The Patterson-Gimlin Film a Closer Look

Finalized 3rd of April 2026 

This is first in a two part series awaiting the release of additional footage.

An article detailing the evidence for and against the legitimacy of the Patterson-Gimlin film. First in a two part series, written before the public release of the documentary Capturing Bigfoot which claims to contain irrefutable evidence debunking the film.

A complete 16mm frame from the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Sasquatch and cowboys

The purpose of this article is to make sense of the available data and attempt to reach a reasonable conclusion on the current status of the authenticity of the PG film following recent controversy. The current controversy and newest claim of debunking originated from the announcement and subsequent screening of the film Capturing Bigfoot at the 2026 SXSW Film Festival.

The film itself is based upon the (alleged) discovery of a previously undeveloped reel of Kodak Kodachrome, which purports to show a dress rehearsal for the film. It is not currently known whether it shows the same suit. The filmmakers have dated the reel to 1966 using date-of-manufacture labels found in the sprockets of the film (something that is a bit problematic, in my opinion—more on that later).

The film reportedly shows a person rehearsing movements for the Sasquatch performance and includes a shot of Bob Gimlin staring straight at the camera, according to viewers of the documentary (as of writing this draft, it has only been screened once).

It is said that the late Jeff Meldrum was taken by surprise by the similarities with the suit, and that he appeared quite sad during a section of the interview. However, during his last public appearances, he still used the PG film as evidence for the existence of the Sasquatch phenomenon.

Because of the currently limited information on the footage displayed in the film, we can only take the filmmakers at their word and try to ascertain the feasibility of their claims. For the most part, people who have actually seen the footage appear to be of the opinion that what is shown is definitive proof debunking the Patterson-Gimlin film.

What even the deepest currently available research suggests is that the new footage shows a dress rehearsal featuring a “skinnier” Bigfoot, with a suit that looks very similar to the one allegedly used in the final and famous take, including breasts. If the headpiece and fur pattern are truly a match—and the differences could be explained simply by a different person in the suit—then this would be a nail in the coffin for the authenticity of the P-G film and would preclude many of the scientific studies on the subject.

Little was known of this new 40-second clip prior to the announcement and private screening of the documentary. Little was also said by those involved in the production, such as Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, who until his death in late 2025 maintained that the Patterson film was among the best pieces of evidence for the existence of an unknown hominid, despite being shown the documentary’s findings in 2024.

Dr. Meldrum’s nonchalant attitude toward the new findings echoes Bill Munns’ opinion on the subject, who appears to believe the footage was shot at a later date (possibly 1968) as an attempt to obtain additional B-roll footage for a docudrama being produced. Additionally, Munns points to the suit being of average construction and nothing special, in contrast to what he argues the Patterson subject Patty represents.

Even if the filming date for this new footage is difficult to pin down to a pre–October 1967 time-frame, the mere existence of the film casts further doubt on the reputation of the PG film. It has already been noted that Roger Patterson had previously illustrated a female Bigfoot based on the William Roe 1955 encounter, which was featured in his book. A suit displaying this characteristic—often cited as particularly significant in the PG subject—would weaken an important argument for authenticity.

Bill Munns is quoted as saying that he believes the suit in question is an attempt at a recreation of events that had already occurred, and suggests a possible filming date anywhere from 1966 to 2010, when the last Kodachrome II films were developed before Kodak discontinued the process.

To live up to the name of this blog, and despite reserving final judgement on the relevance of the new footage until the documentary is released, a comprehensive analysis will be conducted on the available PG film.

To do this, the highest-quality stills from 4×5 interpositives and the best available motion picture copies will be used. It is important to note, however, that Kodachrome II is a color reversal film, meaning an original negative does not exist. All available material consists of copies derived from a first-generation positive.

The analysis will include:

• Proportions compared to an average human (taking into account possible limb extensions and prosthetics)
• Overall anatomy and gait
• Feet and hands
• Attempts to recover facial features from high-quality stills

The results will be weighed against eyewitness testimony from encounters both modern and predating the film. This will be the first time I review the footage with this level of rigor.

The case for proportions

Often stated as a point towards the validity of the Patterson film are the subjects proportions and how a person of regular build would have trouble filling out a simple costume. Currently we will disregard some of the literature available on the subject, including the supposed methods used to achieve this. A careful look will be taken in as close to a vacuum as possible taking only into account the technology available at the time of filming.

