MYS0CZ25NYE017E·Mystery · sighting

The Patterson-Gimlin film

Roger Patterson's film of 20 October 1967, shot with Bob Gimlin beside him at Bluff Creek in northern California, runs to 954 frames of 16 mm colour film and shows a dark, hair-covered figure walking upright, which at one point turns to look toward the camera (the "lookback" frame)⁠[1]⁠[2]. It has been studied, copied, enhanced and argued over for nearly sixty years and is the best-known image offered as evidence of Bigfoot⁠[3].

The argument has two sides with academic champions. Jeff Meldrum, an anatomist at Idaho State University, and the creature-effects designer Bill Munns argue that the film is unaltered, sharp enough to study, and shows anatomy and movement that fit a real animal and not a costume of the period⁠[2]⁠[3]⁠[4]. The biological anthropologist David Daegling and the locomotion biomechanist Daniel Schmitt argue that the measurements behind such claims rest on too many unknowns to exclude a person in a suit⁠[5]⁠[6]. The journalist Greg Long published the claims of a man who said he wore the suit and of a costume-maker who said he sold it⁠[7]. Neither the suit nor any animal has been produced.

The record has hard limits. The camera original went missing in 1980, so all analysis works from copies⁠[2]. The camera's running speed, which fixes the subject's walking speed and so much of the biomechanical argument, was not recorded; the best case puts it at 16 to 18 frames per second⁠[2]. In 2025 and 2026 a documentary, Capturing Bigfoot, presented a newly found reel of a costumed walker on 1966-dated film and statements from Patterson's widow and son; Munns, who examined the reel for the film-makers, argues it is a later replica, not a rehearsal⁠[8]. Of the 4 questions on this site, 0 are answered. The most likely answer to “What does the Patterson-Gimlin film show?”, not yet confirmed: a person in a fur costume, filmed by Patterson.

Key questionsset by the editors

What does the Patterson-Gimlin film show?Most likely: a person in a fur costume, filmed by Patterson

All 4 questions

What happened

Patterson filmed the figure at Bluff Creek on 20 October 1967 with Gimlin present, using a hand-held Kodak K-100 loaded with Kodachrome II; the camera moved throughout and he ran while filming for part of the sequence, so much of the footage is shaken or blurred⁠[1]⁠[2]. Patterson sent the film to a laboratory for contact prints in 1967 and had five frames made into 4x5 inch transparencies, which his widow, Patricia Patterson, still held in 2013⁠[2]. John Green and Rene Dahinden obtained Canadian rights and had copies made from the camera original; in 1970–71 a distributor, American National Enterprises, made further copies and kept the original⁠[2]. After the company's bankruptcy the original passed to a new owner and into storage in Los Angeles, from which Dahinden checked it out in 1980; there is no record of its return⁠[2]. Patterson died in 1972⁠[8].

Map of the countryOpen the full map

+−

Bluff Creek film site, Six Rivers National Forest, CaliforniaCreek bar

Within 10 km

Los Angeles, California (film storage, 1970s–1980)City

A region

A regionNatural Earth

Timeline

Timeline

Squeezed where little happened. Each mark is a published claim, by how it stands:AcceptedMost likelyStill possibleDisputedRuled out

The accounts

The two men present are the only witnesses to the filming, and the film is their account. Patterson's and Gimlin's own statements were not reached for this record; Tian, Munns and Meldrum describe Gimlin as witness and co-participant⁠[1].

Later accounts bear on the costume question. In 2004 Greg Long published the claims of Bob Heironimus that he wore a suit for Patterson, and of Philip Morris that he sold Patterson a gorilla costume⁠[7]. In the 2025–2026 documentary Capturing Bigfoot, Patricia Patterson and Clint Patterson are reported as saying they know or believe the film was hoaxed, and Clint as saying he saw his father burn a fur suit. Neither was present at the filming⁠[8].

What was recorded

The film is 954 frames by the standard count, of which about 400 are sharp⁠[2]. The best surviving copies fall into groups by origin: Patterson's 1967 contact prints, the five transparencies, the Canadian copies, the American National Enterprises copies and later scans⁠[2]. Munns and Meldrum examined splices, focus, resolution and copy artefacts and concluded the camera original was not edited and that the copies can be studied as true images of it⁠[2]. In 2022 Isaac Tian, with Munns and Meldrum, aligned eight independent prints of 150 frames around the "lookback" frame (F354) by computer, stabilised them against the background and composited them, producing the cleanest version yet without manual retouching⁠[1].

The single most important unknown is the camera speed. The K-100 could run at 16, 18, 24 or more frames per second, and the setting on the day was not recorded; at 16 fps the shutter is open about 1/32 of a second, enough to blur a hand-held shot⁠[2]. Munns and Meldrum put the speed at 16 to 18 fps; the 2022 restoration plays back at 16⁠[2]⁠[1]. The subject's height, stride and speed, and therefore whether a human could match them, all depend on this value and on the site geometry.

