The Patterson–Gimlin Bigfoot Film: Hoax or Proof Bigfoot Exists?

On October 20, 1967, two cowboys rode their horses into a remote creek bed in northern California. They were looking for bigfoot, and according to them, they found it. What they brought back was 59 seconds of grainy, shaky, 16 millimeter film showing a large dark-haired ape-like figure walking upright along the edge of the creek.

“Depending on who you ask, this footage has been called the most important piece of evidence”

for bigfoot's existence, or one of the most elaborate hoaxes ever pulled off.

But here's what makes it so unsettling.

Despite nearly 60 years of analysis by scientists, Hollywood's special effects artists, forensic examiners, and biomechanics experts, no one has definitively proven its fake, although no one has proven its real either. Today I'll break down the full story of the Patterson Gimland film, who made it, how they made it, and what's actually on it.

But to understand the film, we first have to understand the legend behind it, because the story of Bigfoot didn't start in 1967, it didn't even start in the last century, it goes back thousands of years. By the end, you'll have to decide for yourself, is Bigfoot real, is the film a masterpiece

“of deception, or Instagram knows that some people go bananas about getting the perfect,”

well, banana, some want them green, some want them ripe, some want them ready right when they hit their doorstep, but with Instacart's preference picker, available at most retailers, you can choose to get your groceries just the way you like. That means perfectly right bananas, delimit sliced just the way you want, and avocados

that aren't still hard as a puck in the third period.

So don't cross your fingers and hope for the best. Download the app and get groceries just how you like, with Instacart. Is it true somehow, weirder than both. I'm Dr. Heenie-Bot, and this is Hidden History, a rewind original powered by paved studios.

On the show, we're exploring some of the most mysterious events from history that have yet

“to be fully explained, and examining all the different theories from science to the”

supernatural and everything in between. From fantasializations and doomsday prophecies to paranormal experiences and unexplained phenomena, I'm looking at it all, and I want you to join me. Before we begin, I'd love it if you could rate, review, and follow Hidden History, your support allows our community to grow, and for other people to discover the show.

Today's episode is about the most famous piece of Bigfoot evidence ever captured, The Patterson Gimland Film. Shot in 1967 by two rodeo cowboys in the forest of northern California, this 59 second clip has been analyzed, debated, and thought over for nearly six decades, so what's really on that film?

Let's talk about it. Before we get to the film, we need to talk about what came before it, because the Patterson Gimland Film didn't emerge from nowhere. It came out of a tradition that stretches back thousands of years. Long before the word "bigfoot" entered the American vocabulary, indigenous peoples across

the United States and Canada had their own names and stories for large, hair-covered, human-like beings that lived in the forest. And these were our fringe legends, they were central to many tribal cultures. The modern word "Saswash" itself comes from an anglicization of "Saskeuts," a word from the language spoken by first nation peoples in what's now British Columbia.

For them, "Saskeuts" wasn't a monster to be hunted, it was a powerful forest being,

part of the land to be treated with respect. And they were far from alone, dozens of tribal nations across the continent had similar traditions. The Lummy people of the Pacific Northwest spoke of nocturnal, hairy giants dwelling in the mountains. The Lakota Zoo told of a great elder brother who watched over the land.

The Hupa Valley Tribe in northern California whose territory is in the region where the Patterson Gimlin film was shot had stories of a wise, forest being set to possess ancient knowledge of natural medicines. And you don't have to just take their word for it. On the Tuli River Indian Reservation in California, Petroglyce estimated to be about 1,000

years old, depict figures called "myadotot," according to the people who created them, these were large, shaggy creatures that were generally benevolent but could be dangerous

So, when European settlers started reporting accountress with "wild men" in the 1800s and

“early 1900s, they weren't discovering something new.”

They were stumbling into a story that was already ancient. The term "Saswaj" entered English in 1929, but a teacher named J.W. Burns published a collection

of first-nation stories from British Columbia in McLean's magazine, but the name that

would stick, Bigfoot, wouldn't arrive for almost 30 more years. Let's fast forward to the summer of 1958. On the morning of August 27, a bulldozer operator named Jerry Crew was clearing a logging road near Bluff Creek in Northern California's Six Rivers National Forest. When he climbed down for a break, he noticed something strange in the dirt around his

machine. Footprints. In Normus ones, almost 16 inches long, in seven inches wide, pressed deeply into the graded road, far too large and heavy to be a bear or a man.

