Original Unedited Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film from 1967

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I appreciate that opinion. It is too noisy to do too much with standard enhancement, but there are some newer methods becoming available that could really help when used properly. One is the eularian method. If someone is skilled with applying it, it may produce some features we haven't seen before.

a reply to: Spacespider

Here is another version I uploaded 6 years ago that includes the final few seconds. Thanks for the heads up, I'm rendering a new version of the benefited video that includes the faded segment.

Take this for what it is worth to you.

I worked with a person for about 4 years that told me they grew up near the Gimlins in WA and he spent time at their house. He told me back then they talked about how surprised the whole Big Foot thing is still going on. They basically said it was a hoax and that is what the person who I worked with thinks to what about it all with a quick "it was all BS" as his one statement in the end and never talked about it again.

Patterson and Gimlin were looking for a Bigfoot. This is why they were filming in the woods. It is shaky because he jumped off the horse and ran towards it while filming.

I used to own a costume shop, and I can tell you, there was no gorilla costume available that comes even close to what we see in the video. Again, there is no costume for sale that allows you to see muscle movement under it. However, if you look closely at the film, you see muscles flex in the leg. So, if it was a costume, they figured out how to make the suit so tight and thin that flexing muscles are easily seen under it.

By comparison; about 10 years later, Hollywood made a new King Kong (1976) movie. If you watch the movie, you can always tell when it was a guy in a monkey suit playing Kong. The suit was bulky and in no way hid the shape of the man underneath, and no muscle detail is present.




If the Patterson film was a fake, a decade later, with all the money and power of Hollywood, they still couldn't make a monkey suit as convincing as these two guys in the woods did. Even now, only CGI really comes close.

Lastly, in 2005, the Morris Costume Company owner, Philip Morris, claimed he made the infamous costume for the film. He says he got a call from the men and was commissioned to make the costume. Nearly 40 years later, this professional costumer, with all his years of experience and costume materials readily available, tried to remake the suit. This is how he did at "recreating" the costume he supposedly made.


In conclusion, I honestly don't see how these two men could pull it off to such a degree. If fake, they made a costume so detailed that many years later, neither Hollywood nor a professional costume maker could come close to duplicating it.

I wanted to add that I am speaking only of the costume aspect of the film. There's also the impression in the dirt where Patty was lying down that shows a possible deformed leg (perhaps from an earlier injury), the unusual gate, arm swing, and the other evidence that has made debunking this film something that, 56 years later, no one has done conclusively.

Bigfoot and UFO's ... always keeps us on the edge with tasty titbits... aahhggggg but never enough.

All the best

a reply to: Dapaga

Thanks for posting this. Gives more to consider. I had forgotten about the thought of Hollywood's ability to produce a suit at the time. There are good arguments on both sides. I'm on the fence still, but I haven't really researched it deeply.

I'd probably lean toward fake, based on the lack of evidence since the bigfoot craze began. Just going off this video, I'd be right at 50/50, not considering things outside the video.

a reply to: Quadlink

People been saying it for years, "disclosure is coming." I do feel like it's more likely to happen than ever before, considering the government's admission of UAPs.

What's gonna be wild is when Idol's and bigfoot are confirmed to be linked, 😆

originally posted by: esteay812
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.

Here's the thing if were a hoax, especially if Patterson and/or Gimlin weren't in on it. It's not particularly smart to go roaming around late fall in the woods as humans near hunting season, much less dressed in something that could be mistaken for a big azz bear. The same goes for if Patterson or Gimlin didn't know, both were armed would you bet your life they wouldn't shoot coming across a fake? sure it was unlikely but would you risk getting shot on a silly hoax?

a reply to: esteay812

perhaps when you wacth it then you will find they are discussing the actual walk with footage of the 'supposed guy in the suit' (goto 2.28 in video) walking in the same manner, they are not entertaining the possibility of VFX

sorry for not saying that in original post

a reply to: esteay812

While looking for pictures of Mr. Morris, I stumbled on an article that goes into much more depth about the costume aspects of the Patterson film. Comparing it to Hollywood productions and how they tackled the fur issue. He covers a gauntlet of films from Star Wars to Congo. After all this, he concludes:

With ape suit technology, Hollywood has put on a very poor performance indeed. It’s a white-knuckle merciless business, where one can give nothing less than their best performance each and every day, lest risk being replaced without compassion or appeal. When it came to P-G (Patterson-Gimlin), we've seen Hollywood’s best, and it falls very short indeed. With millions of dollars at their command, Hollywood is still bested, and “genuine” still remains in a forested creek bed hundreds of miles away from movie magic.

The Patterson-Gimlin Film: What makes a "hoax" absolutely genuine?

a reply to: UpThenDown

Thanks. My point was just questioning why their opinions would be more well regarded than your or mine. Probably because they have experience in creating convincing fakes with VFX and make-up in films..

a reply to: Dapaga

That is a very interesting aspect of the debate."OK, it's an ape suit". . . "Nope, couldn't create an ape suit of near that quality at the time".

Has anyone ever determined what the actual size bigfoot must be in the video? I seem to recall some saying over 8.5ft and around 400lbs. It doesn't seem like it could possibly be just a huge man with fur basically glued to him and a type silicone mask. The dude would have to be at least Andre the Giant's size. A man of that size would be noticed by basically everyone, unless he just came to the area from a different city and had no interactions there.

If they faked it, why did they spend so much money and time on the suit just to shake the camera?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Maybe just part of the plan, if faked. It doesn't seemed faked. I mean, if it were faked, it seems like there would be some tells. Some things would seem rehearsed, planned, or overacted. I don't really see any of that in the video. I suppose they could've taken several different shots, but a staged performance would bleed through in one form or another. Thats another reason I think it's either real, or the cameraman had no idea of the hoax.

a reply to: esteay812

What has always been the most intriguing aspect of this film, to me personally, is the thought that everyone who has seen it, has seen a real Sasquatch but most don't believe it.

That's a female Sasquatch, caught out in the open, only captured on film by sheer chance under astronomical odds.

"ThinkerThunker" on YouTube does an incredible job demystifying the evidence.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Its pretty wild. I've not researched it like many people have. I always thought the video and idea was fascinating. I'll check that guy out on YouTube.

a reply to: esteay812

I just watched this 7-minute analysis of the video that was pretty good - also unable to debunk the video and had some great observations regarding the alleged creature's gait, muscles, anatomy, etc.

Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film analysis. 4K stabilised colour:

a reply to: FamCore

Thanks for posting this one. There are sooo many versions where people have edited them and cut it up in segments and just ramble on the whole time. This looks like one they've put some effort into.

never seen this at length its pretty convenient bro is on the other side of the of the logs with horse and donkey carrying something super heavy.

Then next shot is bigfoot walking on the same side and the cameraman is in the same exact spot.

but hey im like the rest of you, i want to believe so badly but the evidence and nonsense ever grows and nothing legitimate seems to source out of it.

Even that washington project in mt olympic is super discreet for a bunch of non conclusive evidence.

a reply to: ContractedMercenary

Some would say "the proof is out there". I think it depends which way you're leaning, but you can probably find convincing proof on both sides of the fence.

Like I've mentioned in the thread, I'm undecided, but I think I'm like a lot of people who would just like the bonafide truth. . . whatever it may be.

It would be nice if we were given all the information we should be entitled to have, as people living on earth, when it comes to UFO's, bigfoot, etc.