Taking A New Look: Patterson-Gimlin Footage At 44

Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 20th, 2011

Every now and then, it certainly is good to step back, infuse fresh blood into an investigation, and take a new look. Today, on the 44th anniversary of the capturing of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage in northern California, let me share just such a virgin view of the film.

Kevin Buresh has been analyzing the footage intensively for the last five years to see if he could view original items previously overlooked or not noted.

Who is this investigator? Buresh is 53, lives south of Boston and is an electronic technician. While he has been posting on the BFF and Jref under the username “SweatyYeti,” in general, his insights have never been shared this comprehensively. He recently became a member of the Northern Sasquatch Research Society, based in the Whitehall, New York area.

Buresh writes, in his preliminary notes, the following (he has further insights about each finding among this sampling):

“Just in the last few months and weeks, I’ve discovered some new details, such as mouth/eyebrow movement, and independent movement of the right and left sides of Patty’s buttocks (gluteus maximus and gluteus medius muscles). The main reason I’ve been able to find these is because of a special version/copy of the film that I received from Bill Munns, called ‘Copy 8’. Several months ago, Bill sent me a CD-Rom with the ‘Copy 8’ version and I’ve been spending a lot of time looking over the frames, and putting together short animated-gifs to find any movements on Patty that I can. The ‘Copy 8’ version has a better level of clarity than the Legend Meets Science version, which is the most commonly used version, for analysis.”

“Here are a few animations…

“This 2-frame animated-gif shows, very clearly, independent movement of the left and right ‘buttocks cheeks.'”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“In these 3 frames….you can see a distinct change in the shape of the dark recessed area of the eye; it shrinks in the frame where Patty’s cheek is first lit-up by the direct sunlight, but then increases in size again with that same triangular shape as in the first frame.”

“Here is an animation showing some ‘mouth movement’ (as Patty is turning away from looking at Roger Patterson).”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“Between the first and second frames, the lower-jaw appears to move downwards, then the mouth extends forward, and then closes. Shown are just the first two frames.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

This animation shows ‘eyebrow movement’…..Patty’s right eyebrow lowers, as her face first turns into the bright sunlight…(seen on the upper facial cheek)…

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“Another version of the gif…”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“Concerning the length and proportion of Patty’s arms: Patty’s elbow-joint appears exceptionally low, on the arm, compared to an average human’s.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“This 2-frame animation uses Cibachrome images (frames 350 and 352), and shows apparent movement of the lips.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“The following goes along with the image of the ‘sharp-edged shadow’ on the back of Patty’s arm. It shows that Patty’s arm does indeed bend, at that point, when she swings her arm backwards.”
Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“This Cibachrome image shows a detail which supports this apparent ‘low elbow-joint’ location. There is a sharply-edged shadow on the back of Patty’s arm, which appears to be due to a protruding elbow-joint and matches the look of the gorilla’s protruding elbow. Note the relatively short forearm…and the exceptionally long upper-arm. The proportion is very different from a human’s arm.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

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.

70 Responses to “Taking A New Look: Patterson-Gimlin Footage At 44”

  1. choppedlow responds:

    Amazing. After 44 years, everyone is still arguing the same points. As much as I would like Patty to be real (and usually argue points for it being real), I’m mystified that in 44 years no one has taken a decent picture of one since. And the sketch that Patterson drew for his book prior to this encounter was amazingly similar, down to the breasts. I’m hoping it is real, but we will never know. Both sides need to keep an open mind to the possibility that its a great scam, or the real deal.

  2. DWA responds:


    The state of affairs you describe is probably due to this being a “field” in which no one feels there are any credentials required for entry.

    I agree with you; I see the same old skeptical shibboleths repeated time and again, by people who have done nothing to acquaint themselves with the background. Same for the proponent views, many of which, like the skeptical stance, accept one’s own experience and skills as qualified for rendering judgment.

    To anyone who has a firm opinion on the provenance of this film:

    Read up. It’s anything but an open-and-shut case.

    Except for one thing:

    It’s open and shut that we should not express any sentiment to the searchers other than support, and wishing them luck.

    BTW: Don’t think Patterson drew a rendering with breasts. You may be referring to William Roe’s alleged close sighting of a female Sasquatch in 1955, from which he dictated to his daughter a description of the animal. Her drawing showed prominent breasts.