“Crew told his foreman, and it turned out other workers had been finding similar prints at”

other sites in the area. Heavy equipment had been moved overnight, a 450-pound drum of diesel had vanished and turned up at the bottom of a gully as if something had picked it up and had thrown it. The workers start calling whoever was responsible, Bigfoot. Crew made plaster casts of the prints and brought them to the local newspaper.

On October 6, 1958, Humboldt Times columnists Andrew Gonzalez ran the story under the headline, giant footprints, puzzle residents along Trinity River. The story hit the wire services, it ran in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, and just like that, the name Bigfoot entered the American lexicon. But before we get ahead of ourselves, here's our first hoax alert.

The logging operation was run by a guy named Ray Wallace. When Wallace died in 2002, his family came forward with wooden feet.

“They said that he'd used to fake the prints as a prank.”

His son told reporters, quote, "Ray L Wallace was Bigfoot.

The reality is Bigfoot just died," end quote.

Case closed, right? Not exactly. When researchers compared Wallace's crude wooden feet to the actual plaster cast Jerry Crew had made, they didn't match. And this wasn't just speculation from amateur cryptid lovers.

Jeff Melgerman was a professor of anatomy and anthropology at Idaho State University who spent his career studying foot morphology in primate locomotion. Basically, the go-to guy for understanding how primates move. And he was positive that Wallace's car feet couldn't have produced the prints that Jerry Crew had documented.

There's no question Wallace was a prolific prankster. But whether he was responsible for all the bluff creek evidence or whether something else was also leaving tracks in those woods remains genuinely unclear. What is clear is that by the mid-1960s, Bigfoot fever was spreading. People were finding tracks reporting sightings and heading into the wilderness to look

for the creature. And among them was a man who would go on to create the most famous and most controversial piece of Bigfoot evidence in history. His name was Roger Patterson, a 34-year-old former rodeo cowboy from Yakima, Washington. He was charismatic, driven, restless, and broke.

Patterson was known to bounce checks, dodge creditors, and make promises he couldn't keep. He had a family defeat with no study income. He had also been diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma, adding a layer of urgency to everything he did.

This was a man who knew his time might be running out. And he saw a Bigfoot as his way to financial security. In 1966, he published a self-finance book called "Do Abominal Soman of America" really exist, compiling sightings from across North America. But that wasn't enough for him.

He'd also started filming a pseudo-documentary about cowboys hunting Bigfoot. One of that means he faked what came next, but it matters for context, because in October of 1967, Roger Patterson set out for the forest of northern California, and he would come back with footage that would change everything. To understand how the most famous Bigfoot film ever made came to be, we actually need to

start about 25 miles west of Love Creek, where Jerry Crew first saw those footprints on

In late August of 1967, just a few weeks before Patterson left on his trip, a worker named

“Bud Ryerson made an urgent call to Canadian journalist, John Green.”

He'd found multiple large footprints along the road just a few miles from earlier track discoveries in the area. Green flew down immediately from British Columbia, joined by Bigfoot researcher Rene DeHinden. What they found was remarkable, at least three different sets of tracks, measuring roughly 15 inches, 13 inches, and 10 and a half inches have been left along the road and into

the surrounding creek bed. To Hinden film the tracks, well, Green took photographs. They also brought in Dr. Donald Abbott, an archaeologist from the British Columbia Provincial Museum.

This was big because he was one of the few credentialed scientists to take Bigfoot seriously

at that time and get this. Abbott examined the tracks in person, but couldn't explain what had made them.

“News of the Blue Creek Mountain Discovery reached Roger Patterson through Al Hodgson, the”

owner of a variety store in the nearby town of Willow Creek. Josh then had become the unofficial hub for Bigfoot reports in the area. For years, anyone who found tracks or had a sighting in the Bluff Creek region eventually ended up at his door. Hodgson knew Patterson was interested in Bigfoot, so he passed on the news about the Blue Creek

Mountain tracks. And when Patterson heard about them, he didn't hesitate. He and his friend, Bob Gimlin, started planning their expedition immediately. Gimlin was Patterson's opposite in a lot of ways, steady, quiet, skeptical, but they had a lot in common too.

They were both from Yakima and were tough, physical guys who'd grown up around horses, rodeos and outdoors.

