Bigfoot

Case File — Patterson–Gimlin Bigfoot Film (1967)

The Archivist

The Archivist

— 3 min read
Case File — Patterson–Gimlin Bigfoot Film (1967)

Overview

On October 20, 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed a walking, hair-covered figure at Bluff Creek, California. The 59 seconds of 16 mm footage became the most famous Bigfoot clip and a cultural icon. Supporters argue the gait and body proportions look non-human. Skeptics call it a man in a suit. The debate has never been resolved. opbWikipedia

Timeline

  • Oct 20, 1967: Patterson and Gimlin record the footage at Bluff Creek during a horseback search. opbWikipedia
  • 1967–1968: The film is shown to media and at scientific gatherings. Interest is high, but opinions split. Wikipedia
  • 1998: Forensic examiner Jeff Glickman publishes an analysis, “Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon.” Idaho State University
  • 2002–2004: Bob Heironimus claims he wore a gorilla suit for the film. Skeptical Inquirer publishes a hoax account. cdn.centerforinquiry.org
  • 2013: Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum publish a technical paper on image integrity in Relict Hominoid Inquiry. Idaho State University
  • 2017–present: The film remains a touchstone in Bigfoot culture and media retrospectives. Frame 352 becomes the iconic still. opb

Primary sources

Claims and counterclaims

Claim: The subject shows non-human gait, shoulder breadth, and soft-tissue movement that would be hard to fake with 1967 costuming.
Counter: Effects artists and skeptics argue a suit is plausible. The film speed is uncertain, which affects gait analysis. Some experts have publicly called it a man in a suit, and a named individual has claimed to be the person in costume. Idaho State UniversityWikipediacdn.centerforinquiry.org

Claim: Technical analysis supports authenticity.
Counter: Analyses in favor rely on copies and indirect data. Skeptical treatments point to Patterson’s showmanship, money disputes, and the lack of chain-of-custody style documentation. Idaho State UniversityWikipedia

Credibility meter

Score each 1 to 5.

  • Witnesses: 2
    Two principals, few independent contemporaneous witnesses on scene. Wikipedia
  • Physical evidence: 1
    No specimen or confirmed biological trace tied to the subject.
  • Documentation: 3
    Film exists in multiple generations, but original-context metadata and camera settings are debated. Wikipedia
  • Expert review: 2–3
    Technical arguments on both sides, no consensus. Idaho State Universitycdn.centerforinquiry.org

Overall: ~2.3 (contested, culturally important)

Red flags

  • Camera frame rate and some filming details are uncertain, which changes gait math. Wikipedia
  • A named individual claimed to have worn a suit, and a skeptical investigation documented that narrative. cdn.centerforinquiry.org

What we know

  • The footage was filmed at Bluff Creek on Oct 20, 1967, and the still known as Frame 352 became an icon. opb
  • The clip has been stabilized and re-digitized many times, improving viewability but not resolving the core dispute. YouTube

Unknowns

  • Whether the subject is a living animal or a person in a costume.
  • The exact frame rate used during filming, which affects stride and speed estimates. Wikipedia
💡
What If…? What if the Bluff Creek film really captured a surviving relic hominin ... a branch of humanity that diverged hundreds of thousands of years ago and never went extinct? Supporters argue this could explain the proportions and gait seen in the footage. Another speculative line is that Bigfoot isn’t biological at all, but interdimensional ... appearing in our reality briefly before vanishing, which would account for the lack of physical remains. Some even tie it to Native North American spiritual traditions, where giant beings act as guardians of the wilderness. Each theory stretches beyond the evidence, but together they show how one shaky 16 mm clip still fuels half a century of wonder.

Where to dig next

  • Analyze first-generation copies and camera data to bound frame rate and stride. Idaho State University
  • Compare modern suit-making capabilities in 1967 with the film’s visible surface dynamics using documented effects methods from that era.
  • Map the film site geometry and lines of sight to refine size estimates from known objects in frame. opb

Receipts

💡
Bottom line -This film sits at the center of Bigfoot lore. It is compelling to watch and easy to doubt. Without verifiable biological evidence or airtight filming metadata, it remains an unresolved icon rather than proof.

Read more