers back to camp for their plaster of paris. They rode back, poured plaster into the footprints, waited for it to dry, then went back to camp again. They loaded their horses into the trailer and drove 40 kilometers on rough fire roads back to Willow Creek, and posted the film off to Yakima to get it developed. It was about 4:00 in the afternoon.

The glaring impossibility of this timeline is what first raised suspicions among skeptics. In response, Patterson and Gimlin began providing all sorts of different versions of their story. Other suspicious cryptozoologists, such as Peter Byrne, found holes and contradictions in those stories. In the end, the version Patterson and Gimlin settled on was that they put the film onto a plane and flew it to Yakima, where Al DeAtley picked it up to have it developed. Byrne found that the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded due to rain and bad weather. Since then, few serious researchers took Patterson and Gimlin's story seriously.

But the film had already grown larger than all of them. It was a sensation, and to this day, rakes in revenue in licensing fees. DeAtley backed Patterson and formed Bigfoot Enterprises on November 1, just 10 days after the shoot, and reported $200,000 in the first year. Make no mistake about it: for the late 1960s and a man who used dig through the dump, Bigfoot was big money. Throughout the 1970s, Patty Patterson, Al DeAtley, Bob Gimlin, and a wildlife film company fought numerous lawsuits with one another over the rights to the footage. The biggest winner was a Bigfoot fan named Rene Dahinden, who ended up with about half of the rights, and Patty with the other half.

It was in 2004 that author Greg Long dug into this mess to sort everything out. Over a period of six years, he actually went and met face to face with all of these characters who were still alive, and many other people — anyone he could find who knew Patterson or was involved in the film in any way. His entire adventure was published in his entertaining book The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story.

That wildlife film company just mentioned, American National Enterprises, turns out to have been pivotal. Patterson had been driving down to Hollywood a lot, trying to sell the idea of a pseudo-documentary about Bigfoot; based on Patterson's own self-published 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Studios wouldn't bite, but ANE did. It was with their money that Patterson rented his camera and took some pre-production stills of his buddies allegedly on a Bigfoot hunt, but actually in Patterson's own backyard. They included Bob Gimlin costumed up as a native American guide. ANE's movie was to be titled Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman.

Bob Heironimus was a sturdy, hulking 26-year-old laborer who lived a few doors down from Bob Gimlin. One day Gimlin told Heironimus that Patterson would pay him $1000 for a day's work on a film set wearing a costume. Heironimus readily agreed; that was a lot of money. He met with the men once or twice to try on a gorilla suit and make some adjustments. Then one day, he drove down to Willow Creek. He spent the night at their camp, and the next day they shot the footage.

ANE's money had also been used to buy the gorilla suit. It came from Philip and Amy Morris, established makers of gorilla suits for carnivals. They told Greg Long that they had recognized the suit when they saw Patterson's film on television, and that Patterson had asked their advice in modifying the suit to make the arms longer. They'd even shipped him extra synthetic fur, made from a material called Dynel. They also advised him to put a football helmet and shoulder pads on the suit wearer to make him look enormous. Not surprisingly, when Greg Long asked Bob Heironimus about the suit, he also mentioned that he wore a football helmet and shoulder pads inside of it.

Bob Heironimus then went home, where his mother and two brothers also saw the suit, and waited patiently for his $1000. In accordance with his character, Patterson never paid Heironimus a dime. When he saw the film hit it big, Heironimus feared prosecution for fraud for his role in its production, and so made no further efforts to collect, nor ever spoke up about it to anyone. A groundless fear perhaps, but very real for an honest and innocent young man.

The camera store had to file charges for theft against Patterson to get him to finally return the camera. ANE lost every penny of their investment; Patterson immediately abandoned their pseudo-documentary and, in essence, stole the film clip that was rightfully their intellectual property. It was only 30 years later that Greg Long was able to piece together the entire story by talking to all of those involved. Holes still remain; for example, Al DeAtley claims to have no recollection of where or when he supposedly developed the film, or how he received it from his brother in law. The October 20 timeline is clearly impossible as given, but no evidence could be found to provide actual dates for when the film was actually shot or developed. With much credit going to Greg Long, we now have a reasonably solid reconstruction of the film's complete history, with plenty of space in the gaps to fill with anything more plausible than the Patterson-Gimlin claim of the world's luckiest Bigfoot hunt.

