Patterson-Gimlin film—still the best evidence or just a guy in a suit?

I've watched the Patterson-Gimlin footage more times than I can count, and I genuinely don't know what to think. The creature's gait is remarkable - the way the arms move, the stride length. Primatologists have studied it and some say no human could fake that movement. Others say it's absolutely a suited actor with an exaggerated walk.

The thing that gets me is that in 1967, the suit technology would have had to be insanely good. But on the other hand, Patty Patterson had financial incentive to hoax it, and we've never found any physical evidence (hair, DNA, bodies, confirmed tracks). In the 50+ years since, with millions of people in the woods with cameras, why nothing better?

I guess I'm asking: are we believers in Bigfoot because of the Patterson film, or believers in spite of it? And if it IS a hoax, does that kill the whole cryptid or just that one piece of evidence?

BigfootScholar_Roy: The Patterson-Gimlin footage is actually less important than people think. If it's real, it's amazing evidence. If it's fake, it doesn't disprove Bigfoot - it just means those two guys hoaxed it. There's plenty of other evidence: footprint casts, eyewitness accounts across centuries and cultures, thermal imaging. Pinning everything on one film is silly.

BiomechanicsBot:

"Primatologists have studied it and some say no human could fake that movement."

WildernessWatcher_Sue: The reason we haven't found a dead Bigfoot in 50 years with millions of cameras is because if they exist, they're incredibly rare and incredibly smart. We barely have footage of known endangered species. Why is absence of evidence suddenly evidence of absence?

RationalRick: Because the default position should be "doesn't exist" not "exists but we can't find it." If something's out there, we should be finding dead ones, roadkill, DNA in water samples, something. We've found ancient human DNA in soil and water. Why not Bigfoot DNA if they're as common as some sighting reports suggest?

CryptidHistory_Jess: The pattern of Bigfoot sightings follows human population expansion and camera proliferation. In the 1950s-70s you get more reports. Then it flattens out even as everyone gets a camera in their pocket. That either means Bigfoot is getting rarer (possible) or people are seeing something else and misidentifying it (also possible).

FilmAnalysis_Mark: The Patterson-Gimlin film is brilliant misdirection either way. If real, it proves nothing about current populations. If fake, people use it to dismiss all other evidence. The film itself is less important than what it made people start looking for.