Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film, 1967
| Download audio m4a (right-click to save) |
Watch the video on YouTube: https://youtu.be/jSWr9C_gn40
There is probably no footage of any anomalous phenomenon more famous or controversial than the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film of 1967. It gives us pop culture’s most familiar depiction of the Sasquatch, an ape-like cryptid said to roam the western American wilderness, and while it is often labelled a hoax, scientific analysis has nearly ruled out the possibility of fraud. Sixty years later, the Patterson-Gimlin film still stands up to scientific scrutiny, and remains an icon of North America’s most famous cryptid.
The Story
In 1966, Roger Patterson, an amateur Bigfoot hunter and founder of the Northwest Research Foundation, began production on a docudrama of a fictional Bigfoot expedition. Patterson’s friend, Robert Gimlin, joined the project as a volunteer actor, although he doubted the existence of Sasquatch.
In October of 1967, Patterson and Gimlin went to the Six Rivers National Forest in Northern California, a hotbed of Sasquatch reports. On October 20th, the pair were riding on horseback upstream along Bluff Creek when they came upon the remnants of a logjam from a prior flood. Immediately, they saw a figure on the other side, about 8 meters away. It was a large, apelike creature on two legs, with silvery, dark reddish-brown hair and large, prominent breasts. Gimlin guessed the creature to be nearly 2 meters tall.
Patterson quickly dismounted and grabbed his camera. Gimlin followed soon after, rifle drawn. In the 20 seconds or so it took Patterson to hit record, the creature had walked almost 40 meters in the opposite direction. Patterson ran after it, camera rolling. Soon after, the creature peered over its right shoulder and stared at the camera, while Patterson dropped to his knees to steady the shot.
Patterson ran out of film in the reel when the creature was some 80 meters away, but he managed to capture nearly a minute of footage. The men gathered their horses and followed the creature’s tracks for approximately 400 meters, but decided to abandon the search so they could reach camp before nightfall. They then loaded a second reel and filmed the creature’s tracks, measured the distance between strides, and took plaster casts of the best quality impressions. Each foot print measured nearly 37 cm from heel to toe, or 14.5 inches.
Patterson had the film developed immediately, and shopped it around to scientists everywhere, but the response was lukewarm, at best. Eventually, however, Patterson secured a deal with the BBC to contribute his film and script ideas to a new docudrama on the Bigfoot phenomenon. The film was a moderate success, and brought the Patterson-Gimlin footage to national attention.
Frame Rate
Patterson did not check the frame rate in his rush to start filming, and doesn’t know if it was set to 16, 18, or 24 frames per second. Patterson usually kept it at 24, but said it was set to 18 the next time he checked it. The camera used was known to run at rates as high as 19 frames per second, however, even when set to 16. The frame rate is a critical issue, as running the film at 24 frames per second actually makes the creature’s gait look closer to human.
A frame rate of 24 seems unlikely, however. Anthropologist Grover Krantz has argued that running the film at 24 frames makes the camera bounces far too rapid to match Patterson’s stride, and makes the gait of the horses prior to the Bigfoot footage look unnaturally jerky. He estimated a rate of 18 frames per second. Igor Bourtsev, a Russian researcher, counted the number of frames between camera bounces, and determined that if the film was set at 24, Patterson would have had to have been running at 6 steps per second, faster than an Olympic sprinter.
Conventional Explanations
Some who studied the film have argued that it shows a hoaxer in a suit, since the subject’s features are inconsistent with primate anatomy. Some of the more obvious inconsistencies include; the creature’s uniform hair-flow pattern; its hairy breasts; the unusually sharp difference in colour between the surface of the feet and palms; and its double-jointed foot movement.
Still, analysts have argued that if the frame rate was really 18 or less, then the creature’s gait would have been extremely difficult for a human to reproduce. Moreover, Patterson had the footage screened to special effects people at both Universal and Disney, and all agreed that they would probably not have been able to recreate the film, at least not without a brilliantly-designed custom suit, a well-trained actor, and controlled environmental conditions. John Chambers, creator of the flexible masks in Planet of the Apes, claimed that even he could not have made a suit so good. Janos Prohaska, another prominent film costume designer, claimed that such a suit would have required at least a 10-hour makeup job with hair being glued directly to the skin: anatomically accurate muscle movements - even a herniated quadricep - can be seen in the film, revealing a clear absence of padding.
