Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin Film.

Why the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film Should Concern Scholars of Human Origins

(Read the article on one page)

The anthropological sciences occasionally have to deal with something which has a profound but unexpected impact on our understanding of human origins. Two events are noteworthy, in part because both impacted powerfully upon our concept of human evolution, but also because they were diametric opposites. One was a truth first rejected, and the other was a false contrivance embraced as fact. As presented in Roger Levin’s fine text, “Bones of Contention", the stories of the Piltdown Man and the Taung Child were meaningful because they demonstrated that ultimately the evidence will lead to the truth, but first, one must examine that evidence with an impartial and open mind.

Sadly, they also illustrated that confirmation bias is a serious and formidable obstacle in the search for truth. Piltdown was a fraud, an orangutan jaw mated to a human skull, and it confirmed the bias of expecting that our human ancestor would be an ape-like body affixed to a human cranium, thus affirming that regardless of how primitive the body, the illustrious human mind remained robustly beyond any mere ape. Taung was a truthful hominid fossil, but its rightful place in human origins was rejected for many years because of its small brain. So, when we consider that some evidence with potential impact upon human origins is misunderstood, or suffers in the face of a confirmation bias, the idea has a solid foundation of prior examples demonstrating that exact issue.

A portrait painted by John Cooke in 1915 showing scientists involved in the Piltdown man case: F. O. Barlow, G. Elliot Smith, Charles Dawson, Arthur Smith Woodward. Front row: A. S. Underwood, Arthur Keith, W. P. Pycraft, and Sir Ray Lankester.

A portrait painted by John Cooke in 1915 showing scientists involved in the Piltdown man case: F. O. Barlow, G. Elliot Smith, Charles Dawson, Arthur Smith Woodward. Front row: A. S. Underwood, Arthur Keith, W. P. Pycraft, and Sir Ray Lankester. ( Public Domain )

Perceptions of “The Bigfoot Film”

Today we have a new subject with the potential to make a profound and unexpected impact upon human origins and the human family tree. And like Piltdown and Taung, there is a legitimate concern that the evidence is not being given a proper and impartial evaluation, with confirmation bias ruling the roost and dissuading the scientific community from a proper consideration of that evidence. That new subject is actually 50 years old, but it is the age of the controversy that actually justifies a new way of thinking about it today. The subject in question is a 16mm motion picture film, taken in the woodlands of Northern California in 1967, famously referred to as the Patterson-Gimlin Film or PGF (in recognition of the two men who were present, one man filming and the other man witnessing the event), but it is informally known as “The Bigfoot Film” (in recognition of the subject figure seen in that film footage).

“Patty” in VFC-2 Frame 354 (mistakenly but popularly called frame 352).

“Patty” in VFC-2 Frame 354 (mistakenly but popularly called frame 352). (Public Domain)

For 50 years, people have been denouncing this film footage as a fake, yet there is virtually no rigorous and logically structured proof for that conclusion. All that can be found are insinuations, suggestions, unsubstantiated claims, and intellectual bullying to try and cajole people into accepting the claim of hoax as a fact.

But in fact, the more rigorous the analysis, the more we see inconclusive determinations. David Daegling, in his text, “Bigfoot Exposed” analyzed the film and concluded, that at his time of writing, 36 years after the event, no proof of a hoax could be found. More recently, Authors Donald Prothero and Daniel Loxton, in “Abominable Science” could do no better, and their analysis of this film resulted in a meager comparison to an anecdotal bigfoot sighting by a man named William Roe. Their conclusion was that if Roe’s anecdotal account could somehow be proven false, then the PGF might reasonably also be deemed a fake. Given that Roe’s encounter cannot be proven false, this was a subtle but tacit admission that the PGF cannot be proven false either.

Anecdotal Claims and Suspicions

Most advocates for the film being a hoax tend to rely upon anecdotal claims and suspicions that Roger Patterson was an untrustworthy man, and thus the film must be suspect, if not outright condemned, as equally untrustworthy. But aside from the inherent unreliability of anecdotal material as evidence, one must go further and ask, does this anecdotal material in any way change the empirical evidence? Does it change the film type, the camera type, the image resolution of the film, the filming sequence of events as shown in the film, the potential for stereo-photogrammetry analysis to map the subject walking through the landscape and the camera operator pursuing the subject while filming, or the analysis of the subject figure’s body in motion? If anecdotal material does not change any of these empirical subjects of analysis, then the analysis can stand on the empirical data, and the anecdotal material, regardless of how juicy the gossip, can be recognized for what it is, gossip.



