ackstasis Ah, Bigfoot! These 952 frames of shaky 16mm colour footage have contributed more to the plight of cryptozoology than any piece of evidence besides Robert Kenneth Wilson's 1934 "Surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster {now widely considered a hoax}. Additionally, it might also be the second most widely-viewed amateur footage ever taken, runner-up only to Abraham Zapruder's grisly images of President Kennedy's assassination. To the untrained eye, 'Bigfoot (1967)' may simply appear to show a man in a particularly well-constructed ape-man suit traipsing through the forest, but those with experience can tell you better – it surely depicts a large, hairy bipedal apelike figure, a species unknown to science, which had momentarily emerged from its wilderness paradise to oversee the filming of Roger Patterson and Robert Gimlin's Bigfoot documentary. If you think you can detect a hint of sarcasm in that remark, then you're completely correct, as nothing could convince me that the figure in the Patterson-Gimlin footage is anything but a hoax, albeit an ingenious one.As a youth, I was consistently fascinated by the field of cryptozoology. Even more so than plain zoology, it really fired the imagination to consider what enigmatic creatures may be roaming the wilderness, just waiting to stumble across our paths and into science. Hell, I even once struck out into the Grampians in search of the black panther that is rumoured to roam the region, a species reportedly released into the Bush by American servicemen during WWII {our investigation was interesting but rather inconclusive}. However, I've never given much belief to the notion of Bigfoot; for me it seems wholly beyond the realms of credibility. Peculiarly, most continents have their own variations on a common theme – the Sasquatch or Bigfoot of North America, the Yeti of Tibet and Nepal, the Yeren of mainland China, the Orang Pendek of Indonesia, and the Yowie of Australia. Perhaps it's only natural for humans to envision a hidden human-like species, more closely related to us than the chimpanzee or gorilla.I don't wish to launch into any in-depth discussion on the implausibility of an undiscovered hominid existing in North America. It would only serve to alienate those who do believe in such a thing, and what's life all about if we can't use our imaginations? However, given that I've established my stance that the film is a fabrication, I'd like to analyse a few details to ascertain why the footage has proved such a cultural phenomenon. First of all, the ape-suit is convincing, at least from a distance, and at least while being shot with a shaky camera. The actor {Bob Heironimus, allegedly} walks with a stooped back, uses padding to expand his frame but otherwise walks with an assuredly human-like gait. Most importantly of all, he looks back! Such a detail should not be underestimated, for it is this legendary frame 352 – an image of a potentially-inhuman entity glaring directly at the viewer with clear recognition and even a certain degree of contempt – that has enduringly captured the collective public consciousness.Just one year before 'The Planet of the Apes (1968)' and '2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)' unveiled very impressive ape-man costumes that were convincing at close range, it's not difficult to believe that Patterson got his hands on a simple animal suit that would have been quite sufficient for his purposes. When he passed away in 1972, Patterson gave no hint that he had fabricated his Bigfoot. Perhaps he was simply being noble, protecting the credibility of his fellow filmmaker, or perhaps there's even greater glory to be found in the fact that nobody will ever know the truth. Gimlin is still around, and delivers occasional lectures on the search for Bigfoot, but you sense that Patterson was the real mastermind behind the ruse. There's also the slight possibility that both filmmakers are completely earnest, and that a third party decided to take them for a ride, but surely such an elaborate prank would have been far too difficult without the filmmakers' cooperation. That this footage is fabricated certainly doesn't negate its importance or cultural value – the myth of Bigfoot owes its continued existence to 952 seconds of shaky home video.

TravisBrain i have always followed the stories of mysterious monsters, be it loch Nessie monsters, abominable snowmen, the Bigfoot creature or Irish midgets and their pots of gold. naturally i was very interested in this film: it is a document on the legend of the Bigfoot creature. my only wish is that the film was made years later, for it could have interviewed me about my encounter with the abnormal beast. it happened in 1996 when i was on a camping trip shooting grouse in the forests of Americana. as i trudged through the forest, i became aware of a human like form in the undergrowth and immediately knew it was Bigfoot. i jumped on the creature and wrestled it to the floor, but the creature was too strong for me and made good its escape after kicking me in the shin. my friend Adam took a photo of my shin shortly after the incident, and the evidence is there for all to see: the picture depicts what is undoubtedly a Bigfoot toe print indelibly imprinted into the purple swollen flesh of my shin.

jeff9242 This was and continues to be one of the biggest pieces of mystery ever captured on film. At 6'6 and 350 pounds the object in the film cannot and has never been proved to be a man in a suit. Roger Patterson died in 1972 and to his last day swore to its authenticity. Whoever suggested Patterson admitted its a fake got some bad info. Bob Gimblin is still alive and frequently speaks at conventions and symposiums on the film and what the 2 men saw that day. Had Patterson ever admitted it as a fake Gimblin would have never been seen again in the spotlight. I have an open mind about this film. Its quite possible this is a real bigfoot. At the very least its the most elaborate hoax of its time.

Squrpleboy If anyone has seen a documentary on the "yet uncaptured" creatures known as Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, they have invariably seen this short film clip. Along with the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's assassination, and the B& W photo of the Loch Ness Monster' s head rising out of the water (another recently revealed hoax), this film has been utilized in, and shown on, more conspiracy based films and TV shows than any other; truly making it a piece of American pop-culture now.And it is a fake.Bob Gimlin or Roger Patterson (I can't recall which at the moment) made a death-bed confession revealing that it had been a wonderful hoax all those many years ago. No doubt they over- joyed skeptics, crushed the dreams of believers, and discredited the scientists who have used the film to demonstrate the infallible proof that the Bigfoot creatures do EXIST. What I never understood, even at as young as age 8 years old, was how ANYONE who saw it actually believed it wasn't a MAN! Anyone with a hulking Uncle Clyde, Bob, or George-type guy in their family has seen a large man walk like that! C'mon! I NEVER bought it as genuine for a second. (Not to mention that it was conveniently just out-of-focus enough to blur any details, despite Patterson being an amateur filmmaker as well.) Still, it was a harmless prank, and all in all, I think it is a neat clip to watch, and a great piece of modern American history. 5/10.Now if someone would just come forward about the Moon Landing...