New Evidence in Patterson-Gimlin Footage: Pro and Con Arguments

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 3rd, 2012

The angle difference between the female Sasquatch leg in stride and the human leg in stride is 21 degrees. This video clearly gives some thoughts to ponder.

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

Or it is NOT good evidence for Sasquatch!!

Thanks to The Anomalist and Andreas for the tips.

Loren Coleman 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.

29 Responses to “New Evidence in Patterson-Gimlin Footage: Pro and Con Arguments”

  1. dconstrukt responds:

    interesting arguments both ways.

    I’d love to see the dude who said he was in the suit… walking around with some type of fins or bigger ‘fur shoes’….

  2. Nicole Wallace via Facebook responds:

    interesting angle analysis

  3. Insanity responds:

    I do not recall the gent’s name who reenacted the walk he supposedly did as the hoax, but why would he not also have worn the fake feet he likely had to have?

    Granted, I don’t know if his feet are large enough, but it’s likely he needed to wear something, correct?

    Wasn’t there signs of a midtarsal joint in the Patty footprints? I am not certain how that could be hoaxed by human feet even with some prosthetic fakes.

  4. Goodfoot responds:

    I’d like to see him in a suit made with 1967 technologies. I have yet to see one in my lifetime that’s one-hundredth that convincing. I’d like to see him walk, in that suit, demonstrating the same angle of gait. And the inward-to-outward rotation of the knees.

    If he could show me THAT, I’d EAT the ever-lovin’ suit. With mustard and ketchup.

  5. semillama responds:

    Ah. Guy has a great point. Throw that bit of info on the pile of data that is circumstantial at best, then. Still could be a bit of actual biomechanics for a Sasquatch, but not a smoking gun anymore.

  6. cryptokellie responds:

    Yes, of course when you wear swin fins you are forced to lift your legs higher to clear the ground. Please take a look at what actually is happening when walking around with swim fins on shown on the video.
    The fins have little linear support because they are made to be flexible… much more flexible than an actual foot. When the fin wearer lifts the leg while attempting to still walk, the fin flexes out near the end of the actual foot. The wearer’s foot is off the ground while the front half of the fin is still in contact with the ground. This forces the wearer to lift the leg higher because of all that extra length beyond the actual foot/ankle flex point. Real feet of any size do not work that way.
    Looking at the Patterson film you can plainly see that the foot flexes at a normal point (at the toes) and the foot clears the ground. None of the foot is still on the ground while taking the step – very unlike the fin wearers in the above video. As a matter of fact, the actual “foot” doen’t really flex at all, it is the ankle joint and toes that flex while walking, not the feet. Also, the swim fin wearers are walking on flat sand and in the second clip, an even grassy lawn. Try taking a hike in the heavy woods with swim fins on. Do you think you could move as easily and fluidly as the Patty figure does especially near the end of the clip when the terrain is obviously qiute rough and uneven. Stepping over fallen branches? What is one the first things divers do when exiting the water…they remove their swim fins so they can walk normally. Two completely different cicumstances.
    And don’t talk about clown shoes…go to Youtube and type in “Clown Parade 2009”.
    Here are dozens of clowns, sometimes in ridiculously long shoes and they are all walking and running very normally. None of them are doing the “Patty” walk.
    I am not declaring that Bigfoot exists but the “Patty” walk is something very unusual – unexplained by swim fins or clown feet.

  7. Goodfoot responds:

    The locomotive mechanics are far different from those of humans, and even more different than gorillas. Who are the only know great apes of comparable size. But not structure.

    And if you’ve ever chanced to watch Patty’s right thigh, with that popping, herniated muscle… well, who on earth would imagine a hoaxter would think to include such a detail, that may have NEVER gone noticed? The muscular articulation is totally believable in every detail, even down to the fingers. And maybe the toes, but that’s not clear in the film. Hoaxters are not known to have such attention to detail.

    Who is the idiot who says he can “see” a zipper? I forget. Anyone else ever see it? That thing around her right armpit? THAT’S HER PURSE!!!