    Is this it?

  3. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    @choppedlow You hit the nail right on the head.

    I’m too mystified that in 44 years no one has taken a decent picture of one since.

    Here is a link to a past Cryptomundo article that has Patterson’s Female Bigfoot drawing. (Patterson’s drawing is shown next to his film creations.)

    He must have had a psychic vision! 😉

    But seriously no matter if you think it is real or he faked it, what are the mathematical odds of drawing a female creature. then a few years later go out to film a fictional story of a hunt for said creature, in an area where known hoaxed footprints were made, then stumble unto the real thing that looks exactly like the female creature you drew a few years before?

    You must admit those odds are very astronomical. At least we can all agree on that can we?

    This is before even taking into account the people who have gone on record saying he faked it.

    I’d love for Bigfoot to be real and I am open to the possibility but I just think Paterson faked it for money and these creatures don’t live in all 49 continental United States. I think if they do exist they are isolated in the Northwest where most sightings were before Paterson did his thing!

  4. DWA responds:

    OK, TimmyRyan just put Patterson’s sketch up there. I couldn’t even remember breasts on that drawing.

    Which is only one way in which the drawing is WAY different from the figure in the film. In fact, the figure in the drawing would have been much easier to reproduce in a costume.

    One more piece of evidence that Patterson didn’t do it, if you ask me. It would look like his drawing if he had. That drawing looks more like Elvis than it does like Patty.

  5. TheForthcoming responds:

    @TimmyRyan65 Then how do you explain some of the Native American accounts of a Bigfoot like creature or non human primate even if this film is fake esp. in the area where it was filmed?

    You also have to take into account all the eyewitness reports and sightings of a large bipedal non human primate into account. While some are hoaxes, misidentifications of other animals, etc. not all of them are going to be wrong which would not be logical.

    See here this link for evidence.

    From the link: “The 1967 film obtained by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in northern California, along with the supporting evidence and onsite follow-up investigations. No one has demonstrated convincing arguments or recreations that begin to cast serious doubt on the validity of the animal shown in the film. Two images, in the possession of the TBRC, of a sasquatch photographed in Oklahoma (not yet available online, but presented at various conferences) bear a remarkable resemblance to the Patterson/Gimlin subject, lending further credence to the film (and to the photos).”

    I agree.

    See also the BFRO’s website as well for the story on if the film is fake.

  6. TheForthcoming responds:

    Also the drawing and the Bigfoot on the video aka Patty look nothing alike!

  7. sloon responds:

    Very interesting.
    It is always easier to dismiss the improbable, rather than to accept the impossible. I have always found the clumsy way it walks (knee flex, arm swing, and foot in front of foot), to be so weird and yet so fluid and graceful. These new interesting details, give further credence to the complexity of P/G film. However inconclusive this film is, it is still a valid discussion after 44 years. Which leads one to believe the film is genuine. The muscle movement looks genuine. The eerie face shoots above showing lip movement, show a protrusive mouth, that is substantially wider than a human mouth. The real waste of time is trying to debunk it. For most it is easier to believe it is faked, than if it were of a real animal. Accepting something so humanlike yet, that walks in a distinctly non-human manner, is a hard pill to swallow. I think we would have to wait another 44 years before someone could design a robot that could convincingly capture the way it walks and its muscles move.

  8. Kopite responds:


    If you think that drawing Roger Patterson did looks like Patty then all I have to say to you is please book an appointment with your optician because you need a pair of glasses, badly.

    You also wrote:

    “”This is before even taking into account the people who have gone on record saying he faked it.””

    LOL, nobody else was there with them at Bluff Creek in October ’67. How do they know? What evidence can they present?

    Bob Gimlin is the only man alive proven to have been at Bluff Creek with Patterson in October 1967 and he swears to this day it wasn’t a hoax. Nobody else was there and no evidence points to anyone else being there.

    Bob Heironimus hasn’t one iota of evidence he was even in California at all 1967, nevermind in the ‘suit’ at Bluff Creek in October ’67.

  9. DWA responds:


    You could add to the pile the very obvious desire for attention and Their Ten Minutes of Fame of everyone who’s “stepped forward” with a hoax theory, or alleged involvement.

