Bigfoot and the Patterson–Gimlin Film
A short 1967 film shot at Bluff Creek, California, appears to show a large, hairy, upright creature. Believers consider it the best evidence for Bigfoot. Skeptics say it shows a person in a costume. It has never been proven either way.
Verdict: Unproven. The sources below do not establish this claim. That is not the same as proving it false. How we rate stories
The Story
Stories of large, hairy wild people go back a long way in the Pacific Northwest. The modern Bigfoot craze began in 1958, when huge footprints were found near Bluff Creek in Northern California and turned the legend into a media sensation.
In 1967, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin rode into the same area and came back with a few seconds of film. It shows a large, hairy, manlike figure walking upright across a clearing. It became the most famous and argued-over piece of Bigfoot evidence there is.
The most famous Bigfoot film was shot by the same creek where the famous 1958 tracks were faked.
In 2002, after Ray Wallace died, his children said he had made the 1958 footprints as a joke. That did not prove anything about the film, but, as Smithsonian notes, it was another reason for doubt. Skeptics say the figure is a man in a suit. Even some Bigfoot researchers have called the film a hoax, while others defend it.
No one has produced a body, bones or confirmed DNA. The film remains unproven in both directions: not shown to be fake to everyone's satisfaction, and never backed up by physical evidence.
Origins
According to Smithsonian, the modern Bigfoot story took off with large footprints found near Bluff Creek in Northern California in 1958. In 1967 Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed a few seconds of a hairy creature walking on two legs by the same creek.
The Claims
- Bigfoot is a real, undiscovered primate living in the forests of North America.
- The Patterson–Gimlin film shows a genuine animal, not a costume.
Key Evidence
- According to Benjamin Radford's 'Bigfoot at 50' in Skeptical Inquirer, many Bigfoot researchers regard the film as genuine, including René Dahinden, who shared its copyright.
The Evidence Against
- Smithsonian reports that the 1958 Bluff Creek tracks were planted by Ray Wallace. His children revealed this after his death in 2002, saying it had been 'just a joke.' Smithsonian notes that the film being shot in the same place is one reason to doubt it.
- Radford notes that even researchers are split. Bigfoot tracker Cliff Crook joined skeptics in calling the film a hoax.
- In 2004, Skeptical Inquirer published a report by Kal K. Korff and Michaela Kocis describing author Greg Long's investigation, which argued the film was a hoax. Its claims have been disputed by believers.
- No body, bones or confirmed DNA from such a creature has ever been documented.
Documents & Sources
- NewsWhy Do So Many People Still Want to Believe in Bigfoot? (Smithsonian Magazine) smithsonianmag.com ↗
- AcademicBigfoot at 50: Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence, by Benjamin Radford (Skeptical Inquirer, PDF) cdn.centerforinquiry.org ↗
- AcademicExposing Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot Film Hoax, by Kal K. Korff and Michaela Kocis (Skeptical Inquirer, 2004) skepticalinquirer.org ↗
Each link was checked for availability on Oct. 27, 2026. Links open in a new tab.