  8. cryptokellie responds:

    Also…go to Youtube and type in “Walking in Flippers”. Does any of this look like the “Patty” walk? One guy is trying to walk over a couple of uneven areas…he almost falls, twice. “Patty” dosen’t even look where she (?) is going at times, apparently unconcerned with uneven or rough terrain. Trying to walk quickly with assurance through a rugged forest creek bottom, until you disappear from sight into the heavy woods with swim fins or clown feet on?
    Come on…

  9. Goodfoot responds:

    cryptokellie: Yep. That “Patty” walk… that’s 100% genuine, not to be imitated by sapiens like us. Lacking a mid-tarsal break, it’s totally designed for a two-legged walker 450 pounds and up. Who knows HOW heavy?

    Anybody here have a Bigfoot knuckle-print? I didn’t think so. When you, Bigfoot, or anyone goes four-legged on a steep slope, our hands are usually grasping at weeds or underbrush for steadiness. We DON’T drag our knuckles, and neither do Bigfoots. Pay attention to how you walk, THEN watch the Patterson-Gimlin film. You just might agree that you aren’t a Bigfoot.

  10. Desertdweller responds:

    I expect the human subject’s stride is somewhat confined by the miniskirt she is wearing.

    Unless Patty is also filmed walking in a miniskirt, the comparison is apt to be invalid.

  11. squatchman responds:

    The film is completely real. There is no way that the film is about a guy in an ape-suit! I always thought that the film was a hoax, but I was convinced that it was real a couple of months ago.

  12. Goodfoot responds:

    Desertdweller: You just missed it. It’s REALLY a miniskirt. Microskirt, actually.

    SERIOUSLY… if you think a miniskirt impedes one’s stride, you should try walking in one. Don’t forget to tape it for us Cryptomundians!

  13. Alamo responds:

    I examined this issue in posts on the first “21 Degrees” article… and found just the opposite.

    I’m almost uniquely qualified to answer the walking with fins question: born and raised in the Philippines and lived 10 years in Micronesia…done a bit of SCUBA: 300+ dives, a majority of them shore dives… meaning we did a great deal of walking in flippers… on top of that, I’ve spent literally thousands of hours boogie boarding, snorkeling, spear fishing and free diving. This guy may have worn more clown shoes than me, but I can guarantee you he hasn’t spent as much time in fins.

    The fact is, walking the way he is doing is the easiest way to do a face plant and the only reason he doesn’t in the video is that his back yard is smooth, even and free of obstructions. Even tall grass would have made a difference, this is because if the front foot bobbles or slips in the slightest and your back foot has the toe pointed down, the toe will drag and you’ll be eating a dirt sandwich. Matter of fact, the lady he uses to illustrate his point nearly does just that at the beginning of the video. Interestingly enough, he cuts that part out and only uses the very short portion which seems to support his argument… the full video here, which is entitled, “How Not to Walk in Scuba Fins”:

    Walking effectively with fins/ foot extensions necessitates the exact opposite of what is shown in the PG film: the toes must be lifted toward the shins and the knees raised higher than normal while widening the stance. If the guy actually walks with fins like he does in the video, it makes me think he hasn’t really spent that much time in fins at all, or… he’s deliberately doing the Patty walk.

    Here’s a link to instructions that confirm exactly what I’m saying about how to walk in fins:

    “Step 2 Step one foot out in front of you, placing the heel on the ground. Point the toes and the tip of the fin up.”

    “Step 3 Using an exaggerated motion, roll from the heel, to the bottom of the foot, to the tip of the fin, while placing the other foot onto it’s heel. The motion you want is one of a normal walking one, but with slow, exaggerated movements.”

    “Step 4 Place each foot in front of the other while walking in the exaggerated way, being especially careful of bringing up each foot high enough to avoid dragging the fin’s tip, which will cause tripping.”

    The seeming deliberate misrepresentation by using of an out of context clip pulled from a video that is labeled as showing the wrong way to do it, makes me question his motives… there are numerous other videos that all show the natural tendency to walk as I have described, note the little kid trying to negotiate a small rise and the man walking over rough terrain:

    Check out as the girl runs into the pool, she has to lift the toes and knees VERY high:

    Their motion on the videos is exaggerated by the relative size of the footwear, but any kind of unnatural extension of the foot will cause this to some degree. Look at this video of Andre the Giant playing Bigfoot, at 3:24 and 6:30 Andre can be seen exhibiting the same thing to a lesser extent. Notice him lifting his toes and knees to allow him to move athletically over rough ground:

    Conclusion: The gait observed in the P/G film (heels lifted high, feet almost perpendicular to the ground on the backswing, knees low and thighs fairly straight) is the exact opposite of that of a man wearing something giving him bigger than normal feet. In fact, using that gait with prosthetic feet while wearing a suit would be a near impossibility… add to that the rough terrain and it becomes… inconceivable.