    Patterson’s supposed motivations – fame and fortune – make absolutely no sense. Everything he did points AWAY from any attempt to become famous. It’s been pointed out as well that he couldn’t have tried harder, on purpose, to make certain a hoax attempt failed than he did by doing the things he did surrounding the film. Common sense says that Patterson would have run Pattyfake all over CA if that’s what he wanted. He had the costume, right?

    And all we have is this one little jumpy film?

    You speak of the emotional denial with which the scoftical take on this topic is shot through.

    And everything they say points to that.

    Honestly, a vagrant selected at random looks more like Patty than Patterson’s sketch does. But the sketch is totally understandable when seen as what it was: Patterson’s second-hand interpretation of someone else’s story.

    If your opinion isn’t based on the evidence, it falls apart in a hurry. The sole reason Patty compels now more than ever:


  10. eyeofstrm responds:

    I believe the cable T.V. show American Paranormal got access to the original P.G. film and had a professional reshoot it in High Def. Most photo’s and video’s are copies of copies of copies …… you get the picture. You lose a lot of quality when you do that. Anyhow the final product is incredible. It was discovered that dust particles actually altered parts of the original film. Much clearer Patty than I have ever seen. If you get a chance to view it on T.V. watch it. Wish I could find it on line. If you think she ( Patty ) is a man in a costume after watching it you need new glasses or some serious therapy.

  11. Sharon Lee responds:

    60 comments yet no one who has had an actual sighting of their own.
    I’d like to know, Craig (you’ve seen one) how did your sighting compare to the Patterson creature?
    Was it similar or completely different?
    I have seen many sketches and the body is usually more lean and muscular.

    I’d like to hear from these people who claim to “know” these creatures exist.

  12. SC Enthusiast responds:


    My daylight sighting occurred four years ago in Northern Tennessee. The bigfoot was trying to hide behind a tree, but was not completely hidden. It was about 20 yards from where I was standing. My companion had a video recorder with zoom. We watched for several minutes.

    My recollection was of a tall creature, with black hair covering the body parts I could see. I don’t think the bigfoot I saw was as thick in body as the PG film. Perhaps it was a juvenile. I don’t know. The face, which we partially saw through the video recorder, was dark in complexion. A major feature was the simian type nose. What you would see on maybe a gorilla? Black nose. Also, very large eyes.

    I so wish I had that day in my life back. I would have done things so much differently. We left some food there for the Bigfoot and left the area. What a mistake!

    My one sighting. I am certainly not an expert, and don’t hold myself out as one. I know what I saw, and I know it was not a black bear or a person in a costume.

  13. DWA responds:

    You know someone is going to ask you where the video is, and call BS on any response that isn’t “here it is:…”

  14. TheForthcoming responds:


    DWA has a good point. No objective evidence? Where is the video tape and why not share it with others to see?

  15. scaryeyes responds:

    Not sure why you think that’s such an unreasonable question to ask, to be honest, DWA.

  16. SC Enthusiast responds:

    Yes, I expected someone would ask about the video…

    The next day we viewed the tape on the television, but left the original in the recorder. The person I was with then did the unthinkable. They accidentally left the tape in the camera and taped over it.

    So call BS on me.

    As a matter of reference, I am an actuary working for the state of South Carolina. I am 52 years old, married with two grown children. I have NOT posted a video on YouTube. I have not written a book. I have not attempted to gain attention or financial gain from what I have communicated here.

    I posted here only to provide my experience on what I saw, since I was fortunate enough to have a daylight sighting only 20 yards away. It was so remarkable, and occurred when I was just becoming interested in Bigfoot, that to be completely honest, I didn’t even think it was an uncommon happening. Thus, the reason I suggested we leave the area as a token of good faith.

    Yes, if I had that day over, I would have insisted we make copies of the tape. But I can’t bring it back.

    I would much rather be accused of being mistaken for what I saw that of lying.

    Anyway, you asked for people to come forward.

  17. DWA responds:

    SC Enthusiast:

    I’m calliing BS.

    But not on you. I just told you what to be ready for.

    (This will be a long post.)

    (Scaryeyes: I thought it was a totally reasonable question. Why I asked. Why Sharon did.)

