So Do You Want To Talk About The Patterson-Gimlin Footage?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 21st, 2012

The topic on the table for the day: Should we even talk about the Patterson-Gimlin film of Bluff Creek, California, October 20, 1967?

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

I disagree with one of my good Canadian friends in this video about one little detail. To wit, John Bindernagel thinks we shouldn’t talk about the footage at all. Well, I do, and I’m wondering how you feel about this issue? (It is okay to disagree with each other in this field; it happens all the time and people can remain friends.)


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.

56 Responses to “So Do You Want To Talk About The Patterson-Gimlin Footage?”

  1. DWA responds:


    “Do you know what’s even more fascinating that the prospect of an 8 foot tall 700 pound hairy guy walking around in the woods with his family? A topic that has so much data and so called “experts” that devote their lives to these things, but no one can prove they even exist.”

    This is a frequent, and very severe, overstatement of the time and money – the only two ingredients that count – devoted to this “search.”

    There have been two, count ’em two, cryptid expeditions in history that had a chance of doing anything toward confirmation.

    One got us this film.

    Read about the other.

    Two. That’s it.

    And a bunch of inconsequential field trips.

    Nobody’s ever been involved in this on a full-time basis, or anywhere near, in the field, where the proof lies if it’s anywhere.

    And that’s gotten what everyone should expect.

  2. Kopite responds:

    Yes we should still talk about the PGF. It is a perfect example to hold up against the plethora of hoaxes, which do not look anything like it.

    With regards to Bob Heironimus, he has changed and altered his story more times than he has had hot dinners. One minute the suit was a smelly dead red horse with no metal or fasteners, he was wearing waist high waders and was barefoot inside the ‘costume’……….and the next minute the suit is a fake fur Morris suit with a zipper down the back, knee high waders and he was wearing his own shoes inside the ‘costume’.

    Bob Heironimus’s claims about the film site are equally impossible. Bob Heironimus claimed the creek was dry, the sand was white, that they were off the road a ways and were in a spot where nobody coming up the road could see them and Roger was filming from his horse shaking the camera.

    All of Bob H’s impossible blunders can be 100% disproven by the footage itself.

    In the actual footage we can see that:

    1. The creek is wet and flowing.

    2. That Roger Patterson was actually standing on the road when he started filming.

    3. That there is a clear unobstructed view from this road right across the clearing and over to the forested hillside in the background.

    4. That Roger’s camera position was low to the ground and much much lower than horseback level.

    What can we prove by all of this? Simple. That Bob Heironimus was never there at Bluff Creek. His claims read like a man who gets his information by what he ‘thinks’ he can see in the footage. Unfortunately for his claim, Heironimus didn’t study the footage close enough, particularly the almost never viewed opening frames where we can see the wet creek, the road and the rocky banks of the creek that Patterson quite clearly negotiated on foot.

  3. DWA responds:


    “With regards to Bob Heironimus, he has changed and altered his story more times than he has had hot dinners.”

    And the funny thing about that is: people calling themselves “skeptical” swallow every iteration as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

  4. jewpunxxx responds:

    If anyone who is interested and has not seen bill munns video analysis of the footage you really should it was the best analysis i have ever come across and he figured out whatno one else realized that the lense used on the camera was not the standard lense, it was infact a 15mm wideshot lense and not the 20 that came with the camera. With this knowledge munn has produced the most precise measurements of the subject.the height of the creature using the measurements from the 15mm lense come to 7’2″-7’6″. He also created a series of heads and used the same camera and lense to gauge the most accurate head shape of the subject and came to the conclusion that if it were a mask that a humans head wearing the mask would have to sit so far back that he would not have been able to see out of the mask. If you wouldlike to see this analysis for yourself it is on monsterquest episode entitled critical evidence, season three i think. I do not know why this relevation has not been taken more seriously by any media sources to reignite any serious investigation into the subject. This is the best recent info that has come to light i would like to see any recent arguements against this film beinga real animal, because all the old ones have fallen to the wayside its too bad they have gotten the most publicity. This film needs some positive publicity along with all the great evidence out there now. I think we need to get a good high quality documentary going something where the right amount of time and care can be given to the subject and to going out to search for the creature properly, not just a weekend in the woods but a proper expedition.

  5. gridbug responds:

    Bill Munns was also prominent in the NatGeo American Paranormal: Bigfoot episode. Also, his Munns Report site has a lot of great information relevant to this topic.

  6. SweatyYeti responds:

    In response to jewpunxxx:

    If you read the latest, on Bill Munns’ Report website…(that gridbug linked to)….he has since backed-off of his finding, that the camera used a 15MM lens, and that Patty was 7′ 3″ tall. He is reviewing the photogrammetry analysis, at the moment.
    But he is working on some additional ‘lines of analysis’…that he expects will prove Patty to be a real animal.
    And…then there is the movement of Patty’s mouth, and eyebrows…which strongly indicate that Patty is a real, near-human being.

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.