  14. corrick responds:

    Excuse me but this seems like a good thread to ask some questions about the P-G film.

    Patterson’s 16 mm camera was a Cine-Kodak K-100 with markings on its dial of 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second. Yet you frequently read the fps filmed was at 18 fps. Why is that?

    Also, someone recently posted that someone had tested a similar camera and the 24 fps second speed actually tested out as 19 fps. Anyone know the source?

  15. DWA responds:

    Call me when someone has a scenario of how a fake was done that includes half – much less all – of the things that would have been necessary.

    If you have a million bucks lying around, you have serious potential to make it work for you. Bet all of it, with anyone who will take it, that Patty is a sasquatch. You may possibly not collect…but I guarantee you they won’t.

  16. faron27 responds:

    funny how everyone who says this is a hoax still can’t reproduce a suit like it… even with todays great make up artist it can’t be done something are just better off unknown, I hope we never find them!

  17. MR JOSHUA responds:

    Pros and Cons. There are just as many negatives as there are positives for this footage in regards to it being a legitimate animal. Uniform hair length, hair covered breasts, and a sagical crest all do not exist in human and or ape females. (unless Patty has a stylist in the woods). On the other hand the gait, musculature of body, and dimesions of size and weight would suggest it is not a man in a suit. To quote John Napier “I could not see the zipper; and I still can’t. There I think we must leave the matter”

  18. mcw2112 responds:

    Alamo: Great points all and I totally agree. Wearing flippers or anything else that elongated the foot will have the opposite effect. Patty still goes on, un-debunked. One of the biggest arguments for it Not being a hoax is what many others here have pointed out – the technology simply didn’t exist in 1967 to make such a suit and while today’s makeup/effects artists can make some pretty convincing-looking suits, I still haven’t see one that duplicates Patty’s overall look and structure.

  19. Goodfoot responds:

    alamo: I think we’re giving this piker a LOT more attention than he warrants. I’d like to get a warrant for his arrest, but…

    corrick: if I remember from the Zapruder film, using a camera of similar vintage, they don’t always run at the listed speed: dust, old lubricants, badly calibrated out of the factory… if they said 18 fps, it was likely set on 16. Close enough for mid-century technology. But many are saying, and I concur, that there are obvious forgeries in Zapruder.

    DWA: Dead on.

    MR JOSHUA: What if I told you *I* have hair-covered breasts? You’ll have to pay to see ’em, though. At my age, I can use every dime.

  20. Goodfoot responds:

    squatchman: In all sincerity, I’m genuinely curious: what did you see that turned your head around? I ALWAYS like hearing stuff like that. I’m accepting that people can think it a fake. I just wonder what thing(s) changed their minds… it could be important.

  21. cryptokellie responds:

    To Mr. Joshua;
    Your examples as to why the figure in the Patterson film is not a real animal are shakey at best.
    Female gorillas have quite uniform body hair length as they lack the longer forearm and leg hair of adult males. Also, mammals living in temperate climates can grow or lose hair/fur as needed…do you own a dog or a horse…
    Some examples of Chimpanzee and Gorillas do have hair on their chests and remember that some Humans, including women, can be extremely hairy.
    Also some female primates show a sagittal crest, although rare. There are fossil hominids determined to be female that did have a sagittal crest.
    The cone shaped head of the figure in the Patterson film resembles the profile of Koko the famous female gorilla who I think lacks a pronounced sagittal crest.
    Female gorillas have cone shaped heads to one degree or another so I think the assumption of a sagittal crest in the Patterson film is unproven.
    This is not to say that Bigfoot actually exist or that the Patterson film truly shows an example of one. I’m simply pointing out that variable features such as hair length and head shape are not very good reasons for disclusion.

  22. Alamo responds:

    Seems to be characteristic of “debunkers”: cherry pick 2 seconds of uncharacteristic footage to “prove” their point, when the totality of the evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise… oddly enough, they accuse proponents of the very same thing.