$2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

In 1967, Roger Patterson was a young man, only 41 years old. He was strong and exuberant — an amateur boxer known for walking on his hands on the small town's main street — too lazy to take a regular job, too much in love with his wife Patricia, and too many stars in his eyes to stick within the confines of the even the flamboyant rodeo. He was inwardly happy but outwardly grumpy, frustrated with society's conventions that expected him to be less than he wanted to be. But even at that young age, he was dying of cancer. Roger may have had a year left or five, and his thoughts were consumed with providing for his beloved wife while still being the rascal that he needed to be. When Roger put that film cartridge into his camera, it wasn't with the careful eye of a cinematographer. Nor was it with the deliberate mischief of a hoaxer. It was with the vivacity of a happy-go-lucky shortcutter, a candle doomed to burn half as long, and desperate to burn twice as bright. His thoughts were on Patricia and with squeezing in one final success, a roll of the dice, a lottery ticket. If his Bigfoot movie failed, he would die as the obscure debtor as which he'd been cut out; but if he won, he'd be the flash in the pan that he needed to be to sustain his wife and justify his years of skylarking. Roger Patterson made the gamble he needed to make. The wheel of fortune spun, and as it does every once in a great while, it made Roger the winner. It turned Bigfoot into a real monster that walked across the clearing and into legend and permanence.

Just over four years later, Roger Patterson lay in bed and drew his final breaths. The film had been a great success, and brought in a constant stream of money unlike anything he'd ever known. Patricia securely owned enough of the film rights to sustain herself. When he finally closed his eyes, Roger went to that great Bigfoot pasture in the sky, without ever having compromising the eternal youth that was in his makeup to be. He never paid his bills. He never sold hours of his life. He never put in an honest day of someone else's work. He never sacrificed his lack of principles. He never gave up being untrustworthy and living his few years on his own terms. Yet, perhaps it was that insistence on being who he was that caused his film to outlive nearly everyone else of his day. Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made.

Follow me on Twitter @BrianDunning.

Brian Dunning

© 2013 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Carroll, R. "Bigfoot." The Skeptic's Dictionary. Robert T. Carroll, 24 Feb. 1999. Web. 8 Aug. 2013. <http://www.skepdic.com/bigfoot.html>

Korff,K., Kocis, M. "Exposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax." Skeptical Inquirer. 1 Jul. 2004, Volume 28, Number 4: 35-40.

Long, G. The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 2004.

McLeod, M. Anatomy of a Beast: Obsession and Myth on the Trail of Bigfoot. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.

Patterson, R. Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Yakima: Franklin Press, 1966.

Smith, B., Radford, B., Stollznow, K. "Monster Talk: Suitable for Framing." Monster Talk. The Skeptics Society, 17 Feb. 2010. Web. 7 Aug. 2013. <http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/17/>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 13 Aug 2013. Web. 18 Apr 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 100 comments

Using Ketchem,Dyer,Ray Wallace etc as evidence against the excistance of bigfoot is the same main stream irrational thinking by skeptics that compare to using people who have hoaxed ufo's and misinterpreted lights in the night skys as evidence thay there isnt any life in other parts of the universe. Dismissing casts of footprints by highly experienced forensics and anthropologist as100% authentic is nothing more than blind patriotism to your own biased beliefs that your so entrenched in. So keep on clinging to your skull or body would have been found by now theory, keep on using the side stories about peoples personalities and unverifiable circumstances as your basis for your arguments.

dave festa, florida
January 20, 2014 7:21am

“The most scientific, objective analysis that has been done numerous times has showed that Patty is indeed not a person in a costume.”

