New Stabilization of Patterson/Gimlin Film Prompts New Skepticism

Posted by: Guy Edwards on August 14th, 2015

Phillip Morris and Bob Heironymous with Bigfoot Costume

“At the end of the day, there’s just too much dirt surrounding the Patterson film to use it as any reliable source for debate about the existence of Bigfoot…” –Micah Hanks; Mysterious Universe

In an article for, Micah Hanks revisits the Patterson/Gimlin film after a new stabilization is offered on Reddit. The thread on Reddit uses the new stabilization to argue the weakness of the P/G film as evidence. While Mr. Hanks believes the new stabilization does not offer anything new to either side of the argument, he does have issues of using the P/G Film as the Holy Grail of Bigfoot evidence.

(New stabilization from Reddit User)

Read more Bigfoot News about the critiques of the Patterson/Gimlin Film at Bigfoot Lunch Club.

Guy Edwards About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic. Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event

14 Responses to “New Stabilization of Patterson/Gimlin Film Prompts New Skepticism”

  1. springheeledjack responds:

    There’s too much dirt on this topic in general. People either buy into the footage or they don’t. It has been beaten to bones. The scoftics continue to try to angle for a way to disprove it (can you guess where I stand on this?) and will keep at it because apparently they have nothing better to fill their day.

    As for me, I’ve watched the footage ad nauseam, I’ve read many, many articles and posts and discussions–and on both sides of the issue, I’ve watched documentaries and at least two books on that footage alone. I find no reason to doubt the authenticity of it, and no amount of further study on the subject will alter my opinion.

    It happened too long ago for anyone to be able to come up with a “smoking gun” as to why it was faked that can be proved without a doubt, and same for the evidence. And nothing the other side can come up with to authenticate the footage positively, once and for all convince the naysayers that it’s legit.

    You either buy it as legitimate footage or you don’t. End of story.

    I’m moving on.

  2. mandors responds:

    The only “dirt” surrounding the PG film are the circumstances for which Patterson and Gimlin were at Bluff Creek. They went there to film a documentary/fictional documentary type film on Bigfoot. Along these lines they took background footage at a location where people had claimed to see Bigfoot. They also allegedly had conversations with a stunt man about him possibly wearing a suit to film some other scenes. All of this is perfectly reasonable for the purposes of their work.

    The problem for our purposes is that while filming some background scenes, a “real” Bigfoot happened to cross their path, and they were able to capture it on film. Accordingly, nothing about their original plans and actions to film a movie, or even the alleged suit story, has anything to do with the actual footage itself.

  3. DWA responds:


    SHJ said it, so I don’t have to. (But if you have been here awhile, you know me.)

    What critics of the film don’t understand is how to look at the evidence. We have

    1) thousands of accounts by people who have seen the animals;

    2) thousands of footprint finds, the prints appearing to correspond closely with what these animals should leave; and

    3) a film…that could not tie the totally independent threads of 1) and 2) together better than it does were it designed to do so.

    No scrap of evidence of a fake in forty-seven years. Never has this ever happened: an intensely debated purported forgery for which the knowledge and the technology to debunk it have been on hand the entire time the alleged fake has been before us.

    And it’s not happening here.

    And now…I’m moving on too.

  4. springheeledjack responds:

    Amen Mandors.

    Amen DWA (in case you hadn’t figured it out or are new to the site, DWA and I usually see eye to eye on this stuff. . . and Mandors too for this post at least 🙂 )

    There, I’ve put my last shovel full of dirt on the grave, added the epitaph. Let P/G film rest in piece…

  5. cryptokellie responds:

    First off, if you want to see a fake, there it is in the photo with Morris and Heirmonymous. The color is off right from the start. One wonders why so many people have invested so much into trying to prove this footage as a fake, but enough about that. Yes I have some doubts about shady Mr.Patterson and his motives and I suppose that is what the “dirt” is surrounding this footage…good point, well taken. The footage itself is another matter entirely. It is unlike any other. When taken at face value, it is incredible.
    It is also perhaps the most polarizing evidence obtained of any cryptid at any time, any where. One either accepts the fact that a large unknown hominid is walking by or this is a person in a costume. There is no third option. The film is grainy, slightly out of focus and unable to yield the most important details which would determine it’s authenticity or not. This is a problem with hand-held 16 mm cameras from that era. In fact the footage resembles the documentary footage of the Vietnam War era color news footage. The question that has to be asked is was Patterson, as mentioned a shady figure, capable of planning this footage to appear the way it does? I believe that staging is the important question here. Patterson was trying to film a documentary about Bigfoot to be shown on TV when this footage was taken. The first part of the film, not generally shown has horses and riders covering some terrain in a travelogue type manner. The Bigfoot section of the footage is wild and jumpy and at times unwatchable. Those who only know the stabilization versions should realize this fact. If Patterson was planning to use footage for a TV film why would he film it in such chaotic fashion? Also, I don’t think Patterson was capable of creating this suit – I don’t think anyone was in 1967. State of the art for this kind costuming then would have been the ape-men in the beginning of “2001 – A Space Odyssey”. While very sophisticated and created by Chambers, the master of this craft, these ape-men still look and act like human actors in costume. That begs the question, could a living by the seat of his pants, ex-rodeo performer pull off this one of a kind piece of footage, unable to be duplicated in over 48 years? Anything is possible I suppose, but I find that rather doubtful.