“All to say, they were comfortable in the wilderness, but Gimlin wasn't a true believer in”

Bigfoot. He later said he went along mostly because Patterson was his friend, the trips sounded like an adventure, and he didn't want Patterson going alone into the back country. But he brought his rifle just in case. Meanwhile, Patterson brought along a rented 16-millimeter Kodak movie camera.

He kept it in a saddle bag at all times, loaded and ready. In October 1967, the two men loaded up Gimlin's truck with three horses in several days' worth of provisions, and drove to the Six Rivers National Forest in Northern California, heading for the Bluff Creek area. On October 20, a clear, sunny autumn day, Patterson and Gimlin were riding along the creek

bed when they were rounded of Ben and their horses suddenly spooked. About 80 to 100 feet ahead of the opposite side of the creek was a large figure. It was upright, it was covered in dark hair, and it was walking. Patterson's horse is reared up. He fell from the saddle, scrambled to grab his camera from the saddle bag, and took

off running toward the creature filming as he went.

The footage is shaky at first, you can feel the chaos at the moment, but then it stabilizes

as Patterson finds his footing. What the camera captured over the next 59 seconds has become one of the most scrutinized pieces of film in history. The figure, later nicknamed "Patti" by researchers after Roger Patterson himself, walks steadily from left to right across the frame.

It's arm swing and long, fluid arcs, it's knees are bent in what Biomechanics experts call a compliant gate, which is a way of walking that's distinctly different from how humans typically move. The creature appears to be female with visible breasts, and then comes the moment. Around frame 352, the creature turns its head and upper body and looks directly back at

Patterson and Gimlin. That single frame, the dark face, the heavy brow ridge, a calm, almost dismissive glance over the shoulder, became the defining image of Bigfoot and popular culture. After turning, the creature continues walking and disappears into the tree line. Bob Gimlin, who stayed on his horse with his rifle ready, later recall the moment vividly.

In 2017 interview, he said, "The moment I saw her," I just said, "Oh my god, they really do exist," and quote. The men didn't pursue the creature into the forest. Instead, they examined the area and found a clear trail of footprints. The prints were 14.5 inches long with a stride of about 41 inches.

Jefferson made plaster cast of several of them. That evening, he drove about 54 miles south to Willow Creek, with straight to El Hodgson's

Patterson told Hodgson what had happened and asked him to call Dr. Donald Abbott, the

“same scientist who examined the Blue Creek Mountain Tracks just weeks before.”

Patterson had a specific request. He wanted Abbott to come down with a tracking dog and help them find the creature while the trail was so fresh. His Bigfoot believer in physical anthropologist Grover Crans, a Washington state university later pointed out, "This same day call to a scientist was evidence against a hoax.

If you had just faked a Bigfoot film, the last thing you'd want is a respected researcher showing up with tracking dogs to investigate the site." But Abbott said, "No," which meant nobody else could verify the discovery. But Patterson wasn't going to let that stop him. He drove onto the city of Urika to ship the film to his brother-in-law for development.

When the footage came back, it was unlike anything the Bigfoot world had ever seen.

For the first time, there was a moving color film of a creature that matched the descriptions

people had in reporting for decades. Patterson and Gimland took the film on a barnstorming tour, screening it in auditoriums and theaters across the Pacific Northwest. In the pre-internet age, curious locals snapped up tickets to see it for themselves. The Patterson Gimland film, or PGF, as researchers call it, is often described as one of

the most watched short film rills in history. And is frequently compared to the superior film of the Kennedy assassination. Much of the superior film divided a nation over what really happened in Dallas, the PGF split the world into two camps. Those who saw undeniable proof of an unknown creature, and those who saw nothing more than

a man in a costume.

And just like this recruiter film, that debate still raises on today.

Let's top groceries, specifically your groceries, with Instacart.

“You want your groceries just the way you like them, right?”

Well, the Instacard app lets you do just that. They have a new preference picker that lets you pick how ripe or unripe you want your bananas. Shoppers can see your preferences up front, helping guide their choices. Instacart, get groceries just how you like.

I'm Shankar Vidantam, here to tell you about a great mystery. That mystery is you. As the host of a podcast called Hidden Brain, I explore big questions about what it means to be human. Things like, where do our emotions come from?

Why do so many of us feel overwhelmed by modern life? How can we better understand the people around us? Discover your hidden brain. Find us wherever you get your podcasts.