Dave, you’re referring to the work of Bill Munns. So let’s have him speak for himself. He posts on Amazon.com as recently as Aug. 14, 2013:

“I realize there are varying opinions as to what the film can and cannot prove with any scientific certainty. The issue continues to be a lively debate.

“At some point, I feel the issue will be settled in a truly scientific way, and we’ll just see what that is, when it finally occurs.

“The image analysis work on the PGF is uncharted territory, so it takes a while longer to clear a path to the truth, than a situation where analysis techniques were well established (like showing a modern ad photo or news photo has been photoshopped).

“I’m looking at about 300 GB of scanned photographic data, and working on scientific papers of that work. It’s going slowly, but it is very interesting how it is progressing.

“So I’ll just keep plugging away and we’ll see if eventually my analysis is vindicated or not.

“But it’s going to take some time to get there. We’re obviously not there yet.”

---

Thus Bill Munns himself admits that his exhaustive PGF analysis does not absolutely prove that Patty is a nonhuman creature.

“We’re obviously not there yet,” he says.

So do I go with Mr. Munns, or with Dave & his statement that “the case for bigfoot excisting (sic) has already been made” by the PGF?

Windigo, The Rocky Mountains, America
January 21, 2014 8:00pm

Your info is old ! Though I haven't talked to Bill in over a week ,we've been conversing on weekly basis. I'll go out on a limb and qoute what Bill told me on Dec 10 ( Bill hope you dont mind) "Patty ( the film is absolutely authentic at this point." I'll clue you in on some conversation points that I don't think Bill would mind me relaying to others interested on the subject..Bill is recalculating his lens system he used to calculate Patty's height and will release new height estimates.in the future.Bill is also working on additional sceintific papers on anatomical studys of Patty that he will be releasing in the future that he and I spoke briefly about. Patty is authentic...it isnt a person in a suit..Plus a quick point that I had brought up to Bill there is lack of hair on the side of Patty's breast that has been worn away by friction or similar action from the inside of her upper arm over a period of time. That's not a feature that would be incorporated in a suit..Bill may discuss this very point in one of his future papers .so he implied to me.

dave festa, florida
January 22, 2014 7:34am

“ . . . Bill told me on Dec 10 ( Bill hope you dont mind) ‘Patty (the film) is absolutely authentic at this point.’”

---

“Absolutely” = cannot be refuted

Dave, has Mr. Munns fully completed the research he referred to on Aug. 14, 2013? He stated then, “I’ll just keep plugging away and we’ll see if eventually my analysis is vindicated or not. But it’s going to take some time to get there. We’re obviously not there yet.”

If it is not completed, he cannot yet come to an “absolute” conclusion re the PGF & so the issue of confirmation bias looms.

But assuming his analysis is all done, Mr. Munns may well be convinced THEREAFTER that the PGF is “absolutely authentic” (& I have no reason at all to believe he is dishonest or has exclusively self-serving motives or is anything other than a sincere truth-seeker) but I expect he will admit that his claim cannot be accepted by others as FACT until certain events occur:

1) His findings are published in respected journals & subjected to peer review in order to be confirmed or falsified.

2) It is the general conclusion/consensus of those peers (i.e., accepted experts in the field of image analysis & related disciplines) that Patty is a nonhuman beast because the Munns findings PROVE IT IMPOSSIBLE that it is a man in a suit.

3) ALL worthy counterarguments refuted, Mr. Munns may THEN state with some credibility that his claim has been “absolutely” authenticated (having been independently validated beyond any dispute).

Windigo, The Rocky Mountains, America
January 27, 2014 7:00pm

Bill isn't making a claim on what it is he's not an anthropoligist, he's making a claim thats based on his findings its not a costume or a person in a suit..His opinion about what it is ,is just that opinion. ..what it isnt ,isnt just opionion, its the conclusions that his detailed and in depth analysis leads him to believe. You can make your own opinions on what Patty is or isnt thats your prerogative. Main stream science isn't about weather its a suit or not, main stream science isn't about what isn't. ...so main stream science can keep waiting for what ever needs to be found to prove what these creatures are...if they exist at all.. To others and myself probably not a person in a suit.. To you it is a person in a suit....thats ok with me...!

dave festa, florida
January 28, 2014 6:10am

@Dave

“Using Ketchem,Dyer,Ray Wallace etc as evidence against the excistance of bigfoot is the same main stream irrational thinking by skeptics that compare to using people who have hoaxed ufo’s and misinterpreted lights in the night skys as evidence thay there isnt any life in other parts of the universe.”

