**The Patterson-Gimlin Film: New Footage, Old Questions and a Mystery That Refuses to Die**

The Patterson–Gimlin Film: Not So Fast on Calling It a Hoax

October 2026 | Ontario Bigfoot

For nearly 60 years, the Patterson–Gimlin film has been the subject of more scrutiny, debate and outright argument than probably any other piece of footage in Bigfoot history. Filmed on October 20, 1967, at Bluff Creek, California, it shows what appears to be a large, hair-covered female Sasquatch walking across a creek bed before disappearing into the trees.

And after all these years, nobody has conclusively demonstrated that the figure, commonly known as Patty, was a man in a costume.

Now, along comes a new documentary called Capturing Bigfoot, directed by Marq Evans, claiming that a recently discovered 40-second film may finally expose the whole thing as a hoax.

The documentary presents what it believes is rehearsal footage filmed in 1966, a year before Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin captured their famous encounter.

Naturally, the headlines have been flying. The Patterson–Gimlin film has supposedly been debunked, the mystery solved and the case closed.

Well, not so fast.

There are some rather large questions surrounding this new discovery, and until those questions are answered, I see absolutely no reason to dismiss the original film.

A Rehearsal, or Something Filmed Years Later?

The newly discovered footage reportedly came from a 16mm film reel that had been kept for decades by Norm Johnson, a former Boeing film department employee who had connections to people involved with Roger Patterson.

His daughter eventually brought the reel to the attention of documentary filmmaker Marq Evans.

The footage apparently shows a Bigfoot-like figure moving through a wooded area in a manner reminiscent of the famous 1967 film.

The documentary's suggestion is that Patterson staged this sequence in 1966 as practice for the following year's supposed hoax.

But there is one rather important problem.

Nobody has conclusively established that the footage was actually filmed in 1966.

Special-effects professional and longtime Patterson–Gimlin film researcher Bill Munns reportedly examined the physical reel and found that the film stock carries a 1966 manufacturing date code.

That is interesting, but it proves when the film stock was manufactured, not when somebody put it into a camera and started filming.

A roll of film manufactured in 1966 could have been used several years later.

And that opens up an entirely different possibility.

What if the footage was filmed after the Patterson–Gimlin encounter?

What if somebody was attempting to recreate the famous scene, either as an experiment, a demonstration or perhaps even an attempt to discredit the original?

There were certainly people interested in reproducing the film after it became famous.

Munns himself has suggested that the newly discovered footage could be a later reconstruction rather than an earlier rehearsal.

That possibility deserves just as much consideration as the documentary's preferred explanation.Stop being a pussy silly girl city girl

Until somebody can establish exactly when the footage was exposed, calling it a 1966 rehearsal is an interpretation, not a proven fact.

Too Many Stories and Too Many Questions

One thing that has always bothered me about the Patterson–Gimlin controversy is the number of people who have appeared over the years claiming to know what really happened.

Some have claimed to have worn the costume. Others have claimed to have seen it, helped construct it or heard confessions from people supposedly involved.

And now, nearly six decades later, we have another round of revelations.

Roger Patterson's son, Clint, reportedly makes some rather startling statements in the new documentary, including allegations that his mother acknowledged the film was staged.

Bob Heironimus, who has claimed for years that he was the person inside the supposed costume, is also involved.

These are certainly claims worth examining, but claims and physical evidence are two different things.

Some of the people connected to this controversy have long histories with the film, personal disagreements or firmly established opinions about its authenticity. That does not automatically make their statements false, but it does mean we should examine their accounts carefully.

There are also obvious questions about memories, motivations and the passage of time.

After nearly 60 years, stories can change. Details can become confused and recollections can be influenced by what people have heard from others.

And documentaries, like books and television programs, have a story to tell.

A documentary built around the discovery of a possible rehearsal film is naturally going to attract considerably more attention if that footage is presented as the final nail in the Patterson–Gimlin coffin.

That doesn't mean the filmmakers are being dishonest. It simply means we should distinguish between the evidence itself and the conclusions being drawn from it.

Frankly, there have been enough questionable characters, conflicting accounts and extraordinary claims surrounding this film over the decades that I am not prepared to accept another supposed revelation without solid supporting evidence.

What About the Original Film?

Something that seems to be getting lost in all this excitement is the original footage itself.

