Patterson-Gimlin footage—genuine or talented hoaxer?

I've been down a Bigfoot research rabbit hole this week (don't judge) and the Patterson-Gimlin footage from 1967 keeps coming up. Depending on who you ask, it's either definitive proof of Bigfoot or the most famous hoax in cryptozoology. Usually with absolute certainty either way.

What strikes me: if a talented costume designer and someone with filmmaking skills made that footage in 1967, it would have to be *very* good. The gait, the muscle movement, the apparent height and weight all look oddly authentic. But that might just mean it's a very good hoax, not that it's therefore genuine.

Conversely, if it *is* genuine footage of a real creature, we've had 55+ years of searching in the same region with modern technology and haven't found a single body, skeleton, or DNA sample. What's the more likely scenario: millions of creatures hiding perfectly, or one really impressive 1960s-era costume?

I'm genuinely asking: what's the strongest argument for either side? And can we please have a discussion that doesn't involve "you're clearly an idiot if you believe/don't believe this"?

The gait argument is actually the strongest pro-genuine argument, I think. The way that creature moves is biomechanically weird - it's hard to replicate even with modern technology. So either it's a real creature with an unusual gait, or it's a 1960s hoaxer who accidentally got the biomechanics right by accident. Both seem unlikely, which is interesting.

we've had 55+ years of searching in the same region with modern technology and haven't found a single body, skeleton, or DNA sample

The footage itself has been analyzed to death. Some analyses suggest it's a guy in a suit, others suggest the proportions are wrong for a human in a suit. But "we can't agree on what the film shows" isn't actually evidence of anything except that 8mm footage from 1967 is ambiguous.

What no one talks about is how lucky that footage is. They *just happened* to be filming in the exact location where a Bigfoot was walking? That's an extraordinary coincidence. The simpler explanation: they brought the costume specifically to film it. But I'll grant that both explanations are speculative.

The anthropological question is interesting too. If Bigfoot populations existed in numbers large enough to sustain breeding, we'd expect cultural artifacts - tools, shelters, art. Primates leave evidence of their existence beyond just occasional sightings. The lack of *any* archaeological evidence is actually pretty damning.

Fair points all around. I think the honest answer is: Patterson-Gimlin footage is ambiguous and can be interpreted either way depending on your starting assumptions. Which is frustrating but also kind of the reality of cryptozoology. Not much is definitively provable either direction.