    There is one reason that P/G – that no single piece of evidence – is taken seriously. And that is, simply, that no one, at least no one who counts, believes anyone who says anything. I have long wondered, frequently right here on Cryptomundo, how anyone with a brain could possibly think we could have proof after five years, 10, 50, or 7,000….WHEN NO ONE WHO COUNTS BELIEVES ANYONE WHO SAYS ANYTHING. The evidence for the sasquatch – and yours goes firmly on the pile, for reasons I have often taken pains to point out here, and am about to again – has the power it does not because of any particular one, although P/G is almost indisputably the most powerful single one. It has the power it does because of the sheer size (frequency) and internal consistency (coherence) of that pile, two factors that any truly objective scientist (almost none are on this topic) clearly recognizes as making evidence valid and testable, even if short of proof.

    Succinctly stated: everything else for which we have the same pattern of evidence has been proven to exist. Period.

    And to anyone who truly understands how to think about this, and most don’t, that means: We have to search until we confirm. Period. (No time-limit; no when-stop-the-nonsense. When mainstream science isn’t involved you haven’t even started looking.)

    One frequently sees the call-BS on experiences of the kind you had. Oh, suuuuuure, they say. Forgot the camera. How convenient. Or forgot there was one on your lap. Suuuure. (I have read more than one account of the latter.) One never thinks to think about how THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON who gets this kind of shot: Roger Patterson.


    But not totally. To get a good clear pic or vid of an elusive animal, one needs to be either lottery-lucky (none are, except sounds like you were…and folks do, after all, win Powerball) or PREPARED both technically and psychologically to wait for the shot, and get it when it comes. It helps to be in a prime location, where much evidence of the animal is present. Patterson was all three; the evidence is why he went where he did. Luck – he could tell you, were he here to do so – is indeed where preparation meets opportunity. They prepared, like no one else has, to get the shot. Three-day field trips don’t cut it. Three-and-a-half-week expeditions on horseback, with a camera in a special saddlebag, ready for a cowboy to pull a cowboy-style draw that he rehearsed extensively in advance: now you are talking.

    You guys? Sounds like what happened is what frequently happens. It happens all the time, with mundane subjects; and never ever does, or should, with this one?


    I wouldn’t have gone into chapter and verse unless prompted either. You were there. We weren’t. What right do we have to call BS? If you saw a unicorn, or a centaur, now I might have to go…well, you know, there isn’t a unicorn/centaur database anywhere that I’m aware of, much less multiple databases, all with internally consistent reports and lots of them, spanning just about every kind of encounter possible with a wild animal. But you were there; I wasn’t; and I’d simply have to say: thanks, but that isn’t proof. It’s one story. It would be proof to you, though, if it were real: you were there.

    This is my problem, and why I call BS on the oh-suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure people. How sure could they be? They need to just shut up and think for a change. Evidence is not proof unless science accepts it; and there isn’t a skeptic on this topic who seems to understand that simple concept. Which is absolutely fundamental to jurisprudence, as well as science, so I have trouble understanding the major fail. I’m sorry you don’t have the backup. This might be a different world if you did.

    But I can’t call BS on Patterson; on you; or on anyone else who claims an experience. At least one friend of mine has seen what, if it wasn’t one, sure sounded to me like one. And never having seen one, I’ve seen on two occasions evidence easy to explain this way…and virtually impossible to explain in any other.

    It’s all evidence. And everything else like it has been proven real.


  18. SC Enthusiast responds:


    Thank you for your post. I am a daily visitor to this website. I read all the stories, and all the comments. I realize there is a lot of BS out there in the crypto world. And it is hard to be anything but sceptical when a claim is made.

    I’ll leave it at that. In reflection, I know I did so many STUPID things that day and the following morning. I’m not proud of it, and I fully expected to get dissed in a major way. That you had the decency to not do so is greatly appreciated.

    Perhaps when (and if) I continue my “research” I will have more to say here.

  19. Opalman responds:

    I realize this is a late post, wish I had seen the topic sooner. I’ll comment anyway hoping that someone reads it.
    Especially important to me is my response to TimmyRyan65 below.