However, it’s hard to imagine any man large and muscular enough to match the creature’s considerable bulk without well-fixed padding. A reproduction of the film using a human male stand-in for reference determined that the subject was 222 cm tall, or 7 ft and 3.5 inches. Krantz’ estimate was 198 cm, or 6 ft 6.
A study by Peter Byrne demonstrated that the footprints were made at the time of the filming, and not hoaxed separately. This is significant because if the casts of these prints were authentic, they suggest the creature would have had to have weighed 227 kg, or 500 lbs, in order to make the impressions that it did.
Still, at least three individuals have attempted to take credit for the hoax since the late 1990s, although none have been able to substantiate their claims.
Conclusion
In an effort to capitalize on the film’s renown, Patterson sold off overlapping distribution rights, landing him in legal trouble. He also withheld money owed to a number of associates, including Gimlin himself. Patterson’s dubious behaviour is often cited as one of the prime reasons for suspecting a hoax. Still, even up to his death in 1972, Patterson defended the film’s authenticity. Gimlin has largely avoided media appearances, but continues to deny allegations of fraud.
Soon after Patterson’s death, the legend of the Bigfoot saw a surge in popularity, and two made-for-TV movies on the topic appeared in the next two years. The original footage of the creature and the two men displaying their casts has been lost, but several copies survive. The iconic frame 352 has long been in the public domain, and remains probably the single most recognizable image of Bigfoot in the Western world.
Although a hoax is not out of the question, there are many reasons to believe that Patterson and Gimlin actually captured evidence of a wild primate in the North American wilderness.
Sources:
Jeff Meldrum. "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science." New York: Tom Doherty, 2006.
Rupert Matthews. Sasquatch: North America's Enduring Mystery. London: Arcturus, 2008.
This video contains footage from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6jo8bl2lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xha5d_Fc7jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Ajh5AXABw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw54YeCkS3M
Support new videos on Patreon: https://patreon.com/user?u=3375417
Think Anomalous is created by Jason Charbonneau. Illustration by Colin Campbell. Music by Josh Chamberland. Animation by Brendan Barr. Sound design by Will Mountain and Josh Chamberland.
There is probably no footage of any anomalous phenomenon more famous or controversial than the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film of 1967. It gives us pop culture’s most familiar depiction of the Sasquatch, an ape-like cryptid said to roam the western American wilderness, and while it is often labelled a hoax, scientific analysis has nearly ruled out the possibility of fraud. Sixty years later, the Patterson-Gimlin film still stands up to scientific scrutiny, and remains an icon of North America’s most famous cryptid.
The Story
In 1966, Roger Patterson, an amateur Bigfoot hunter and founder of the Northwest Research Foundation, began production on a docudrama of a fictional Bigfoot expedition. Patterson’s friend, Robert Gimlin, joined the project as a volunteer actor, although he doubted the existence of Sasquatch.
In October of 1967, Patterson and Gimlin went to the Six Rivers National Forest in Northern California, a hotbed of Sasquatch reports. On October 20th, the pair were riding on horseback upstream along Bluff Creek when they came upon the remnants of a logjam from a prior flood. Immediately, they saw a figure on the other side, about 8 meters away. It was a large, apelike creature on two legs, with silvery, dark reddish-brown hair and large, prominent breasts. Gimlin guessed the creature to be nearly 2 meters tall.
Patterson quickly dismounted and grabbed his camera. Gimlin followed soon after, rifle drawn. In the 20 seconds or so it took Patterson to hit record, the creature had walked almost 40 meters in the opposite direction. Patterson ran after it, camera rolling. Soon after, the creature peered over its right shoulder and stared at the camera, while Patterson dropped to his knees to steady the shot.
Patterson ran out of film in the reel when the creature was some 80 meters away, but he managed to capture nearly a minute of footage. The men gathered their horses and followed the creature’s tracks for approximately 400 meters, but decided to abandon the search so they could reach camp before nightfall. They then loaded a second reel and filmed the creature’s tracks, measured the distance between strides, and took plaster casts of the best quality impressions. Each foot print measured nearly 37 cm from heel to toe, or 14.5 inches.
