™

The Patterson-Gimlin Film:

         Bluff Creek, California October 20th, 1967

Click here to view The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Perhaps one of the most controverted piece of evidence to ever be submitted to the Court of World Opinion.

The Film was shot on October 20, 1967 at Bluff Creek California, with a shaky 16 millimeter Movie Camera.

What transpired that day, almost 40 years later is still a raging debate.

The Background:

Patterson said he became interested in Bigfoot after reading an article about the creature by Ivan Sanderson in True magazine in December 1959 (Perez, 6). His book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? was self-published in 1966. The book has been characterized as "little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson's circus-poster style prose." (Hunter and Dahinden, 113) It did, however, also include 20 pages of previously unpublished interviews and letters, 17 drawings by Patterson of the encounters described in the text, five hand-drawn maps (rare in subsequent Bigfoot books), and almost 20 photos and illustrations from other sources. It was reprinted in 2005 under the title The Bigfoot Film Controversy, with additional material by Chris Murphy.

Some decades after the Patterson-Gimlin film's publicity, Greg Long interviewed people who described Patterson as a liar, a conman, and sometimes worse. Pat Mason, Glen Koelling, Bob Swanson and Vilma Radford claimed Patterson never repaid loans they made to him for various Bigfoot-related ventures. Radford alone had corroborative evidence: A $700 promissory note "for expenses in connection with filming of 'Bigfoot: Americas Abominable Snowman. (sic)'" (Long, 300). Patterson agreed to repay her $850, plus 5 percent of any profits from the film. Also, records show Bob Gimlin sued DeAtley and Patterson's widow Patricia, in 1975, claiming he wasn't receiving his share of the film's proceeds. No one doubted the sincerity of Patterson's belief in Bigfoot; he was consumed by the search for it.

After securing funding for his Bigfoot documentary, Patterson and his friend Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Patterson chose the area due to intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, Rene Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967 (Perez, 8). This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson.

Though Gimlin says he doubted the existence of Sasquatch-like creatures, he agreed to Patterson's suggestion that they should not attempt to shoot any such creatures they might see. According to Krantz (Krantz, 1992) years later, Patterson and Gimlin agreed they should have tried to shoot the creature, both for financial gain and to silence naysayers.

Patterson's expensive 16 mm camera had been rented on May 13, but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on October 17 (Long, 167). This charge was ultimately dismissed after Patterson returned the camera in good working order. (Long, 169)*

The "Happening"

As Patterson and Gimlin were allegedly the only human witnesses to their brief encounter with a Sasquatch, theirs are the only testimonies available in studying the account. Their statements agree in general, but Long notes a number of inconsistencies. In an article in Argosy magazine, Ivan T. Sanderson gave the time of the encounter as 3:30 p.m., which differed from the 1:30 p.m. time in other articles and in interviews by Patterson and Gimlin. They offered somewhat different sequences in describing how they and the horses reacted upon seeing the creature. Patterson in particular increased his estimates of the creature's size in subsequent retellings of the encounter (Long, 162-165). In a different context, Long notes, these discrepancies would probably be considered minor, but given the extraordinary claims made by Patterson and Gimlin, any apparent disagreements in perception or memory are worth noting.

In the early afternoon of October 20, Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek. Both were on horseback when they "came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek, almost as high as a room" (Gimlin, quoted in Perez, 9). When they rounded it they spotted the figure behind it nearly simultaneously, while it was "crouching beside the creek to their left" (Krantz, 85). Gimlin later described himself as in a mild state of shock after first seeing the figure.

Patterson estimated he was about 25 feet (7.6 m) away from the creature at his closest. Patterson said that his horse reared upon seeing (or perhaps smelling) the figure, and he spent about twenty seconds extricating himself from the saddle and getting his camera from a saddlebag before he could run toward the figure while operating his camera. He yelled "Cover me" to Gimlin, who thereupon crossed the creek on horseback, rode forward awhile, and, rifle in hand, dismounted (presumably because his horse might have panicked if the creature charged, spoiling his shot).