Dave, I agree with you 95%. Swap “skeptics” for “pseudoskeptics” or “contrarians parading as skeptics” & I agree 100%. Rick Dyer, Ray Wallace, Ivan Marx are proven hoaxers. But their deceit does NOT prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist.

Re the PGF itself, I stated on this thread Nov 30, 2013: “To be fair, even if the film were absolutely provably faked, it DOES NOT mean Bigfoot isn’t real as a matter of logic.”

Ketchum’s astounding claims (re DNA + numerous personal sightings) are not yet validated. Until they are, skeptics are doubtful. It’s not scientific to accept another’s claim as true before evidence is presented & tested. But, applying the simplest of reasoning, even if her claims are later proved false, it still does NOT mean BF is not real.

@Brendan

“i read a Bigfoot book years ago that . . . postulated Bigfoot might be some sort of interdimensional being that uses the fear it creates in people to manifest itself out of ‘energy’ and thus, bullets pass right through it!”

A reasonable ad hoc hypothesis as to why no one has shot one yet. A tad implausible to a rational skeptic but may find traction with ufologists, paranormalists, & writers of bad sci-fi.

Windigo, The Rocky Mountains, America
January 31, 2014 11:00pm

I appreciate your passion for lack of bigfoot...though your running out of material. .....that's relevant. .

dave festa, florida
February 01, 2014 6:16am

if the film is a hoax its a good one.

andy, glasgow
March 31, 2014 12:26pm

Its an awesome film, its a Picasso. ..its intriguing to the point of wonder. ..check this out ..go to Fahrenbachs Analysis of the 1967 Patterson Gimlin Film....in the upper left hand corner there's a small continuous loop of a very clear stabilized clip of Patty walking that you can enlarge by touching. Regardless of wether its authentic or not, its awsome footage,very impressive, really wants to sway me to think..thats no costume check it out!

dave festa, florida
March 31, 2014 3:19pm

"Bigfoot Is Real"
http://thesop.org/story/letters/2009/07/30/the-real-story-about-the-bible-and-evolution.php

Jesus Christ, Havre de Grace, MD
April 13, 2014 7:48am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:

Your Name:
City/Location:
Comment:
characters left. Discuss the issues - personal attacks against other commenters, posts containing advertisements or links to commercial services, nonsense, and other useless posts will be deleted.
Answer 5 + 9 =

You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 
Skeptoid host, Brian Dunning
Skeptoid is hosted
and produced by
Brian Dunning


Newest
The Black Eyed Kids
Skeptoid #410, Apr 15 2014
Read | Listen (11:18)
 
Oil Pulling
Skeptoid #409, Apr 8 2014
Read | Listen (12:24)
 
Skeptoid Media is a 501(c)(3) Public Charity
Apr 4 2014
Listen (1:13)
 
15 Phreaky Phobias
Skeptoid #408, Apr 1 2014
Read | Listen (12:44)
 
The Death of Mad King Ludwig
Skeptoid #407, Mar 25 2014
Read | Listen (11:49)
 
Newest
#1 -
Listener Feedback: Alternative Medicine
Read | Listen
#2 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#3 -
Asking the Socratic Questions
Read | Listen
#4 -
5 False Arguments for Raw Milk
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Vanishing Village of Angikuni Lake
Read | Listen
#6 -
The Riddle of the L-8 Blimp
Read | Listen
#7 -
The Secrets of MKULTRA
Read | Listen
#8 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


"Are We Alone?"
inFact with Brian Dunning


Support Skeptoid