“From the moment of the PGF footage was shown publicly, the debate was fierce and has never”

led up. Let's start with the believers. Local anthropologists, Grover Crans, the professor who vouched for the scientific credibility, a Patterson's same day call to Dr. Abbott, became one of the film's most vocal defenders. Crans spent years analyzing the footage and the associate footprint cast.

He argued that the creature's proportions, particularly the length of its arms, relative to its body, and the way it's muscles appeared to move under the skin, were inconsistent with a human in a costume. It was also Jeff Maldrum, the Idaho State University professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, who challenged the Ray Wallace wooden feet hoax.

Before his death in 2025, Maldrum had assembled one of the world's largest collections, the alleged Sasquatch Footprint cast, or made one of the few credential academics willing to take the evidence seriously. He argued that the creature's foot structure is bent negate and is overall body proportions, don't match any known primate, and also don't match a human wearing padding, or suit.

Creature performer and suit builder Janos Prasca, known for his ape suit work on Star Trek and Boston Space, also view the film. He said the creature looked real to him. Prasca had spent his career building and wearing eight costumes on camera. If anyone could spot a suit, you'd think it would be him, and now for the skeptics.

To soad in primate expert, Janabier examined the film and offered a memorable assessment. He could have find obvious evidence of a costume, but he still didn't believe it showed a real animal. Other scientists dismissed it outright. They argued that 59 seconds of shaky footage from a man who had a financial motive to

produce exactly this kind of film simply wasn't enough to overturn everything we know about North American wildlife. And the skeptics were just going on gut instinct. They had specific problems with the film.

project, and the fact that no one has ever produced a second piece of footage even remotely

comparable.

“Despite thousands of people looking for big foot with increasingly sophisticated equipment in”

the decades since. But the strongest challenge to the film came from people who said they were directly involved in making it. In 2002, costume manufacturer Philip Morris came forward and said he'd sold Roger Patterson a guerrilla suit in the summer of 1967.

Morris said it was his standard six-piece suit, ahead a back-separate fur torso with arms and legs, glove hands, and latex feet. According to Morris, Patterson asked for extra synthetic fur made of a material called "dinelle" and advised how to hide the eye holes. Patterson says he told Patterson to apply black makeup around the wearers eyes and to brush

the fur down over the zipper line. On his own, this could be enough to call the whole thing into question. And then came the confession.

“In 2004, Patterson's friend, Bob Heronamis, went public in Greg Long's book The Making”

of Bigfoot. Heronamis was one of the friends Patterson had recruited to act in his bigfoot docudrama earlier in 1967. He knew Patterson's methods, his ambitions, and his debts. Heronamis claimed he was the man in the suit.

He said Patterson had recruited him through Bob Gimlin, promised him $1,000 and never paid.

Heronamis said he'd kept quiet for 36 years, partly because he hoped to eventually get some money, and partly because his lawyer told him he could face fraud charges if he confessed while Patterson was making money for the film. Heronamis wrote people in Yakima backed up her on his story, his family and friends said they'd seen a gorilla suit in the trunk of his mom's buick in 1967.

So that's it, right? Case closed for real this time. Well, not just yet. Defenders, the Patterson Gimlin film, have pointed out several problems with the hoax narrative. Film Morris' standard gorilla suit was designed for Carvel Side Show girl to gorilla illusions.

A classic carnival trick where a woman appears to transform into an ape right before the audiences eyes.

“The key thing is, these costumes were designed to be glimpsed briefly in dim lighting,”

not film for a minute and broad daylight. Heronamis also described it as being made of horse hide, but Morris said it was denial. The physical proportions of the creature in the film don't match Heronamis's body type, and no one has ever produced the actual suit. Morris also longstanding rumor that Academy Award-winning makeup artist John Chambers had secretly

created the Bigfoot suit, Thor Patterson. Chambers was the man behind the groundbreaking costumes and plan of the apes, which came out just one year after the PGF was filmed. So you can see why this rumor circulated Hollywood for decades. Director John Land is even claimed that Chambers had confessed to him, but in 1997 interview,

Chambers himself flatly denied any involvement saying, quote, "I'm good, but not that good." And then in March 26th, the story took its most dramatic turn yet. A documentary called capturing Bigfoot directed by Mark Evans premiered at the South of Southwest Film Festival, and it dropped a bombshell. A film technician named Norm Johnson, who'd were for Boeing's film department in Seattle,

had kept a canister, a 16-millimeter film, locked in a safe for over 50 years. When Johnson died in 2024, his daughter gave the film to Evans. According to the documentary, Evans concluded it was rehearsal footage, a roughly 40-second clip. Apparently shot before the 1967 expedition, showing a thinner figure in a Bigfoot costume walking

through a wooded area similar to where the film was taken. And the biggest revelation came from Roger Patterson's own son. Clinton Patterson, now in his mid-60s, appeared on camera and stated that his mother, Patricia, Roger's widow, had confirmed to him that Roger had fake the film to make money for the family.