The figure had walked away from them to a distance of about 120 feet (37 m) before Patterson began to run after it. The resulting film (about 53 seconds long) is initially quite shaky until Patterson gets about 80 feet (24 m) from the figure. At that point the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees; on Krantz's map this corresponds to frame 264 (Perez, 12). To researcher John Green, Patterson would later characterize the creature's expression as one of "contempt and disgust...you know how it is when the umpire tells you 'one more word and you're out of the game.' That's the way it felt."

At this point the steady middle portion of the film begins, containing the famous frame 352 (see accompanying photo above). Patterson said "it turned a total of I think three times" (Wasson, 69), the first time therefore being before the filming began. Shortly after glancing over its shoulder, the creature walks behind a grove of trees, reappears for awhile after Patterson moved ten feet to a better vantage point, then fades into the trees again and is lost to view as the reel of film ran out. Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback, keeping his distance, until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards away. Patterson called him back at that point, feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle, because he feared the creature's mate might approach.

Next, Gimlin rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off before the filming began, and "the men then tracked it for three miles (5 km), but lost it in the heavy undergrowth" (Coleman and Clark, 198). They returned to the initial site, measured the creature's stride, made two plaster casts (of the best-quality right and left prints), and covered the other prints to protect them. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes.

A few hours after the encounter, Patterson telephoned Donald Abbott, whom Krantz described as "the only scientist of any stature to have demonstrated any serious interest in the (Bigfoot) subject," hoping he would help them search for the creature. Abbott declined, and Krantz argued this call to authorities the same day of the encounter is evidence against a hoax, at least on Patterson's part.

Forestry worker Lyle Loverty happened upon the site a day later and photographed the tracks. Taxidermist and outdoorsman Robert Titmus went to the site with his brother-in-law nine days later. Titmus made casts of the creature's prints and, as best he could, plotted Patterson's and the creature's movements on a map.

Patterson initially estimated its height at six and one-half to seven feet (Patterson & Murphy, 195), and later raised his estimate to about seven and one-half feet. (Some later analysts, anthropologist Grover Krantz among them, have suggested Patterson's later estimate was about a foot too tall.) The film shows a large, hairy bipedal apelike figure with short black hair covering most of its body, including the figure's prominent breasts. The figure's head is somewhat pointed; some have argued this feature is a sagittal crest, a type of ridge also found on gorillas. The figure depicted in the Patterson-Gimlin film generally matches the descriptions of Bigfoot offered by others who claim to have seen the creatures.*

The Details

Roger Patterson was a showman and promoter trying to finance through private donations a Bigfoot movie. On the morning of October 20, 1967, he and friend and business associate Robert Gimlin, on horseback, embarked into California's Six Rivers National Forest to track down the elusive creature.

At approximately 1:30 PM,  while at Bluff Creek, they came across, which Patterson described as six and a half foot to seven foot tall, creature. Patterson's horse reared up and bucked him off, but Patterson managed to get to his feet and filmed 53 seconds of the creature with his trusty 16mm camera.

One fact which complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson says he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. The speed of the film is important because, as (Dr. John) Napier writes, "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait" (Napier, 94 [2nd printing]). Unfortunately, the film is so shaky that it is difficult to be certain which speed is correct.

The amazing claim was that they had actually filmed a female, evident by the breasts on the creature.

They rounded up Patterson's horse and allegedly tracked the animal for 3 miles, and uncovered several footprints which were plaster casted.

Roger Patterson died in 1972 of Lymphatic Cancer, claiming on his death bed the film authentic.

The Time-Line Controversy

There has been some timeline controversies as well in the film. Many state that in 1967 Patterson could not have gotten the film developed as fast as he said he could if the film was filmed on the particular date. Also the loss of the 1st generation copy of the film has also created controversy over the years.

The Analysis

The P/G Film has probably been the most test subjected film in history, just falling short of the Zapruder Film which eye witnessed the Kennedy Assassination.

The Analysis comes from an assortment of resources.

First the late Dr. Grover Krantz asserted it's anatomically correct movement as to what a primate would walk and move. The assessment of Dr. Jeff Meldrum, whom also agrees with Krantz, as to it's animation and goes a step further noticing the animal may have a herniation in it's right leg.