  6. dconstrukt responds:

    well DWA, I hate to burst your bubble bro… theres “footprints” and “sightings” but none of the stuff you can talk about will convince the general public…

    none of it.

    until you have that, you’re holding on to one thing…


    …and I’ve seen all the stuff posted out there and 99.5% of it is pure GARBAGE.

    footprints lead somewhere, yet no one has any proof.

    oh let me guess.. the footprints disappeared and the bigfoot vanished into a portal… 🙂

    footprints can be easily faked.

    I’ve watched numerous shows showing this.

    Moving on…

    nearly all of the sightings COMPLETELY contradict what’s shown in this video. (not the look of the thing, but the actions and movements)

    to me while I think this film is amazing and totally blew my mind since I was a kid the more I think about it the more questions I have.

    And I WANT to believe this so badly… like you guys i’m holding onto a bit of hope too.

    but the more I see and read, the more questions come up and the more my BS meter starts going off.

    DWA, if you can… please show me what i’m missing… I WANT to believe this thing is real… since I saw this PG thing as a kid. People here think i’m nuts.

    I like the mun’s video where he breaks it all down… really awesome.

    But I have a few questions/concerns… maybe you can help answer?

    why the F**K would a bigfoot, which is supposed to want to stay hidden, walk right out in FRONT of 2 guys riding HORSES?

    not just walking on foot… but riding horses!

    That makes ZERO sense.

    The bigfoot didn’t’ hear the horses coming like a mile away?

    I don’t get that.

    it seems to go against EVERYTHING that the “experts” say and what people who “seen” them say.

    and then these guys JUST so happened to be filming that spot right as the thing was walking?

    odds of this happening? not even 1%… more like .001% in 100 million.

    oh and then these same guys who “randomly” rode horses up on a bigfoot… walking in an open area… in daylight… were also there to shoot a bigfoot video.

    okay… my BS meter goes off EVEN MORE.

    sheer luck?

    or set up?

    The other thing that i caught, is above the butt… there’s a dark line across the back left to right… almost like a suit would have 2 different pieces… am I seeing things?

    doesn’t seem odd to you?

    and then why would it just walk along while being spotted?

    wouldn’t it run or something?

    people who “saw” these things, say they just haul ass and run away when spotted… yet this thing just casually walks along…. instead of running away or running for cover.

    Also why didn’t they follow it? they were already somewhat close to it… it didn’t attack them…

    so they just figure… ya… we’ll stop rolling and let that get away.

    that makes zero sense.

    too many questions…

    would love for someone to clarify these things I brought up… i’m REALLY curious about this… it’s boggled my mind since I was a kid (I’m sure some of you guys can relate).

  7. springheeledjack responds:


    While well meaning queries, the entire point of my post . . . and DWA’s, is that all of those questions have been tackled, AD NA– USEAM, over and over and that I am no longer wasting time discussing these various points.

    It’s all out there in books, on documentaries and in examinations of the footage. Investigate into it, go through the materials and make your own determination. I’m going to spend my time going forward and working toward solving the mystery that is BF, not rehashing the same old topics that continue to wage on internet boards.

    As I said before, I’m moving on (I guess my last post was shoveling dirt . . . this one is patting the mound. I’ve said my prayers, gave a nod and now I’m walking away…and no I’m not looking back).

  8. dconstrukt responds:

    @ springheeledjack

    LOL… in the time it took you to write that, you could have EASILY typed up an answer to my questions.

    way to go pal. 🙂

  9. DWA responds:

    SHJ: AMEN. Here’s another shovelful of dirt; prayers respects doffed hat; over and done. Walking away.

    dconstrukt: there are conclusive-to-bet-your-salary-on-it answers to every question you asked. I know this. I have answered them, many many many many many times. Problem is: if one is inclined not to believe the film is genuine, one doesn’t believe the answers. Read everything you can on this topic, think about it, and I am betting you will come down where SHJ and I do…because everyone who has done what we have…has.

    No bubble no problem. P/G is authentic. No reason to believe anything else, with what is now on the table. But I have never persuaded anyone who made no effort to find out I was right…the way I did. So SHJ really did answer you. Go forth. There’s a mystery to solve…but it’s not this film. It’s where that animal’s conspecifics are.