Bob Herodomus, now in his 80s, also appeared in the documentary, reiterating his claim that he wore the suit, and in one remarkable scene captured by Evans' cameras, Herodomus and Clint Patterson attended a 2024 Bigfoot convention and approached Bob Gimlin to tell him, they were ready to come clean.

Gimlin reportedly agreed to join them and revealing the hoax on camera, but that moment never

came. The documentary has been widely covered, but it hasn't settled the debate, not even close. The leaders have pushed back hard, questioning the chain of custody of the newly discovered

Whether the rehearsal footage is genuinely connected to the 1967 suit, and whether Clinton Patterson's account is reliable.

“Some point out that Mark Evans paid $30,000 in licensing fees to use Roger Patterson's”

original footage, money that went to the Patterson estate, creating a potential conflict of interest. But what about the two men behind it all?

Bob Gimlin, now in his 90s, has never formally admitted to being part of any hoax.

Roger Patterson himself maintained the film was genuine up to his death from Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1972 at age 38. So the film sits in this maddening limbo. Never proven real, and never quite proven fake beyond all doubt, even with a confession to pose it rehearsal footage at a family admission, and that's precisely what makes it so

fascinating. But the Patterson Gimlin film is really just the tip of the iceberg, because underneath the debate, over one piece of footage is a much bigger question. Does Bigfoot actually exist?

“Let's start with what maids from science has to say.”

For most scientists, the answer is pretty straightforward. Bigfoot doesn't exist, and any science are either a hoax or a misidentification.

So let's talk with hoax's first.

Because the Bigfoot field has been played by fraud from the very beginning, we already covered Ray Wallace's wooden feet at Bluff Creek. But that was just the start. Baked photographs, doctored audio recordings, as opposed to Bigfoot calls. If fabricated hair and fecal samples have been a constant problem over the years, Ray

Wallace himself was known to plant hair from bison on his wild animal farm in the woods for researchers to find. And one of my favorite hoax stories is from 2008, when two men from Georgia held an international press conference claiming they'd found a Bigfoot body in the Appalachian Mountains. They had photo.

They had a freezer full of evidence.

“They had media coverage from around the world.”

Plus for what was inside that freezer, it turned out to be a rubber Halloween costume, stuffed with roadkill and animal entrails frozen in a block of ice. When the hoax was exposed, the press conference footage went viral, just not in the way they'd hoped. Then there's a misidentification angle, which is when people mistake a regular animal for

something much more mysterious. The most common culprit, black bears. Care found throughout the Pacific Northwest, and they can, and do walk on their hind legs, sometimes for a surprising distances. A large black bear standing upright can reach six feet or more.

Viewed from a distance through trees by someone who's primed to see Bigfoot, it's easy to understand how a bear could become something else in your mind. Add in Parideolia, which is the tendency of the human brain to see humanoid shades in an ambiguous stimuli and you've got a recipe for confident misidentifications. And the science backs this up.

In 2014, geneticist Brian Sykes at Oxford University conducted one of the most rigorous Sasquatch studies ever attempted. His team collected 36 hair samples that had been submitted as Bigfoot or Yeti evidence from around the world. They used advanced DNA sequencing to identify what animal each hair actually came from.

Results. Every single sample came from a known species, bears, horses, cows, racoons, deer, porcupines, and in two fascinating cases from the Himalayas, an ancient polar bear lineage, intriguing for wildlife biology, not so much for Bigfoot Hunters. Which brings us to the strongest scientific argument against Bigfoot, the breeding population

problem. For a species of large primates to survive in North America over thousands of years, you need a viable breeding population. Hunters are even thousands of individuals, spread across a range large enough to sustain them.

They would need food, territory, mates, and genetic diversity. And in all the decades of searching with trail cameras, drones, satellite imaging, EDNA sampling, and thousands of dedicated researchers calming the forest, no one has ever found a body, not a skeleton, not a verified hair sample, not a single piece of DNA evidence that stands up to peer review.