    As stated too many time now, I grew up hunting and trapping, as well zoology has been a particularly important fascination of mine ever since I was 5 or 6 years old. I not only know bout every mammal species on the planet’s monikers but I can rattle of their Latin names. Like whiteriverfisherman relates all you really need is a lifetime of observing mammals to come to the very correct if unscientific conclusion that the Patty is the real deal. Arguments based on physiology and body mechanics of a creature yet to be dissected are a waste of time. IMO anyone who has spent a lot of time studying the actions, habits and movements of animals needs no convincing as to the authenticity of the film and the existence of the creature. The film subject screams “I’m real”—period. If I where to rely on purely logical arguments for the non-existence or existence of the creature I would not be so convinced either way. I would be another skeptic who merely saw himself as “open to the possibility” of sasquatche’s existence. But taken with the other anecdotal evidence such as reports and sightings from folks I have absolute confidence in the issue becomes, how do we get the scientific community to look into this seriously. I guess the answer to that for me is…money! I really believe that If I had (personally) a couple of mil to budget and spend intelligently the issue would be solved once and for all.

    @ TimmyRyan65
    You sir would be well advised to keep your blasphemous assertions to yourself and out of a public forum. Are you so inconsiderate and disrespectful as to trample on another’s sacred spiritual beliefs?

    I don’t know what your references are (I suspect you have none) but the majority of world acclaimed science specialists from around the world and comprising the STURP which included the (Jet propulsion Lab; Pasadena CA, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and several others have unanimously concluded:
    A. There is no accurate way to date the Shroud of Turin. (unanimously agreed)
    B. The mechanism for the deposition of radiation scarification of the material is unknown to modern man and that they have not been able to replicate it in any lab. (unanimously agreed)
    C. Forensic pathologist have determined that the blood staining the cloth was AB type.
    D. The very advanced VP8 Image Analyzer conclusively determined that a 3D hologram like image appears when viewed from the instrument. This is impossible to duplicate without a sophisticated lab’s laser light table. (unanimously agreed) And even then the results are inferior to the Shroud.
    E. The STURP’s published conclusion was that the Shroud of Turin represents something totally unknown, impossible to duplicate and not at all understood from a physics and forensic standpoint.

    Where do you get off writing that it’s a fake?
    I could go on with similarly listed technical points that validate my stand and write a long paper on this subject but I won’t, after all this is a bit off topic. Since though, you choose to reference the Shroud in your argument, making ignorant comparisons with sasquatch research; I feel my apologetics are well justified. Should the small chance exist that you might be interested in facts instead of parroting crap your atheist friends excrete from their mouths, you are hereby encouraged to do some research yourself.

    The problem with sasquatch discussion site is typified by posts such as yours. So many people stating things they were actual facts when they are actually total ignorant BS.

  20. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    Dear Mr. Opalman;

    It is quite obvious from your post that you are quite passionate about both the Patterson film and the Shroud of Turin. That was exactly my point in making the comparisons. You obviously have faith and lot’s of it.

    Everything I stated in my post in regard to the shroud is indeed FACT and not “blasphemous” (a faith based word). Test were done on the shroud and it was dated from the medieval age. That is a Fact. It makes sense, fake religious relics were a HUGE business back then. That is another Fact. The Vatican (HQ to one of the world’s largest religions and OWNERS of the shroud) decline to declare it REAL. That is a Fact. How are these three facts “blasphemous”? Again your faith in both just proves my point. Thank you for this. And I will keep posting.

    That is great that you consider yourself knowledgeable about living creatures but please tell me how on earth your knowledge of Latin words for living creatures makes what is portrayed in the Paterson film legit? It has nothing to do with it. Even if you have a degree in biology or natural science or other related field (I assume you don’t since I am sure you would have mentioned it in your post.) does not make the subject in Patterson’s film legit.

    The burden of proof does not lie with the people who do not believe that the subject in the Paterson film is a cryptid, it lies with the people who say it is an unknown creature. I say it is a guy in a furry suit whose butt is bound by a non-moving diaper like costume piece. That is more believable. More practical. More sense. Most importantly more likely.

    With technology expanding by leaps and bounds with HD cameras, infrared, motion sensing, etc. if Bigfoot does exist then it will probably be proven very soon. If it doesn’t then it will go the way of Nessie where fewer & fewer sightings or evidence will trickle in. Past sightings/evidence will be disproven (Surgeon’s Photo, the “enhanced” flipper photo, etc.) and become folklore & tourist attractions.

    Keep the faith Mr. Opalman, because right now that’s all you have in regard to the Patterson film. Faith just like in the Shroud of Turin.

    I wish you well.

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.