  10. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA – I think it is legit (at least the most legit of anything else out there) but i’m just bring up some questions and things that kinda got me thinking …. appreciate you taking the time to reply on that…. much respect dude.

    and i think thats what science is about, no?

    asking questions and looking for answers…

    like I said from the beginning, that film has captivated me since I was a kid… i’ve always wanted to know WTF that thing was.

  11. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt: Dude, respect back.

    Skepticism has to be at the heart of looking at this. I know people – that I really like – who have said to me: I really respect and admire the way you can step back and look at this scientifically. I just need to Jump In and Believe. Well, um, OK. But I’d rather ask the questions that if pursued get to the answers.

    It’s just that SHJ and I think the wrangling over this has been overdone. I mean, there it is; sure doesn’t look like a guy can fit in that suit, ANY guy, proportions just not right and experts in relevant fields think so too; two cowboys don’t strike us as either doing it or leaguing up with anyone who could (or least likely, getting hoaxed themselves; I mean, somebody who had the technology *just happened to know* where they’d be when…?)

    …and yeah, from the first, it’s been WTF with me, and I would rather *know* than *accept.*

    It’s just that for SHJ and me: there that thing is. Getting into the field is how we find out *what* that thing is.

  12. springheeledjack responds:

    Apparently I like to yak online…I keep talking about staying away and here I am…again. I’ll chock it up to the topic.

    No offense intended your way dconstrukt in all of these comments. It is like so many things in life–you have to walk the path before getting your own answers.

    My personal philosophy is not to persuade people what to think. It’s a big world and there are lots of weirdness going on. I know what I believe and have interests in, but I have never bought into that paradigm of “he with the most believers wins” nonsense. In instances like cryptozoology, I think there’s a lot of room for interpretation of the facts, and so be it. If you’re not persuaded by the evidence and don’t buy in, I’m all good . . . as long as you don’t tell me I’m wrong just because that’s not what you believe.

    I will argue and I will put forth my opinion when asked or taken to task–my opinion is always as equal as any other. I don’t expect people to agree with me all of the time and, at the end of the day, after trading perspectives and talking over the facts, if we don’t agree (the collective “we” not you), I can agree to disagree…again as long as you give me the same courtesy.

    I have my own theories about the hardcore naysayers, and even what I term the “true believers.” To me they are the fanatics on both sides of the coin and I never want to find myself in either ranks.

    In the end it’s all about finding the truth–whatever that may be. Even though I definitely buy into the existence of strange cryptids such as BF and Nessie and so on, I do take into consideration the “yeah but maybe people are just misidentifying,” etc. That’s what keeps me honest–so I appreciate the skeptics…and even occasionally the scoftic perspective (shh–don’t tell them or it will go to their heads). The Devil’s advocates of the world keep the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction.

    Yeah, either DWA, myself or Mandors could have answered your questions, but it’s better to put in the hours on your own. That alone will help you make your own informed and educated decisions AND it will help you take a more discerning eye toward topics and evidence in the future (look at me sounding all full of myself…sheesh).

    Go forth and investigate grasshopper 🙂 Now, it’s time we all got back on the clock–there’s got to be some new BF video out there that we need to dissect and pick apart to see if it’s just another bunch of idiots primping for their fifteen minutes of fame…good luck.


  13. dconstrukt responds:

    thanks guys. much respect 🙂

    i did a lot of digging up so far, but couldn’t find anything…. it seemed odd that the PG films bigfoot reacts totally different than what people report in their sightings…

    I wonder why that is. (not that anyone but the pg bigfoot would probably be able to answer it)

    i think mun’s is right, you can’t do that in a costume… but the mannerisms were different than what you’d read in the reports. I figured it would haul ass away… or speed up… plus it would have heard the horses… you’d think.

    btw… I watched “shooting bigfoot” the other day… (what a waste of tv time) and i’m 1000% convinced the 3 guys they “profiled” on that show were in some way, mentally ill. (unbeknown to them).

    guess we have to wait for more real footage to come out… from somewhere.

  14. red_pill_junkie responds:

    Hmm. Seems the only thing that can bring back the ‘good ole days’ of Cryptomundo comments, is someone taking a crack at the hallowed P-G film 😉

    I read the article my Cosmic Compadre, señor Micah Hanks wrote for MU. There were a couple of things I disagreed with it, but overall I think he has a point in criticizing how the field of Cryptozoology relies so much in this one piece of evidence, which is almost 50 years old, to go out to the rest of the world and claim the existence of an unknown hairy hominid roaming the woods of the Pacific Northwest.

    IMO it’s not unlike how American UFOlogy focuses so much on the damn Roswell case, while overlooking more promising cases.

    I still find the P-G compelling. Yet it bothers me how since 1967 no other film footage or video has ever come close to its clear depiction of an alleged Bigfoot.

    So, seen from that perspective, I think Micah raises a valid point: Let us leave the P-G footage in peace, and move on to produce even better footage.

    Saludos, RPJ

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.