The scientific consensus is clear, there is no physical evidence for Bigfoot. But as we'll see, the believers have answers for all of this.

Carters has your family covered for every summer first.

First steps, first swim lesson, or first sleepover.

and easy dressing details.

“Generations of families have trusted our must-have for babies, toddlers, and kids, designed”

to shine, season after season. Visit carders.com to shop the latest styles or find a card or store new you. Instacart makes grocery shopping easier, and just because you're not doing the shopping yourself, doesn't mean you don't care how it's done. With Instacart Shopper Notes, you can get particular about what you want, right in the

app. Like we're Tissary Chicken, that's extra crispy. It's better that's sharp as your skates, and let us you'd actually pick yourself. Just leave a note for your shoppers so they can get it right for you without having to ask.

That way, you can get groceries just how you like.

Download the Instacart app and shop today. If you've ever wondered what diseases, medieval P tests and cocktails having common, you're in the right place. On our show, this podcast will kill you. We explore the wild world of diseases, their history, biology, and impact today.

Scenes are in part a victim of their own success. They have been so effective in preventing disease and death that we take them for granted. New episodes drop every Tuesday on the exactly right network. Listen to this podcast for kill you on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Okay, so what a big foot is a real animal. What would it be? Be most scientifically grounded theory among big foot believers is the gigantic pithicus hypothesis.

“And honestly, as even more rather than you'd expect.”

In 1935, a German paleo anthropologist named GHR Vaughan Kernigswald was browsing through a pharmacy in Hong Kong when something caught his eye. In the drawers where traditional Chinese medicines were kept, he found enormous primate mollers for sale. In China, fossils had been sold as dragon bones for centuries, which were ground up and used

as ingredients in traditional remedies. Vaughan Kernigswald recognized these teeth as belonged to something even more extraordinary, it primate far larger than any living species. So we bought the teeth and started studying them. The mollers were massive, roughly 20 by 22 millimeters significantly larger than a grilles.

Vaughan Kernigswald named the new species Giganto Pithicus. Over the following decades, researchers would collect hundreds more teeth in several jaw bones, in China, Vietnam, and India slowly piecing together the profile of the largest primate that ever lived. Based on these fossils and comparisons with gorillas and other modern apes, scientists

estimate that Giganto Pithicus stood up to 10 feet tall and may have weighed between 400 and 40 in over 1,000 pounds. It's teeth were riddled with cavities, suggesting a diet rich in fruits, a fibrous vegetation, probably including bamboo. Giganto Pithicus went extinct approximately 300,000 years ago, likely because climate change

shrank its preferred sub-tropical forest habitat, but it co-existed with how more rectus for hundreds of thousands of years, early humans and giant apes lived side by side. So here's a question. Could that have been the birth of the Sasquatch legend, and is it possible that some of those giant apes survived?

That is exactly what fiscal anthropologists, Grover Crans, thought.

“Remember, he was one of the major supporters of the powers in Gimland film, and he was”

definitely the probate foot camp. In the 1970s, Crans argued that a population of Giganto Pithicus could have survived extinction migrat from Asia to North America over a land bridge during the ice age that adapted to the dense forest of the Pacific Northwest. Under this theory, Bigfoot's sightings represent encounters with a relic population.

A species, we assumed, what extinct, hundreds of thousands of years ago, but didn't. It's a compelling idea, and the physical descriptions do line up in striking ways. Witnesses across decades have consistently described Bigfoot as standing seven to ten feet tall, weighing several hundred pounds, covered in dark hair with a flat face, a pronounced

brow ridge, long, powerful arms, and a stocky muscular frame that moves with surprising

speed. That profile matches what scientists think Giganto Pithicus looks like. And the habitat argument is genuinely worth considering. The U.S. Forest Service manages nearly 25 million acres of national forest land in Oregon and Washington alone.

Within that zone, there are 66 designated wilderness areas encompassing 4.6 million acres. Land where there is no motorized access and human presence is minimal.

than any European country except Russia, and you're looking at an almost incomprehensible expanse of wild terrain. Some of these old growth forests are so dense that sunlight barely reaches the floor. Diglass forests grow up to 300 feet tall and 10 feet in diameter.

There are valleys in the Pacific Northwest that have never been surveyed on foot.

“Could a large intelligent primate remain hidden in that kind of landscape?”