The explanations

The costume reading holds that a person in a fur suit walked for the camera. Its academic case is that the film cannot be shown to exceed human ability, because estimates of height, limb proportions and gait carry large uncertainties from the unknown frame rate, distance and lens⁠[5]⁠[6]. Its documentary case is the testimony of a claimed wearer and maker, published in 2004, and of family members in 2025–2026, together with a newly found reel of a costumed walker staged much like the 1967 film⁠[7]⁠[8]. No suit has been produced, and the claims have not been tied to physical evidence.

The animal reading holds that the subject is an unknown hominoid. Its case is that the surface anatomy (skin folds, fat distribution) matches real ageing human and ape bodies rather than costume artefacts, that the film is unaltered, and that the figure's proportions and gait are outside what a suit of the period would produce⁠[3]⁠[2]⁠[4]⁠[9]. It rests on the existence of an animal for which there is no specimen.

On the 2025–2026 reel, the documentary's makers say it was shot before October 1967 and so was a rehearsal; Munns argues that a 1966 date code on the stock shows only that it cannot have been shot before 1966, and that details such as the costume's white feet fit a replica copied from the film's high-contrast prints⁠[8]. The documentary's own evidence for the date was not reached for this record.

Published claims

Published claims and their status

Year	Who	Claimed	Status	Reason
1973	John Napier⁠[10]	The scientific evidence taken together points to a hoax of some kind, though nothing in the film proves it conclusively.	Most likely	Still the view of most mainstream anthropologists who have examined the film, but no suit or performer has been proved⁠[6]⁠[7].
1999	David J. Daegling and Daniel O. Schmitt⁠[5]	Estimates of the subject's height and gait rest on too many unknowns, the camera speed, distance and lens, to show that no human could have made them.	Accepted	The camera speed and the site geometry are still unmeasured, so the uncertainty they describe remains⁠[2].
1999	Grover S. Krantz⁠[9]	The subject's measurements and gait are not those of a person in a suit, so the film shows a real animal.	Disputed	Mainstream anthropologists reject it because the measurements depend on an unknown frame rate and site geometry, and no specimen of the animal exists⁠[5]⁠[6].
2004	Greg Long⁠[7]	Bob Heironimus wore a gorilla suit for Patterson, and the costume-maker Philip Morris sold it to him.	Still possible	Testimony given decades later and never tied to a surviving suit or to contemporaneous records⁠[7]⁠[8].
2004	David J. Daegling⁠[6]	The film cannot be shown to exceed human ability, and a person in a costume is the likeliest explanation.	Most likely	No measurement has excluded a human, but no suit or performer has been proved either⁠[2]⁠[7].
2006	D. Jeffrey Meldrum⁠[4]	The figure's morphology and gait are those of a real relict hominoid, not a costumed human.	Disputed	The argument depends on the unrecorded camera speed, and no specimen, bone or DNA of the proposed animal has been found⁠[6]⁠[2].
2013	Bill Munns and D. Jeffrey Meldrum⁠[2]	The camera original was not edited, the surviving copies are true images of it, and the camera ran at 16 to 18 frames per second.	Still possible	No evidence of editing has been published, but the camera original is lost and the frame rate has never been measured independently⁠[2]⁠[1].
2013	Bill Munns and D. Jeffrey Meldrum⁠[3]	Skin folds and fat distribution on the subject match real ageing human and ape bodies, not the flaws of a costume.	Disputed	It answers one argument for a costume without excluding a well-made suit, and no specimen of the proposed animal exists⁠[6].
2022	Isaac Y. Tian, Bill Munns and D. Jeffrey Meldrum⁠[1]	Aligning and compositing eight independent prints by computer gives the cleanest version of the lookback sequence without manual retouching.	Accepted	A reproducible image-processing method set out step by step; it improves the record without deciding what the figure is⁠[1].
2026	Marq Evans (Capturing Bigfoot)⁠[11]	A 16 mm reel developed in 1966 shows a costumed rehearsal, so the 1967 film was staged.	Still possible	The 1966 date code bounds only the earliest use of the stock, and no laboratory dating of the reel's processing has been published⁠[8].
2026	Bill Munns⁠[8]	The reel shown in Capturing Bigfoot is a later replica copied from high-contrast prints of the 1967 film, not a rehearsal.	Still possible	An argument from costume details by an advocate of the film's authenticity, with no processing date to support it⁠[8].

What would settle it

A suit, or contemporaneous records of its purchase and use, linked to the film by physical detail, would settle it for a costume. A specimen would settle it for an animal. Short of either, three things would narrow it: recovery of the camera original⁠[2]; an independent determination of the camera speed (for example from camera-shake frequency or from the K-100's mechanism) and a survey of the site, which together fix the subject's size and speed; and a published, independent laboratory dating of the 2025 reel's processing, not only its stock⁠[8].