Proportional analysis using 3d graphics software

To test this hypothesis a 3D model of an average person was posed to match patty, spheres where added where additional material would be required to give a proper outline. surprisingly at least to me even when matching for height, perhaps even going a bit past the subjects height, the arms of the alleged Sasquatch are still too long and the shoulders are also extremely muscular and defined. 

Both of these characteristics would require some sort of prosthesis to be added to the suit. Contrary to what some researchers have stated I don’t believe the prosthesis would be arm extensions (this would change the position of the elbow) but rather hand extensions that would go towards the end of the suit. 

Care must be taken in the following sections to ascertain whether the hands are stiff or if they show articulation. Articulation of prosthesis (arm or hand) would quite likely be outside the scope of what could be easily achieved both currently and in 1967 without the aid of animatronics.

It is my belief that any attempt at a more detailed analysis of the subjects proportions is simply not possible since there is always some wiggle room to what could be under a possible suit. For now however I do believe it would be hard to fake the longer arms which are noticeably longer than previously attempted suits.

Patty’s anatomy

For the next stage of analysis, we turn to the general anatomy of Patty.

Disclaimer: The conclusions in this section and those that follow may be influenced by the quality of the footage used. If readers wish to access the version analyzed here, they are encouraged to leave a comment. As such, I cannot guarantee that the conclusions are entirely free from bias introduced by blurriness in the source material.

Starting by the subjects head the first thing that is easily discernible is the overall shape of the head, larger in proportions than what would be expected in a human of the same size, terminating in a conical protrusion at the top of the head. Since the purpose of this article is to attempt to determine the authenticity of the film this article will not extend itself on this.

However of note is the similarity of certain features with a previously undescribed species of hominin Homo denisovan which did not have identifiable skull material until this decade. It is this skull which has the closest similarity to: the extremely pronounced brow ridges seen on the subject, the conical shape of the back of the skull and the overall massiveness of the head.

Newly attributed Denisovan skull

Also noticeable throughout the footage is the subjects messy hair, large rounded nose and patchiness in the hair covering the face particularly near the mouth and around the sharpest edges of the jaw. If this were a headpiece, it would be remarkably well executed, and would feature an amount of realistic weathering that one would not expect from something only meant to be seen in shaky footage. The following is a closeup on the highest resolution still frame available taken from a 4x5 enlargement of an interpositive.

Noticeable facial features.

Moving on to the anatomy observed in the body of the alleged creature we can see clear indications of extremely well developed neck musculature. 

It is not simply represented as ‘neck less’ but shown to appear to have no neck because of the massively well developed shoulders. Moving down the trunk we can see what appear to be fat folds coming down the back of the creature.

 Again some extreme detail can be seen in the stabilized copies of the film, though some of this could possibly be attributed to light reflections. However perhaps not as convincing or somewhat problematic are the feet of the creature.

In two particular frames the feet can be seen to be extremely thick and devoid of hair. While it would be expected for them to be hairless the thickness would indicate a shoe of sorts. Unless it instead shows the foot flexing downwards as the toes curl downwards. It is again unfortunately not possible to determine which is the case due to the quality of the footage.

Visible anatomical features.

Perhaps the strongest argument against the film’s authenticity lies in the hands… As far as the copy available to me at this moment, no movement could be seen in the fingers, or in the hands position relative to the arm. This would indicate the use of hand extensions. and is the strongest point against the film in the opinion of this analysis.

On Robert Patterson

While often represented as an ignorant hoaxer it must be said that Robert Patterson was actually a talented illustrator and author that had previously written a book on the Bigfoot phenomenon complete with illustrations on encounters, one of which featured a female Bigfoot.

Patterson standing next to his life-size Sasquatch illustration.

When considering the possibility of a hoax, it is important to acknowledge that, given sufficient time, budget, and familiarity with eyewitness accounts, it would have been possible to construct a suit consistent with reported sightings. However whether that is the case is hard to prove or disprove with what is currently available.

An illustration of a female Bigfoot based on William Roe’s eyewitness account, drawn by Roger Patterson.

Historical

Coming to a conclusion based on the footage alone is as difficult today as it was in 1967, the truth is whether or not the footage is authentic it holds historical value, either as the first documented visual reference of a previously undiscovered giant human species or as the greatest hoax of all time.

Time will tell. Once the alleged rehearsal footage is publicly released, a second part will follow, including a final verdict.

EXTERNAL LINKS:

Capturing bigfoot official site mostly promo material and lil to no info.

Patterson-Gimlin reasonable quality stabilized  one of many versions available in archives.