Believe or say yes. New species are still being discovered in remote forests around the world. The Siyola, a large ox-like animal weighing up to 220 pounds, wasn't discovered in the forests of Vietnam until 1992, but there are serious problems with this theory. First, all known gigantic pithicus fossils come from Asia.

There is zero fossil evidence that any great ape ever lived in North America before humans arrived. Second, most researchers believed gigantic pithicus was almost certainly quadrupedal. It walked on all floors like a gorilla. Bigfoot is consistently described as bipedal, walking on two feet.

Third, gigantic pithicus appears to have been a dietary specialist, eating mostly bamboo

and other tough plants. It would have struggled to adapt to the varied ecosystems of North America.

“Even famed primate hola just Jane Goodall publicly said she believed in undiscovered”

great ape could exist in North America, but she was careful to note that this was based on the volume of sightings not unverified physical evidence. Still, the gigantic pithicus theory represents the least speculative version of the Bigfoot hypothesis. It's grounded in real paleontology, real evolutionary biology, and the very real fact that

we continue to discover new species, including large ones on a regular basis. So maybe the forests are hiding more than we think. And according to this next theory, it's hiding something we can't even comprehend. Alright, let's go all the way out, because if you spend enough time in the Bigfoot community, you'll encounter theories that go far beyond undiscovered primates.

Get ready for this. One of the more popular alternative theories is that Bigfoot is an interdimensional being. A creature that exists partially in our reality and partially in another plane. And yes, there's reasoning behind it.

Supporters of this idea point to the fact that despite thousands of reports sightings,

Bigfoot never leaves behind a body, verifiable DNA, or consistent physical evidence.

It seems to appear and disappear at will. Someone is a report that the creature simply vanished mid-sighting. One moment it was there and the next day was gone. This actually aligns with some indigenous traditions. Many tribal nations describe Bigfoot like beings as having supernatural abilities.

The Nuttka Vancouver Island, Belia Sasquatch, could turn invisible or teleport. The Lummy told stories of it appearing as a deer or bear to trick hunters, then revealing it's true form. Plotto tribe describes so-called "stick Indians" who could confuse people by whistling and cause them to get lost in familiar forests.

So there's definitely a history of Bigfoot like creatures operating in ways beyond our understanding. Then there's a UFO connection. Yes, seriously. It's a surprisingly large number of Bigfoot reports are accompanied by reports of unusual lights in the sky, electromagnetic disturbances, or other anomalous phenomena.

Some researchers have group Bigfoot with other high-stranged events suggesting the creature may be associated with whatever phenomenon is behind UFO sightings. Now is there scientific evidence for any of this? No. These theories are worth mentioning because they reveal something important about why the

Bigfoot legend endure. It's not just about whether a big ape is hiding in the woods. For many people, Bigfoot represents something deeper, a connection to the wild, to the unknown, to the idea that the world still holds genuine mysteries. Nature writer Robert Michael Piles studied Bigfoot enthusiasts for his book Where Bigfoot

walks and concluded that many of them don't actually want to find Bigfoot. They want to be Bigfoot. The creature represents freedom from civilization, from rules, from the modern world. Maybe the most interesting thing about Bigfoot isn't whether it's real. It's what our answer to that question reveals about us.

“You know what strikes me most about the Patterson Gimlin film in Bigfoot discourse?”

It's not the creature. It's the reaction to it. For almost 60 years, people have looked at the same 59 seconds of footage and come away with completely opposite conclusions.

And yet, where one person sees definitive proof of a new species, another person sees a guy in a gorilla suit. That tells us something profound about how belief works. We don't just see evidence, we interpret it. And our interpretation is shaped by everything we already believe, everything we want to

be true and everything we're afraid of. The scientific establishment sees a great new film with no corroborating physical evidence and says, "Not enough." There. But the believer sees a creature whose movement, proportions and behavior don't match any known

animal or any costume ever produced and says, "What more do you need?" But then there's the indigent perspective, which asks a different question entirely,

“"Why do you need to prove something that's been known for thousands of years?"”

I think the Patterson Gimlin film endures because it sits right on that line between the explainable and the inexplicable. It's close enough to a host to be dismissed and close enough to real to be haunting and we can't look away. Okay, so where do I actually land on this?

