Did anyone see the National Geographic piece about Patterson-Gimlin film analysis?

National Geographic released a new analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin footage (the famous 1967 Bigfoot film from California). They brought in costume specialists, biomechanics experts, the whole lot. Conclusion: could be a bloke in a suit, but there's aspects of the movement that are 'difficult to replicate.'

So basically: inconclusive, which means Nat Geo got clicks without committing to anything.

But here's what got me: one of the biomechanists noted that the arm swing is genuinely unusual for a human in a costume. Even accounting for restricted movement, the fluid motion doesn't quite match human locomotion. Not proof of Bigfoot, but interesting enough that I watched it three times.

Anyone here actually believe the Patterson-Gimlin footage is genuine? Or are we all convinced it's a hoax at this point? What would it actually take for you to be convinced of Sasquatch existence?

The arm-swing thing is interesting but not definitive. You can get weird movement from costume limitations and the camera frame rate of the era (which was lower than modern video). Doesn't prove it's fake, but doesn't prove it's real either.

I think the footage is probably a hoax, but an elaborate hoax, which makes it interesting regardless. The question isn't "Is it a real Bigfoot?" anymore, it's "Who made it and how did they do it?" That's still unsolved.

For me, Bigfoot existence would require: a skeletal remain, a genetic sample, or multiple clear video/photo documentation from independent sources in the same region. We have none of those things. Single blurry footage from 1967 isn't enough, even if it is a very good hoax.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if there's an unknown primate species in North America. The wilderness is massive and we discover new species regularly. But Bigfoot specifically? The evidence is weak.

one of the biomechanists noted that the arm swing is genuinely unusual for a human in a costume

This is the compelling bit for me. Not because it proves Bigfoot, but because it shows the footage has real technical sophistication that a 1967 hoaxer would have needed to achieve. How did they know that much about primate movement? It either suggests genuine knowledge or lucky accident.

Either way, fascinating film.

I think the Patterson-Gimlin footage is fascinating precisely because it's unresolved. Doesn't have to be alien or supernatural - could be a genuine undiscovered animal species, could be the best hoax ever made. The mystery is the interesting bit.