Patterson had the film developed immediately, and shopped it around to scientists everywhere, but the response was lukewarm, at best. Eventually, however, Patterson secured a deal with the BBC to contribute his film and script ideas to a new docudrama on the Bigfoot phenomenon. The film was a moderate success, and brought the Patterson-Gimlin footage to national attention.
Frame Rate
Patterson did not check the frame rate in his rush to start filming, and doesn’t know if it was set to 16, 18, or 24 frames per second. Patterson usually kept it at 24, but said it was set to 18 the next time he checked it. The camera used was known to run at rates as high as 19 frames per second, however, even when set to 16. The frame rate is a critical issue, as running the film at 24 frames per second actually makes the creature’s gait look closer to human.
A frame rate of 24 seems unlikely, however. Anthropologist Grover Krantz has argued that running the film at 24 frames makes the camera bounces far too rapid to match Patterson’s stride, and makes the gait of the horses prior to the Bigfoot footage look unnaturally jerky. He estimated a rate of 18 frames per second. Igor Bourtsev, a Russian researcher, counted the number of frames between camera bounces, and determined that if the film was set at 24, Patterson would have had to have been running at 6 steps per second, faster than an Olympic sprinter.
Conventional Explanations
Some who studied the film have argued that it shows a hoaxer in a suit, since the subject’s features are inconsistent with primate anatomy. Some of the more obvious inconsistencies include; the creature’s uniform hair-flow pattern; its hairy breasts; the unusually sharp difference in colour between the surface of the feet and palms; and its double-jointed foot movement.
Still, analysts have argued that if the frame rate was really 18 or less, then the creature’s gait would have been extremely difficult for a human to reproduce. Moreover, Patterson had the footage screened to special effects people at both Universal and Disney, and all agreed that they would probably not have been able to recreate the film, at least not without a brilliantly-designed custom suit, a well-trained actor, and controlled environmental conditions. John Chambers, creator of the flexible masks in Planet of the Apes, claimed that even he could not have made a suit so good. Janos Prohaska, another prominent film costume designer, claimed that such a suit would have required at least a 10-hour makeup job with hair being glued directly to the skin: anatomically accurate muscle movements - even a herniated quadricep - can be seen in the film, revealing a clear absence of padding.
However, it’s hard to imagine any man large and muscular enough to match the creature’s considerable bulk without well-fixed padding. A reproduction of the film using a human male stand-in for reference determined that the subject was 222 cm tall, or 7 ft and 3.5 inches. Krantz’ estimate was 198 cm, or 6 ft 6.
A study by Peter Byrne demonstrated that the footprints were made at the time of the filming, and not hoaxed separately. This is significant because if the casts of these prints were authentic, they suggest the creature would have had to have weighed 227 kg, or 500 lbs, in order to make the impressions that it did.
Still, at least three individuals have attempted to take credit for the hoax since the late 1990s, although none have been able to substantiate their claims.
Conclusion
In an effort to capitalize on the film’s renown, Patterson sold off overlapping distribution rights, landing him in legal trouble. He also withheld money owed to a number of associates, including Gimlin himself. Patterson’s dubious behaviour is often cited as one of the prime reasons for suspecting a hoax. Still, even up to his death in 1972, Patterson defended the film’s authenticity. Gimlin has largely avoided media appearances, but continues to deny allegations of fraud.
Soon after Patterson’s death, the legend of the Bigfoot saw a surge in popularity, and two made-for-TV movies on the topic appeared in the next two years. The original footage of the creature and the two men displaying their casts has been lost, but several copies survive. The iconic frame 352 has long been in the public domain, and remains probably the single most recognizable image of Bigfoot in the Western world.
Although a hoax is not out of the question, there are many reasons to believe that Patterson and Gimlin actually captured evidence of a wild primate in the North American wilderness.
Sources:
Jeff Meldrum. "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science." New York: Tom Doherty, 2006.
Rupert Matthews. Sasquatch: North America's Enduring Mystery. London: Arcturus, 2008.
This video contains footage from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us6jo8bl2lk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xha5d_Fc7jg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Ajh5AXABw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw54YeCkS3M
Support new videos on Patreon: https://patreon.com/user?u=3375417
Think Anomalous is created by Jason Charbonneau. Illustration by Colin Campbell. Music by Josh Chamberland. Animation by Brendan Barr. Sound design by Will Mountain and Josh Chamberland.
|
Copyright Think Anomalous, 2016 - 2024
|
|