The North American Science Institute conducted a big dollar investigation on the film and concluded that the filmed subject was not that of a man in a costume and that the filmed subject was unusual to human proportions.

Or the more interesting work of Robert W. Morgan showing us the possibility of there being at least one other creature in the film.

MK Davis's Work on the Patterson Film (courtesy of our good friend MK Davis)

MK at the Bluff Creek Site 2006

Bluff Creek Today

In 2006 and 2008 MK Davis has had some interesting revelations he feels about the film. For more information on these theories please seek Cryptomundo.com or Cryptozoology.com for more information.

The Hoax Claims

Here's the main cast of character's for the "I Faked the Film" Flap of 2002-2004.

        John Chambers- This poor guy was a special effects creator and was subjected to a rumor, made by John Landis, he created the "costume" in the film. A subsequent interview, revealed he had nothing at all to do with the film. It turned out he had carved a Bigfoot statue for a movie and Landis may have confused this with something else.

        Phillip Morris (not just making tobacco products anymore, yuk yuk)- This person claims to have sold a suit to Roger Patterson, the owner of a North Carolina based Costume and film prop & stage company. Aside from his claims, he offered no proof as of yet of his story.

        Bob Heironimus- This guy is another suit wearer. Claims to supposed be paid but never did. Yep again no evidence or proof as of yet. Did pass a lie detector however.

        Greg Long- An author who tries to put together Morris with Heironimus, unfortunately someone is lying because of the inconsistencies between the two stories. It is an attempt to make a best seller out of bad investigation. For example Morris says the suit was one piece while Heironimus says it was several. Morris said it was made from synthetics, Heironimus said Patterson stated it was made from horse hide and it stunk. Two rotten stories put together to make one big stinker. These aren't just little facts such as time deviation of height deviation, but MAJOR deviations. Unfortunately, the author, though I think well intentioned does not realize that this is Conspiracy Theory at it's best. If that many people had known about a hoax of this magnitude, it would have come out far sooner than in 2002.  Naivety!!!!

Lets Think About It & Ask Yourself This:

1. Long contends that friends and family members of Heironomus knew. They never said anything to anyone???

2. It would have surfaced...and it's not like the mainstream press would have suppressed it ...I mean when is the mainstream press friendly to Bigfoot Research???

3. Morris's employees had no clue??? Morris never told anyone either??

4. Heironomus motivation for keeping his mouth shut was he was waiting on payment from Patterson for $1000.00. Well how come he didn't cry foul when he DIDN'T get paid?

5. Where is the suit...if it exists. Where is the suit?

6. Where's Morris's Receipt?...A story so sensational he didn't keep it, even for TAX RECORDS?

7. There would have been a bigger payoff in 1973 exposing the then 6 year old film, than in 2002 when the mainstream press has had 39 years to downplay and criticize it.

We make not yet making the assertion the film is authentic, however we feel that the Heironimus, Morris tales are just that ....TALES!!!!

PROOF IS NEEDED.

Remember, if it is fair to judge a sighting or report by evidence....then we must play fair and apply it to those making claims such as Heironomus & Morris.

As a studier of motives and methods, I must say this, I used to be rock solid about the Patterson Film's Authenticity. My sources back then were "In Search Of.." and shows of the like. But without getting into the knitty-gritty of it, Patterson was a showman and promoter in the likes of and in companionship with, Ivan Marx, Ray Wallace at various times and amongst others such as other researchers such as Green, Dahinden and Byrne. Not to dishonor the memory of Roger Patterson...let's just keep that into perspective. There have been ample questions raised, some valid, some out there. We still have scores of questions, for example the timeline, the detractors such as Heironomus passing a lie detector test, and investors past calling Patterson names. What is in the film...at this point I do not know.

"With this perspective...anything is possible...but when the possible is possible what you are left with is the impossible." -Steve Kulls

"A film is only as good as the story behind it" - Steve Kulls

Click on the Logo to Return to the Homepage:

™