The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

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

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Cryptozoology, Urban Legends

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

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.

Tip Skeptoid $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.

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. 25 Oct 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 112 comments

The reason why the film is so convincing is that the physique of the creature is so massive I think it's beyond what is humanly possible, even for a "big hulking labourer". The alternative , off course, would be that this guy had been "built up" with plastic padding or similiar material. But when watching the creature I get the distinct impression that it's muscles and not dead material that's under the fur. Another fascinating feature is the face, because it actually looks like a face, and not like some ape mask.

Lars, Sweden
May 19, 2014 7:11am

I agree 100%

dave festa, florida
May 21, 2014 10:55am

Lars, didn't you even read the article? You said the only explanation for the massive bulk was if padding were used under it, but the author told you the man in the suit was told to put on a helmet and shoulder pads.

To Dave, who emphasizes that just because the film is a hoax does not mean Bigfoot is real. Right. But it does remove what many considered the best film evidence of it's existence, leaving little in it's place, in terms of convincing evidence. I've been following the claims for years, and am so tired of all the blotch squatches and bizzare and inconsistent footprints that are relatively easy to fake. With virtually everyone today walking around with a camera in their cell pone, and all the super hig res satellite imagery, for there to STILL no convincing photographic evidence, let alone not a single corpse, says a lot. I put the chance of it existing at .000000001%. If you want to hang your hat on that, be my guest. But really, let's all just grow up and face that it's highly unlikely that clans of giant ape-like creatures are strolling around North America.

George, Columbus, OH
June 24, 2014 4:19am

I agree with George.

The number of cameras available in Western society in various forms (phones, etc.) is huge. The amount of evidence for various pseudoscientific phenomena in comparison is tiny.

Randall Munroe of XKCD.com captures this in a brilliant cartoon:

http://xkcd.com/1235/

Besides, CGI being what it is today, the value of photographic or filmic evidence is very much debatable.

Cheers.

Diederik, Brussels
July 23, 2014 1:24am

And another thing:

Do not underestimate the propensity for people to lie.

Diederik, Brussels
July 23, 2014 1:34am

Lars, If you think the figure in the Paterson footage is too massive to be human.........then how come David Attenborough, the wold's foremost naturalist, who has been up close and personal with wild mountain gorillas in their own habitat, thinks it is a hoax. Clearly Attenborough doesn't agree with you that "Patty" is too massive to be human.
If I had a choice to go with your assessment Lars.......or David Attenboroughs..........well do I REALLY need to answer!

Klambo, Oxford UK
August 16, 2014 1:10pm

The PG film is authentic! For those of you non believers and skeptics let me put down some facts! It was not a suit. They did not have the technology in 1967 to fabricate a suit, let alone one with breast! Nor can any suit have flexible muscle movement and feet and leave a foot print with a mid tarsal break. Flexing toes can be seen in the video. As well as an injury to upper outer thigh The size of the female Bigfoot(Patty) is estimated to be 7 feet tall. The gait in which Patty walks is non human. The leg bend and the bottom of the foot showing as she walks. Patty also has the a wide thick body. No neck, that's why she has to turn her upper body to look right when she walked. All of the characteristics in the film match characteristics of what we know now of Bigfoots. There is no man in a costume and no costume has ever been produced/found. There is no evidence that the costume existed nor does it exist to this day. I think people fear that these creatures roam our outdoors. Real Bigfoots exist world wide and their stories have been shared by many cultures over the centuries, from Native Americans to Aborigine's of Australia, to Indigenous Peoples of Bhutan, China, Russia, Vietnam, Nepal, England, Mongolia, Thailand, and points in between. Up to modern day. There are literally thousands of names world wide and hundreds for Bigfoot in the U.S.. Yes, I know they exist. I have seen them and have had many experiences with them. Can't do that sitting at home.

John Melland, Emmett Idaho
September 22, 2014 11:45am

I would also like to add that there has been a pain staking copy of the original held by Mrs. Patterson and done so digitally so that a better study and manipulation of the video can be made. Such as zooming and focusing in on vital points. Stabilization. Without adding or editing out anything that has occurred with some copies and the quality is much better as well. I know it may be hard to grasp that such a creature exist and especially for people that live within the confines of a city and never do any real investigating. These creatures are stealthy and even do so in the dark. They even speak their own language and are highly intelligent. It is believed they bury their dead and to try to shoot and kill one as has happened in history, the people end up dead. Torn apart. Limbs ripped from the body. Slammed against tree's. Decapitated. They don't play nice. Reports have even stated they had thrown full 50 gal. drums of fuel. Tipped over bull dozers. Hurled boulders and trees. Stuck them up side down even. Push trees over and snap them in half. With some reading and field work, you too can see the evidence for yourself. Armchair skeptics will not see a Bigfoot unless they are in a chair in the woods.

John Melland, Emmett Idaho
September 22, 2014 7:17pm

Thank you John Melland! I didn't read any of this article as I knew from the last 2 paragraphs, that I skimmed, when the author begins to dig into Patterson's personal life and how he needed the film to be a success because he was dying of cancer, it was obvious outright character assassination. Good to know there are still good people out there who know how to use their brain and are not closed minded in the least since. When the skeptics can't disprove their theory, they always try to play the character-bashing game and use that as their, 'proof.'

Mike, Sacramento, Ca
September 26, 2014 5:07pm

Sorry for bad english. Like others, I'm bored of this video and all debates around it; but still I continue to read and listen about it since it's still the-best-thing-in-the-world for believers... And I would like to be one !

In my view all this is simple: if this thing is true, then Paterson is the most lucky creature ever lived on earth... Then all those long-computerized analysis involving best specialists ever, hardly pushed by enthusiasts, have only one goal in mind for this once-in-univers-time footage: distract everyone of an impossible-to-miss evidence: this is a man in a costume !

As other animals, humans have instincts to recognize their siblings... each of us saws billions others humans walking, in real-life, on television, in dreams, name-it ! When we see something walking, no need to think to figure out if it's human or not; we just know it instinctively and instantly. Every human looking at the footage can't mistake it, no way this thing can't be human... so that's why believers instantly need to convince themselves and everybody else otherwise... they did good at it, very creative, complex and long enough to lose some and make those who want it to be real to forget this is a man in a costume.

PiTou, Drummondville, Qc, Canada
October 13, 2014 1:27pm

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

Post a reply

 

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 

Newest
Tube Amplifiers
Skeptoid #437, Oct 21 2014
Read | Listen (14:57 )
 
Ionithermie
Skeptoid #436, Oct 14 2014
Read | Listen (10:11)
 
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Skeptoid #435, Oct 7 2014
Read | Listen (13:56)
 
The Braxton County Monster
Skeptoid #434, Sep 30 2014
Read | Listen (11:26)
 
The Water Woo of Masaru Emoto
Skeptoid #433, Sep 23 2014
Read | Listen (13:28)
 
Newest
#1 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#2 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#3 -
Read | Listen
#4 -
The Baldoon Mystery
Read | Listen
#5 -
Listeners Have Another Say
Read | Listen
#6 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen
#7 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#8 -
6 Problems with Wind Turbine Syndrome
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

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

Members Portal

 
 


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Name/Nickname:  
City/Location:
Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
Comment:
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.