The Patterson–Gimlin film has been examined for decades by researchers, filmmakers, special-effects professionals and people familiar with human and animal movement.

Supporters of its authenticity have pointed to several features they believe would be difficult to reproduce with a costume, particularly using the materials and techniques available in 1967.

These include the apparent body proportions, movement of the shoulders and arms, muscular contours and the way the figure walks.

Bill Munns has spent years examining these details and has argued that the figure displays anatomical features that would have been exceptionally difficult to achieve with a conventional costume of that period.

Of course, skeptics disagree. Some believe the figure looks entirely human and that a costume remains the simplest explanation.

That debate has never really ended.

But here is what I find interesting.

For almost six decades, people have claimed that a costume was used, yet no original costume has been produced and conclusively connected to the footage.

No verified construction records have settled the matter either.

We have had confessions, accusations, competing stories and supposed explanations.

What we have not had is a demonstration that conclusively reproduces everything visible in the original film and establishes how the alleged hoax was carried out.

That does not prove Patty was a Sasquatch, but it certainly leaves the question open.

And in my opinion, the original film remains one of the most compelling pieces of visual evidence ever recorded.

Bob Gimlin Has Never Changed His Story

There is another important part of this story that deserves attention.

Bob Gimlin, who accompanied Roger Patterson that day in October 1967, has consistently maintained that the encounter was genuine.

Through decades of controversy, accusations and public scrutiny, he has stood by his account.

That does not make his testimony infallible. No witness is beyond questioning.

But consistency matters.

When comparing decades of competing allegations, I think it is only reasonable to give serious consideration to the account of someone who was actually present.

If the original film was an elaborate hoax, there are still questions about exactly how it was organized, who participated and why the accounts surrounding it have remained so contradictory.

The newly discovered footage does not automatically answer those questions.

The Evidence Should Decide, Not the Headlines

I have spent more than 20 years conducting wilderness field research, and one thing I have learned is that evidence rarely arrives with a convenient explanation attached.

You document what you find, examine the circumstances and try to eliminate other possibilities.

Sometimes the answer is straightforward. Other times it isn't.

The same standards should apply here.

Before accepting this new footage as proof that the Patterson–Gimlin film was staged, I would like to see independent answers to some basic questions.

When was the film actually exposed? Where was it filmed? Who operated the camera? Can its history be documented back to before October 20, 1967? And can anyone demonstrate that the figure in the alleged rehearsal is connected to the figure seen in the original footage?

Those are not unreasonable demands.

They are the minimum questions that should be answered before declaring one of the most famous pieces of Bigfoot evidence in history a hoax.

If the footage really was filmed in 1966 as preparation for a staged encounter, then that would be a major development.

But if it was filmed in 1968, 1970 or several years later as an attempted recreation, it tells us something very different.

And right now, that distinction has not been satisfactorily resolved.

My Position Hasn't Changed

I still believe the Patterson–Gimlin film shows a genuine Sasquatch.

That belief isn't based on Roger Patterson's personality, Bob Gimlin's reputation or somebody else's opinion of the footage.

It is based primarily on what can be observed in the original film, the extensive examination it has received and the absence of a conclusively demonstrated hoax.

Could I be wrong? Of course.

If credible, independently verified evidence eventually proves the film was staged, I will accept that conclusion.

But we are not there yet.

A newly discovered reel of old film, accompanied by disputed recollections and a documentary's interpretation, is not enough for me to discard the original evidence.

There is also something worth remembering.

Even if the Patterson–Gimlin film were eventually proven to be a hoax, that would not erase the countless other reports and experiences that have been documented across North America.

The existence of Sasquatch does not stand or fall on one piece of film.

For now, I intend to watch how this new discovery develops, particularly what independent examination reveals about the alleged rehearsal footage.

Perhaps it will eventually provide some genuine answers.

Or perhaps we are looking at a later recreation that has been mistaken for something much more significant.

Until we know which it is, the Patterson–Gimlin film remains very much alive as evidence, at least in my books.

And after nearly 60 years of people trying to explain Patty away, I don't think another 40 seconds of questionable footage is quite enough to close the case.

Ontario Bigfoot | Explore. Discover. Share.

tim.ontariobigfoot@gmail.com

© 2010–2026 Ontario Bigfoot | All Rights Reserved.

All original content, photographs, research and reports are the property of Ontario Bigfoot unless otherwise credited. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution is prohibited. ontariobigfoot.com