Patterson’s Bigfoot Camera
Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 31st, 2009
The International Cryptozoology Museum receives generous donations regularly. I am grateful for each and every one of them, and how unique every one is. For instance, this week, these included a PayPal forwarded ten dollar monthly pledge from Ravenshadow, a $120 check through snail mail from a famed anonymous author, and most surprisingly, what has become known as “Roger Patterson’s camera.”
Robert Koster of Pennsylvania donated an authentic period example of a 16mm Kodak Cine-100 home camera, complete with its original box, which may be turned into a display case, and the original manual (pictured at near the bottom, below). It also came with the standard issued Kodak Cine Ektar 25mm f/1.9 lens.
Who would have guessed a simple 16mm camera, with only 28 feet of film left in the unit, would become such a significant historical item? What new lessons can be learned from a physical object that links directly back to an event occurring in 1967?
This Koster donation is an exact match to the 16mm Kodak Cine-100 home movie camera, the rented model that Roger Patterson used. Patterson, of course, along with Bob Gimlin, on October 20, 1967, at Bluff Creek, California, employed this type of camera to film what appears to be an adult female Bigfoot.
Never having physically held one before, what strikes you immediately about this hand-cranked 16 millimeter camera is how bulky and heavy it is. Although Daniel Perez has commented on this in print, the actual camera-in-the-hand feeling gives a very real sense of what an incredibly difficult task Patterson had to regain his balance, and then film the object moving away from him at a steady pace at Bluff Creek.
Some people have called this camera a “dinosaur,” and you can see why. It existed in an era long ago, when “hand-held camera” meant something much different than it does today.
Overjoyed with this new addition, I thank Robert Koster for this object which will keep on teaching into the future, and thanks also, to Daniel Perez for the idea and casual note that lead to me contacting Mr. Koster. It is an artifact that needs to be saved and shared.
BTW, Robert and I talked on the phone, and tried to imagine where Patterson’s original camera, which he used in 1967, might be today. Roger Patterson (pictured above), who died of cancer in 1972, cannot give any hints about where that camera is now. But, hey, after all, it was a rented Kodak Cine-100. Won’t it be great if a paper trail could be traced someday, and that old camera could be found in someone’s attic?
Until then, around the country and the world, old Kodak Cine-100 home movie camera stand-ins like this one are valuable physical objects that are continuing to give educational history lessons in cryptozoology.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your contributions to the collection are always welcome, and you may send donations of artifacts, souvenirs, and other objects or funding directly to the International Cryptozoology Museum at PO Box 360, Portland, ME 04112 USA. Help to keep the museum open can also occur via clicking on the following button, which has space for a private message:
🙂 Thank You.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Well, that paints a new picture, now doesn’t it? For one, I didn’t know that that one had to be manually wound. With that in mind, I think he did a fabulous job getting the famous footage.
Has anyone used this kind of camera to shoot footage at the site to help clarify the distance and size of the subject? Or did they prove that on MonsterQuest already?
I personally believe that the footage is real.
There are too many small anomalies in the footage, like the protruding bulges, breasts, and so forth.
One other clue to me is that of the “shine” of the fur.
I’m an avid hunter; my father started taking me with him when I was 5 years old. I’m now 45, and if you spend time in the woods, you learn that animals have a different “look” than the forest/field itself.
I feel that it is the natural oil of the fur/feathers or “shine” is a dead giveaway. Once you learn to look for that, it is easy to distinguish an animal from landscape and you can see animals in various conditions and great distances.
That is a valuable donation, indeed.
I, too, think this footage is almost certainly genuine.
One thing I may differ from most readers on, is the height of the hominid in the film. I read an earlier blog entry, here, that compared the two commercially available lenses, shooting a human subject of known height, at the estimated distance. My impression was that the lens was used, that would put this hominid at around 5 feet tall.
This would be consistent with some eyewitness accounts I have been privileged to hear, over the last 30 years or so. It seems that the unexpected and alarming nature of encounters, combined with the observation of a massive muscular body and an imposing presence, tend to result in overestimations of the height. Also, the “macho factor” seems to clash with a fear response; many men (and some women) would feel better saying they were frightened by a 7 or 8 foot tall behemoth, than a 5-footer. I once observed one fresh eyewitness change his story in this way, and this way alone, when faced with a different listening audience. (A child who lived in the area of the sighting, namely me, versus a group of adults including rather “macho” men. I feel he told me the truth, that the hominid was only about 4.5 to 5 feet tall, in this case, but nonetheless frightening, imposing in his demeanor, very muscular, quick on his feet, and notably stealthy in the woods.)
Perhaps many footprints are overlooked because they aren’t of the expected size? I suspect so. Perhaps there are some giants, I can’t say there aren’t. However, exaggeration of height is a factor to consider. Eyewitness reports often include wildly varying height estimates, and it’s my opinion that is likely due to this height exaggeration phenomenon.
Very interesting, Loren, and a great addition to your stock!
well that’s great. there. 🙂 i can understand and agree it’s a historical fact. non the less i believe this footage of bigfoot is legit
As it’s been often said you’d think with today’s ultra-modern video and camera technology somebody could film something close if not better than the infamous P-G footage. Still the best footage after all these years. Great acquisition for the museum!
fantastic! I like the idea of going back and filming with various speeds, IF you can find the right film medium (we are a digital age) and speed setting…
Hmm… I always wondered if it would be worth the cost to put a small team of hunters with trank darts (with appropriate guesstimation for weight, constitution, and mammalian primate issues) and a way to drop food and supplies weekly to them and have them track.
I know the story is about the camera and all. But unless Patty was drinking todays super hormone milk i dont see how a young female of 4.5″-5″ tall Sas can have such over developed breast. She is a mature female, as everyone can agree with. Now Alot of people always see males. Never alot of females so its hard to compare the Females Sass to another. Since we are always seeing Males. From what i hear females always sty very close to where they sleep at. Just something to think about. Get some Military grade 3rd or 4th Generation night vision and see what you can find out there. Bless the cryto world.. I love it.