The Patterson-Gimlin film is the holy grail of cryptozoology. It’s just that simple. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it goes like this: In fall 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were out looking for Bigfoot.
Patterson had rented a 16mm camera to both hunt for Bigfoot and search out locations for a potential fictional film about the beast.
As Gimlin and Patterson rounded a corner in a dry creekbed, they and their horses spotted what can only be described as a Bigfoot. Larger than a man, covered in fur, with a loping, strange gait, the creature walks away from the men. Patterson gets his horse under control, grabs his camera, and begins shooting. The result is the most compelling evidence of large primates in North America that has ever been collected.
Everyone has seen the film or stills from it. Now, on YouTube, from user Greenwave2010fb, we have a series of videos created from the Patterson-Gimlin film. Using new software, the film has been stabilized so that maximum details of the subject can be seen. (Note: We’re not sure if this user did the stabilization or is reposting video from another source.)
The primary video, a stabilized version of the best frames of the film, clearly shows the details that have intrigued cryptozoologists for decades: the pointed saggital crest (top of head), the long thigh and arms, the swaying breasts…
Yes, the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot is a female. The breasts are impossible to miss in this stabilized video, and to me they’re the lynchpin to proving this is real footage of an unknown creature.
Let me elaborate for a minute.
There is a great deal of debate about this film and its authenticity. Much of it stems from Patterson’s stated goal to make a Bigfoot film for Hollywood. The guy set out to make a fictional film with costumes and actors so this is that film, right?
The breasts are the biggest reason why I say no.
Think about it for a second. If you’re going to fake a Bigfoot film, why make the beast a female? Breasts are very difficult to create realistically in a suit of this sort. The way they move under the fur would have been extremely hard to simulate using 1967 costuming. Why add difficulty to a hoax? Why not just make the creature male and avoid the hassle? Psychologically, it doesn’t work at all. It makes no sense. It only works if this is actually a female primate.
Back to the video, this provides a much better view than the shaky, hard to watch version I grew up with. You can see the muscles moving under the fur. That’s still something so difficult to do that we use CGI for it; it’s not worth the effort to do it practically. You can see movement in the hands, which, when the arm bones are measured, do not match up with human anatomy. And yes, you can see those big hairy double-d’s swaying with the walk.
It’s long been claimed by several people that they created this suit or could create it. FX genius Stan Winston, God bless him, stated it was a “cheap monkey suit…” and yet never duplicated it. In fact, nobody has ever duplicated the Patterson-Gimlin film. Attempts have been made, and the efforts have been laughable. Even using budgets unavailable to Roger Patterson and materials unavailable in 1967, no one has yet been able to reproduce every aspect of the beast in this film.
Check out the videos below and see what you think. If it’s a hoax, how?
Got news? Click here to submit it!
Subscribe to the Dread Central YouTube Channel!
Scream for the paranormal in the comments section below!