    There are at least a dozen videos on YouTube of people walking in fins/ flippers… yet he cut out a 2 second portion of one called, “How Not to Walk in Fins” and then creates his own video (rather than using the many already available) which, oddly enough, supports his argument, but is the exact opposite of all the other examples out there… curiouser and curiouser…

  23. Alamo responds:


    Yep, still the strongest indicator of the veracity of the PG film… 45 years later and we still cannot recreate the “suit” today.


    We’ll put out an ABB (All Bigfoot Bulletin)… yeah, I totally agree with you regarding Joshua’s assertion, I don’t know what’s so incredible about hair covered breasts, the DNA is Eastern European after all.

  24. Goodfoot responds:

    cryptokellie: Do you have the phone numbers of any hirsute women?

  25. cryptokellie responds:


    My wife of almost 40 years would most definitely frown upon that but, if you will Google “hirsute woman”- click images, you will find some examples…the first image that my search engine lists is actually a very hairy yet very attractive example. She is in a bikini, carrying her small child. This is an actual image on a hair removal site which offers some information on excessive body hair. Also, Jesus Aceves and other “Wolf” people come to mind. Of course they suffered from Hypertrichosis and to think that a race of beings presenting the same condition is a stretch, but it’s not impossible. My point was to demonstrate that female primates can exhibit such hair growth and to say that hairy breasts disqualifies the Patterson film figure from being an actual cryptid is premature.

    Perhaps the figure in the Patterson film is in reality, a male with what are called “Hairy Man Boobs” Don’t believe me?…Google “Marvelous Man Boobs”. I will say no more, lest I become a…Sasoon.

    BTW…”Kellie” was my beloved Golden Retriever’s name.

  26. DWA responds:


    “The fact is, walking the way he is doing is the easiest way to do a face plant and the only reason he doesn’t in the video is that his back yard is smooth, even and free of obstructions. Even tall grass would have made a difference, this is because if the front foot bobbles or slips in the slightest and your back foot has the toe pointed down, the toe will drag and you’ll be eating a dirt sandwich.”

    No kidding. Anyone who has tried to walk in anything like swim fins knows you aren’t doing it on a wild river bar, one take.

    (Yes it had to be one take. You think a fall would have brought out the crew yelling, CUT?!?!?! We know the circumstances of the film shoot. If P & G were hoaxed – a totally unreasonable presumption, but we know they couldn’t do it themselves – it had to be one take.)

    I was just on crutches, sprained knee. You know something it is hard to do in the fall? Walk on crutches! Those damn leaves try to trip you up every step! Don’t notice that in normal walking. But when you introduce a variable, you do.

    What was on that river bar, count on it, was walking the way it had, in the country in which it had, its entire life.

  27. Goodfoot responds:

    cryptokellie: it was, of course, a rather feeble attempt at humor, but you bring up an excellent point about the breasts. But if I look beyond those, at those thighs and pelvis, hey – there’s no doubt that’s a female, to me.

  28. cryptokellie responds:

    Loved it actually…
    Good-natured humor is always needed these days and in reading some of the posts that I see, we need some here and I welcome it. As to hips thighs and such; yeah, that would be my first take as well but very Human (Homo sapiens) secondary sexual traits may not necessarily apply to a creature like a Bigfoot – if it exists. In fact, as a species, Humans display some the most striking sexual dimorphics of any animal group.
    In most normal cases, you would be hard pressed (no pun intended) to mistake a naked human female from a naked human male. In many animal species, other than size, the sexes are not as easily discerned from one another unless you look closer than you might actually want to. As far as the figure in the Patterson film is concerned, the indisputable identifier as to gender is not seen on the film. Then again, no mention of any genitalia is mentioned by Patterson or Gimlin that I have ever read except for the breasts….they assumed the figure was female by that rather logical assumption alone. Personally, with no real difinitive evidence to prove otherwise, I think the figure in the film shows a female of whatever species that is or may be. But it could be a male.

  29. Goodfoot responds:

    cryptokellie: Thanks. I know, but which is more likely: that this is a male Bigsquatch with breasts, or that it’s a female Sasfoot of child-bearing age. I know which side I come down on, and I think we’re on the same page here.


Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.