Original Unedited Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film from 1967

Here is a video of the original Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film. I thought I'd share it with you guys (and ladies), because the original is becoming more rare. So many people try to enhance and edit the original that we're flooded with those versions. If any of yall are good at editing and enhancing video, this original should give you a good base to start from. I would like to see what you can come up with.

There have been so many discussions about the legitimacy of that film. What's the latest consensus? Years ago, I saw a film with a respected primatologist that was pretty convincing. He explained the walking motion, the musculature, etc...
He said he was convinced it was legit. But it still looks like a guy in a gorilla suit to me.

ETA: Thanks for posting!

a reply to: ColeYounger

Ive tried to think about it logically and this makes my opinion vary from year to year, . . .

However, my thoughts are: Im not convinced that the person filming was in on a hoax (if it is a hoax). People like fame and when this video started getting a lot of attention, it seems someone would've came forward with evidence of their involvement. Even if it was just bragging to friends, it just seems like someone would've been busted.

Did anyone ever see this person practicing the walk? Did anyone ever see the suit at someone's house or in one of their vehicles? It seems like something would've been noticed by someone at some point and reported to the press after the increase of popularity.

None of that proves it's real, by any means, but it makes it harder to completely discount the authenticity.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
There have been so many discussions about the legitimacy of that film. What's the latest consensus? Years ago, I saw a film with a respected primatologist that was pretty convincing. He explained the walking motion, the musculature, etc...
He said he was convinced it was legit. But it still looks like a guy in a gorilla suit to me.

ETA: Thanks for posting!

What makes you think “suit” ?
How does this look like a suit ?
From this distance, I’m hard pressed to have strong feelings either way.

a reply to: esteay812

I agree completely. I wouldn't bet the farm either way.
I still like watching that film. It has some kind of cool, eerie quality. The graininess adds to the spooky vibe. I think it was 16mm.

a reply to: stevieray

There is a video out there (I'll try to find it and post it) where a guy went nuts on enhancing the video and came up with some really good images. I just dont know why he didnt go frame by frame for the entire video. . . maybe its just too much work. I would like to see the entire video done, maybe there's something we're missing in the woods or in one of the early frames.

found it:
This is a guy talking about the images and the work done on the video

Still kind of edited, the movie cuts off while the bigfoot is still in frame.. what happened next ?

a reply to: stevieray

There's just something about it that seems a bit off. Again, just MHO. I'm not saying that it definitely IS a guy in a suit.
I do believe these creatures are out there. The fact that they're not showing up on trail cams just adds to the mystery.
There may be a "paranormal" or preternatural component to them. Bigfoot hunters in Washington state have followed tracks in fresh snow for distances of nearly a mile. The tracks vanished, as if the creature vanished. They recorded their vocalizations, which biologists said were almost certainly made by a hominid, a great ape.

a reply to: Spacespider

That's it, as far as I know. He goes behind the trees and it ends.
I may try to reupload and swap out the videos. I didn't realize it did that, I must have my editor set to fade in/fade out or just fade out and didn't change it from my last project.

a reply to: ColeYounger

I am not convinced of their existence one way or another, but I believe they are probably out there in some form or explanation, if that makes sense. The best visual evidence we have is this film and we all know its hard to determine what we're actually looking at. Should be able to find some remnants of the habitation. . . fur, urine, feces, dens, etc.

Thanks for the watch, while I generally believe there is some kind of large hairy apelike hominid, just because there are too many eyewitnesses from well before Patty. Back when people were concerned about their reputations and most didn't jack around and do hoaxes. Nowadays you can't trust anything.

That said I seriously doubt Patterson and/or Gimlin thought it would be a good idea to fake this with a costume complete with pendulous breasts that are not a good representation of other simian mammaries.

IF IT WERE FAKE

I'd more likely believe it if it were a hoax, Patterson did this to just fake out Gimlin, as a joke. But it somehow gained traction and once the money started changing hands, it was difficult to back down from.

I'd say there is less than a 10% chance of that, Im leaning towards 80% it's real 20% it's fake one way or the other.

The sheer fact that 50 years later and only Heronimous and other rumblings about fakery, but damn sure nothing definitive. There should have been a smoking gun, the costume, pics of setting it up, and deathbed confessions.

If they faked it for money, the initial payoff was $150,000 with half going to the distributor and half to Patterson who supposedly blew it all, it's enough that Gimlin sued to collect his share. IS the amount of money from this enough to keep people quiet, possibly? Gimlim never got rich but one would imagine made some bucks on the Bigfoot circuit. Still is that enough to perpetuate something you know is a hoax for 50 years? Im not so sure.

a reply to: esteay812

Two questions:

1. Why was the person filming in the first place? I mean, filming a forest and a guy on a horse makes no sense.

2. Why was the camera so steady for the first couple minutes of filming, then gets super shaky when Bigfoot shows up?

Thanks for posting. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the original before.

a reply to: putnam6

It would take a strong will and a little luck to be able to keep a hoax like this quiet. That's why I feel like, if it were a hoax, P & G probably knew nothing about it. However, that leaves a third-party hoaxer. It would be highly unlikely a hoaxes could stay quiet when they saw the $ opportunities coming in for P & G. They'd also have to deal with all the other aspects of trying to keep a lie of this proportion just a lie. I find about us much evidence that this is real in the ability of the hoaxers (if it's a hoax) to stay quiet as I do anything we actually see in the film.

a reply to: KKLOCO

Those answers are out there and I should know them, but I don't, definitively. I can only assume they were filming the landfor recreational or possibly business purposes. For all I know, he may have just gotten a cool new camera and was just playing around with it. Camcorders weren't as common as in the 80's & 90's, and especially not like today where everyone has about 5 camera lenses in their pocket.

As for the shakiness. . . again, I can only assume, but maybe the shot of adrenaline from seeing something that isn't supposed to exist. Also, camera stabilization was nothing like it is today. Without a tripod, the video is gonna shake like crazy.

a reply to: esteay812

What I gathered from that image is that whatever it was had a severe injury to the entire right side of the face and head. Looks like hair missing on the cheekbone and top right of the skull. Eyelashes missing and what he described as drainage from the eye.

??????

a reply to: LittleJake

Maybe it's a result of discovering for for the 1st time 😆 and case of Pink Eye or contagious conjunctivitis. Really though, if there were an injury, I could see it potentially coming from bear or some sort of wildcat.

It's too low resolution to enhance, it has digital artifacts up the wahzoo. However, it gives the overall context and judging by the steady panning throughout the film, then the frantic shaky camera handling when the big foot appears, it lends more credibility to being a real unrehearsed encounter with what sure looks like a big foot to me.

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: esteay812

Two questions:

1. Why was the person filming in the first place? I mean, filming a forest and a guy on a horse makes no sense.

2. Why was the camera so steady for the first couple minutes of filming, then gets super shaky when Bigfoot shows up?

Thanks for posting. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen the original before.

The complete account of the who what where when and how is out there, with a quick search

IIRC they were filming for a documentary looking for a bigfoot, one reason some believe it's a hoax. Regardless thats the reason they were at Bluff Creek

Secondly when. they were first filming they were on horseback the story goes the horse got skittish when it came upon the creature throwing the rider who got back up and was walking/running toward the creature while filming

a reply to: UpThenDown

I haven't watched yet, but first thoughts on VFX guys analysis make me wonder why their opinion is more valid than anyone else, considering this video isn't a product of VFX. Maybe they have better insight from creating convincing video using VFX and physical methods.