1) Not a scientific conclusion at all, but for me the film shows someone walking like a man in a suit.
2) The comments about gorilla suits may apply to a costume supply store, but just about anyone could create a better suit than the example shown. Movie makers had been creating much more realistic suits for a long time. Planet of the Apes, released the year after this film was shot, shows what was possible at the time.
3) Modern tools wouldn't be of much use in detecting fakery. It's not like we're talking about Photoshop, digital manipulation, special effects or any kind of post production trickery here. I think we can take it for granted that what we have here is an unmanipulated film. The only question is whether the film shows a man in a costume or something else.

At School, our then English teacher also did RE, it being a Catholic School and him being our form master in a Catholic Grammar school, way back in the mists of time.... well, we argued this because he felt evolution to be perfectly compatible with ideas of Darwin.

Unlike my RE teacher, and Darwin, however I sensed intuitively that God our Creator was not in fact an ape from whom we were descended and whose Original Image we carried in our bones and our DNA, and was regaled always by tales of whomsoever dared to take the piss out of this brigandage of reason and logic we call faith, so, in my teens I came across the tale of how than venerable and irascible man of God Teilhard de Chardin, had assisted in the Piltdown man hoax, to crucify a few Darwinians! before later going on to discover, with others Peking Man in China.
This hoax was perpetrated when I was in my teens and we all had a great laugh, watching the original film in repeats on our black and white TVs, because no REAL animal moves in such an artificial manner at all- you need to actually be able to watch the movie over and over to realise it, but that is certainly a human in a suit, or an angel of God posing as one, rather as "yetis" do in the Himalaya.

Years ago I ran into a group of mountaineers who had got lost in the snows, completely lost, and who were , they said, rescued by a couple of Yeti and taken to their cave, where they were rested for three days and three nights, before being led to safety down the mountain and abandoned by their guides......

William Munns's picture

To those who have commented thus far, I thank you for your thoughts. But if this film is a hoax, I would like to see a proof, based on an examination of the eveidence, (actually described correctly) the method of analysis used, and the exact conclusion derived from that specific evidence. Also, I’d like to have the author of that proof give his/her name, credentials,etc.


I don’t think that’s too much to ask, but I’ve been waiting 50 years to read that proof, and so far, it doesn’t exist. So I question why.



I imagine most would believe that the statements of:
Philip Morris, the man that sold the suit to Patterson
Bob Heironimus, the man that wore the suit
provide that kind of proof.
My question would be why was that not addressed in your article?

William Munns's picture

The most compelling reason why the matter of Bob Heironimous and Phillip Morris was not noted is that in the two critical texts cited “Daegling’s “Bigfoot Exposed” and Loxton and Prothero’s “Abominable Science”, both of these clearly skeptical texts did not recognize Bob Heironimous and Phillip Morris as presenting claims of sufficient merit to be factored into those author’s analysis. Even though all authors were aware of the claims, they did not use the claims to establish a proof of hoax. So if skeptical authors and researchers cannot be confident the Heironimous and Morris are making truthful and reliable claims, then I felt that any mention of them would have required a lengthy disclosure of the issues which cast doubt on their credibility. If one were to advocate those claims by Heironimous and Morris as being truthful and factual, the claims would need to be analyzed with the same discipline and logic as all other evidence should be, and under that kind of analysis, the claims have not proven to be strong enough to be taken as fact, even by many skeptical analysists.

Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Human Origins

Silhouettes (Public Domain) in front of blood cells (Public Domain) and a gene.
Most people who have the Rh blood type are Rh-positive. There are also instances, however, where people are Rh-Negative. Health problems may occur for the unborn child of a mother with Rh-Negative blood when the baby is Rh-Positive.

Ancient Technology

The Lycurgus Cup.
A strange chalice made its way into the British Museum’s collection in the 1950s. It is a 1,600-year-old jade green Roman artifact called the Lycurgus Cup. The image on the chalice is an iconic scene with King Lycurgus of Thrace...

Our Mission

At Ancient Origins, we believe that one of the most important fields of knowledge we can pursue as human beings is our beginnings. And while some people may seem content with the story as it stands, our view is that there exists countless mysteries, scientific anomalies and surprising artifacts that have yet to be discovered and explained.

The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.

We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.

By bringing together top experts and authors, this archaeology website explores lost civilizations, examines sacred writings, tours ancient places, investigates ancient discoveries and questions mysterious happenings. Our open community is dedicated to digging into the origins of our species on planet earth, and question wherever the discoveries might take us. We seek to retell the story of our beginnings. 

Ancient Image Galleries

View from the Castle Gate (Burgtor). (Public Domain)
Door surrounded by roots of Tetrameles nudiflora in the Khmer temple of Ta Phrom, Angkor temple complex, located today in Cambodia. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Cable car in the Xihai (West Sea) Grand Canyon (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Next article