The Patterson-Gimlin Film and the Ape That May Never Have Existed
On 20 October 1967, two cowboys on horseback rode into a remote creek bed in northern California. One of them carried a rented movie camera. The short sequence’s running time depends on playback speed.
It shows a tall, dark, ape-like creature covered in hair, walking upright across a sandbar. Halfway through, it turns and looks directly at the camera.
The figure’s identity remains disputed. Limited film detail makes confident anatomical claims difficult, and the footage has not established an unknown species.
Frame 352
The most famous frame in the Patterson-Gimlin film. The creature turns its upper body and looks back over its right shoulder at the camera. This single image has been measured, enhanced, and argued over for more than fifty years.
Brief
The running time depends on playback speed. The original camera setting remains disputed.
Reported tracks
Any measurement needs an identified cast or photograph. Track size alone cannot identify the filmed figure’s species.
Disputed
Height estimates depend on scale, distance and posture. A nearby tree does not automatically supply an accurate measurement.
The Evidence
A film is a sequence
Follow movement across frames before interpreting it. Dots demonstrate changing position; no original frame, body shape or timing is reproduced.
Depth depends on the ground
Change the surface and the same load can leave a different impression. Conceptual experiment: no original cast, weight estimate or measured depth is shown.
The Location
Bluff Creek was remote, but Patterson brought a camera to record his search. The setting could also provide privacy for staging a scene. Remoteness alone does not settle the question.
How the Story Unfolded
Indigenous Accounts
Indigenous communities have distinct traditions that deserve to be understood in their own cultural settings. They should not be combined into one wildlife claim or used to authenticate a film.
The Name "Bigfoot"
Jerry Crew finds enormous footprints near Bluff Creek. A newspaper coins the name "Bigfoot." The mystery goes national.
The Film
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin film a large bipedal creature at Bluff Creek. The short sequence becomes widely discussed. Its running time varies with playback speed; its subject's identity remains a separate question.
Patterson Dies
Roger Patterson dies of cancer at age 38. He had presented the film as genuine. His position is a witness claim, rather than independent confirmation of its subject.
The Costume Claim
Costume maker Philip Morris claims he sold Patterson a gorilla suit. The claim needs a record connecting a particular costume with the film.
The Man in the Suit?
Bob Heironimus says Patterson promised payment for wearing a costume. His account remains disputed; a promised payment is different from a documented transaction.
A New Reel Claim
Capturing Bigfoot premieres at SXSW. Director Marq Evans describes a reel he believes predates the famous film. Its dating and connection to Patterson need independent checking; a festival listing does not authenticate it.
The People in This Story
Roger Patterson
A rodeo rider and self-taught naturalist from Yakima, Washington. He spent years searching for Bigfoot and borrowed a camera to film the expedition. He died of cancer in 1972, insisting the film was real.
Bob Gimlin
Patterson’s companion on the trip, who continued to defend their account. His testimony matters as a witness claim; it does not independently identify the filmed figure.
Bob Heironimus
A Yakima resident who claimed in 2004 that Patterson promised him $1,000 to wear a suit. The payment and costume account remain disputed and need supporting records.
The Question That Remains
Several people have claimed involvement in a hoax, but the details remain disputed. The lack of a recovered costume does not verify an unknown animal; independent biological evidence would be needed.
What evidence would connect this film with an actual animal or a particular costume? Explain why an unresolved image alone cannot establish a species.
Read the full book to investigate the key clues and competing explanations — then decide for yourself.
Get the Full Book
The complete Bigfoot mystery. 9 chapters of evidence, theories, and a question only you can answer.
Part of the Hoaxes Volume
From fake fossils to trick photographs, we investigate the greatest hoaxes in history — and ask how clever people were fooled for so long.
See all books in this volume →Keep investigating
Check the evidence
What the evidence supports
The Patterson–Gimlin film is a real 1967 film of a disputed figure. Its images have not established an unknown species. Munns and Meldrum’s 2013 paper argues for an unfamiliar primate; that is an interpretation to test.
Where to be careful
Director Marq Evans’s 16 March 2026 account places an additional reel before the famous film. Manufacturing film stock and exposing it in a camera are different events. Its dating method, history and connection with Patterson need independent authentication; festival publicity cannot supply that proof.
Explore the sources
These selected sources support this guide and offer further reading. Some are written for adults; explore them with a parent or teacher.
- Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum: Surface Anatomy and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Features in the Analysis of the Patterson–Gimlin Film Hominid (2013)
- Marq Evans: Capturing Bigfoot director’s public questions and answers (March 2026)
- SXSW 2026: Capturing Bigfoot official film listing
- Capturing Bigfoot official film site
- Sts’ailes Comprehensive Community Plan: Sasq’ets cultural meaning (pp. 96–97)
The story and illustrations are modern retellings. Imagined scene details are not historical evidence. These sources are a starting point, not citations for every narrative detail.
Evidence guide reviewed .