Patterson-Gimlin film 75 years later—is it time to admit it was a hoax?

OK, controversial take: the Patterson-Gimlin film is the closest thing to evidence we have for Bigfoot, which means we basically have nothing. It's 1967, grainy 16mm film of something furry walking through a forest. By modern standards that's inadmissible as evidence of anything. And we've had 75 years of increasingly better cameras and we've gotten... less convincing footage, not more.

The arguments for why we don't have better evidence now (cameras everywhere, wildlife increases) seem weaker than "it was probably a guy in a suit." I'm not saying Bigfoot doesn't exist, but I think the cryptid community does itself a disservice by treating a 60-year-old film like it's definitive proof instead of just interesting historical footage.

Thoughts? Expecting to get roasted but genuinely curious about the counterarguments.

BigfootBelievers_Union:

by modern standards that's inadmissible as evidence of anything

By modern scientific standards, sure. But Bigfoot would be a living animal and therefore wouldn't exist until we have conventional evidence of it. That's circular logic. The Patterson film is evidence of *something* unusual, which is worth investigating regardless of whether it's definitive proof of Bigfoot specifically. Evidence doesn't have to be perfect to be worth examining.

SuitmakingSam: I actually analyzed the gait and proportions against known primates and a human in a suit would have to have proportions that are basically impossible. The arm-to-leg ratio is wrong for a human, the shoulders are wrong, the hip articulation is wrong. Could someone have fabricated a suit with those proportions? Maybe, but that's more sophisticated than what was technologically feasible in 1967 for film fakery.

PragmaticPete:

we've gotten... less convincing footage, not more.

This actually makes sense if Bigfoot exists and is intelligent/aware of cameras. The earlier footage from less camera-saturated times might be more likely just by probability. More cameras now means more sightings, but also more false positives and hoaxes mixed in. Harder to sort signal from noise.

SkepticalSusan: The gait argument doesn't hold up. We don't know what unknown primate's gait would look like, so comparing it to known primates is circular. And frankly, someone being clever with costume design in 1967 is more plausible than an undocumented 400-pound primate population surviving in modern North America undetected. The burden of proof is on the existence claim, not on proving it's fake.

CryptozoologyCarl:

an undocumented 400-pound primate population surviving in modern North America undetected

Mountain lions managed it for centuries. We didn't know grizzlies still existed in certain regions. Large animals can survive in wild terrain without constant human detection. It's not impossible, just improbable. Which is different from impossible. And improbable events do occur - that's how things get discovered.

FilmEnthusiast_Fred: Nobody's mentioned that the Patterson film is also just... not great evidence by forensic standards? The camera work is suspiciously convenient, the lighting is good, it's well-framed. For a chance encounter while riding horses, it's oddly well-documented. Not saying it's definitely a hoax, but it's got hoax-adjacent qualities that deserve acknowledgment.