While we honest, after looking at all the evidence, I think the Patterson Gimlin film is probably a hoax. And the capturing Bigfoot documentary makes that conclusion harder than ever to avoid. You now have rehearsal footage, a confession from Patterson's own son, relaying his mother's admission, the continued claims of Bob Perronomus, and the historical record of Patterson's

questionable financial dealings. Given that there is Patterson's Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosis, a dying man desperate to leave something behind for his family. That doesn't make him a villain, although it does make the financial motive impossible to ignore.

“But even the documentary's defenders acknowledge it isn't quite a slam dunk.”

Some Bigfoot researchers have questioned the chain of custody of the newly discovered film, and one of the footage truly shows what Mark Evans claims it shows. And so, the debate continues.

Here's what I keep coming back to.

The best costume, a special effects experts of the 1960s, looked at the film and couldn't figure out how it was done. John Chambers, the man behind the plan of the apes, said it was beyond his abilities. He wasn't just being humble. Other Hollywood professionals, including Universal Studios technicians and a Disney executive,

reached similar conclusions. Modern Biomechanics analyses have failed to replicate the creature's gate using human subjects. If it's a suit, it's the single greatest costume ever created, made by a broke rodeo cowboy with no special effects training using technology from 1967.

That's not impossible, but it does give me a pause. As for Bigfoot itself, I was scientist, I followed Evans. And Evans says there's no verify physical proof of a large, undiscovered primate in North America. But, I'm also someone who respects the traditions of the indigenous peoples who have known

about this being for millennia, just because Western science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it isn't real. We've been wrong before. The ocean was supposed to be fully mapped. Then we found Hydrothermal Vens teaming with life.

The sealicant that was supposed to be extinct for 66 million years.

Then a fisherman caught one in 1938. Science is a process of discovering how much we don't know. So do I think Bigfoot is out there?

“Probably not, but do I think the forests of North America still hold secrets?”

Absolutely. And I think anyone who says otherwise is in paying attention. So if the Patterson Gimlin film were shot today, how would it all go down? First of all, it wouldn't be 59 seconds of shaky 16 millimeter film. It would be a 4K video from a smart phone.

Roger Patterson wouldn't need to rent a camera and ship the film to be developed. He'd be live streaming the encounter to the entire internet before the creature even finished walking across the creek bed. And that's both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, the footage would be crystal clear.

We can see every hair, every muscle movement, every detail of the face. AI analysis could assess the creature's proportions in real time. There'd be GPS coordinates, time stamps, and metadata embedded in the file. Early is that's what you'd think. But modern Bigfoot sightings haven't played out like that.

Take one from October 2024 when a TikTok or name a mantle of phara posted a 10-second clip,

showing what appeared to be a large hair-covered figure leaning against a tree in Oklahoma's parallel forest. The video went viral almost instantly, wracking up millions of views. It was remarkably clear compared to most Bigfoot footage.

around.

And the reaction immediately split.

Some people were genuinely shaken, others called it an obvious fake. Look up the jacklings adult Sasquatch costume if you're curious. No one could agree, and there is no way to verify anything after the fact.

“That's how it played out with a lot of modern Bigfoot videos.”

We live in the age of deep fakes, CGI, and the AI-generated content, so convincing that

experts can't always tell the difference.

The very technology that should give us better evidence has also given us infinite reasons to doubt any evidence. Ironically, the Paris and Gillian film may be more compelling because of its limitations.

“The grain, the shape, the disturbance, and a world where anything can be faked, the imperfect”

evidence of 1967 carries a strange kind of authenticity. Because what would really be different today? The indigenous perspective would finally be part of the conversation. In 1967, nobody asked the Hupa or the Yurug what they thought about the creature filmed on their ancestral land.

Today, those voices would be centered, and they might offer a framework for understanding

Bigfoot that science alone never could.

Whether you think it's a primate, a spirit, or a guy in a suit, Bigfoot isn't going anywhere.

“And honestly, in a world that feels increasingly mapped, measured, and monitored, maybe”

that's exactly what we need. The possibility that something out there is still beyond our understanding. So stay curious, and maybe keep your camera ready. Thanks so much for joining me for this episode of Hidden History, I'm Dr. Hoony Bot. Join me next time, as we explore another unbelievable story from the past.

What do you think of the Patterson Gimlin film, brilliant hopes, or genuine encounter, and do you believe in Bigfoot? Let me know in the comments, and I might talk about it in a future episode. And be sure to subscribe on YouTube, or rate, review, and follow if you're listening on audio so we can keep building this community together.

Thanks for watching, and I'll see you next episode.