field researchers
Bigfoot Animated
thermal camera
local newscasts
fair use
















































































































Research and Analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin Film:

Kyle Council, computer graphics animator

Bill Munns, Hollywood make up artist, body suit creator

The NASI Report by J. Glickman, Diplomate, American College of Forensic Examiners

Bigfoot Research:

Sasquatch Anatomy 103

Jimmy Chilcutt, fingerprint technician

Kyle Council, Computer Graphics Animator

Highlights: (0:17) The film subject's "movement is not human but humanlike." (0:31) "In the trapezius muscle group...the contraction of the thick muscle sheets is visible." (0:47) "The creature's knee, not reaching full extension is certainly an adaptation to supporting great weight. A fully extended knee has poor resistance to twisting forces." (1:00) Council refutes the possibility that this is a man in a costume. (1:18) "The presence of muscle contraction, the freedom of movement, the cadence of the walk, all fully support the claim that the footage documents a living hominid outside the genus of man."

Bill Munns, make up artist, computer graphics artist, Hollywood body suit (Swamp Thing, etc.) and prosthetics creator; author of The Munns Report, which is an examination of the Patterson-Gimlin film and the hominoid in it.

Note: This lecture by Munns, which was produced by the Bigfoot Discovery Museum, is in five parts. The first three parts are included here. Munns' complete to-date analysis of the Patterson film can be found in The Munns Report. In the first video, he analyses the implications associated with the subject's armpit area in the Patterson Gimlin film versus what would be seen in a suit. He uses the suit he created for Swamp Thing to illustrate the characteristics of any suit.

Munns' ultimate conclusion as to the creature in the film is that it "is a real biological entity, and not a human in a fur costume performing a hoax. I find the biological evidence for real anatomy and the counter consideration for how rare and difficult it would be to accomplish such with some type of costume, to be compelling by preponderance of the evidence" (Release 1H-Part Two PDF). Also of note is that Munns sees evidence of "a body that is old, a bit overweight, worn from the trials of life, and possibly exhibiting some right side lateral atrophy of muscle dynamic" (Release 1H-Part Two PDF). Highlights below.




Part 1: (0:30+) Any suit will fold along the shoulder line when the arm is by the side. (1:24) "...when the arms come down that is going to buckle right here (pointing to shoulder), and almost every suit will do that. That's the indication of something false." (1:43) "We do not see that in the Patterson film at all." (1:54) The subject in the Patterson film lacks the fake fold along the shoulder that is indicative of a suit. (2:05) "Even though the arm is down by the body, what we are seeing is something that is moving exactly like real biology, and is not moving in any way, shape, or form like something I might want to fake, making a suit out of any foam rubber or material." (2:42+) Contrasts the uneven hair pattern of the subject in the Patterson film versus the the consistent hair patterns characteristic of suits.

Part 2: (2:34+) The Patterson film subject demonstrates typical biological hair patterns, such as  “blotches, changes of density, changes of structure, thickness, hair missing, hair unkempt.” (3:24) “The hair patterns are very natural in their form, very much contrary to almost anything that would be done in a suit, so, for me, this was one of the strongest indications that what we are looking at is biologically real.” (4:40+) Comparison of the Patterson subject’s backside with a human indicates a natural anatomy. (7:01+) The subject in the Patterson film is not in peak physical condition. The subject “is getting on in her years, is not in the best of health, is a little bit overweight, and…one of her shoulders is carried lower than the other.”

Part 3: (0:35+) Characteristics of fur cloth that was state of the art in 1967 suit making. (4:38) If this suit was specifically made for the Patterson film it is “one of the most extraordinary custom built projects that anybody could imagine to come out of Hollywood.” (5:02) “When I look at the Patterson film I’m convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that I’m looking at a real biological creature and not a human being in a costume because (when) I look at this figure I know what it would take to duplicate it as a costume, and the burden of trying to do that as it appears is staggering.” (5:35) Due to the industry still being in its infancy in 1967, Munns “sincerely doubt(s) there is anyone in the business that could have made it that way.” (6:44+) A digital copy of the average human can not be aligned with the Patterson figure. (8:09) The unusual proportions of the Patterson figure.

The NASI Report, by J. Glickman, Diplomate, American College of Forensic Examiners  

Note: Analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film is only aspect of The NASI Report. The report is a study of the larger Bigfoot issue, Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenom.


Highlights: (2:44+) Mathematical analysis (ratio using pixels and a known height) assigns a height of 7' 3 1/2" (plus or minus one inch) to the figure in the film. (3:24+) The figure's waist is calculated as 81.3 inches (3:38+) The figure's chest perimeter is calculated as 83 inches (4:33) The figure's arm length is calculated as 43 inches (4:48) "The arm length of the subject is 5.5 standard deviations from the human mean which is in the 99.9999981 percentile or is present in one out of 52.5 million people." (4:58) The subject's leg length is calculated as 40 inches (5:19+) Morphology, or appearance, of the subject's hand, foot, and face all put it between the human and gorilla in Glickman's opinion. (8:00) "There are several ways the subject may be differentiated from traditional forgeries: non-uniform hair texture, non-uniform coloration, and non-uniformity of hair length." (8:17) "The appearance and sophistication of musculature as seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film has not yet been reproduced in costumes in the entertainment industry." (9:40) Differences between the human knee cycle and the figure's knee cycle. (10:15) Discussion. "To date the Patterson-Gimlin film has defied explanation, and it continues to do so after three years of rigorous forensic examination."

Sasquatch Anatomy 103

Note: This video, compiled by Youtube poster "PostToastie," summarizes several statistical averages. Many of these statistical averages for Bigfoot height, weight, and foot size can be verified in the article "Sasquatch: Size, Scaling, and Statistics" written by W. Henner Fahrenbach, Ph.D., zoologist, retired Chairman of the Laboratory of Electron Microscopy for the Oregon Regional Primate Center. Highlights below.


Highlights: (0:42) A sample size of over 700 Sasquatch footprints yielded a mean length of 15.6 inches with a range of 4 inches (infant) to 27 inches. (1:03) "The foot does not have an arch but retains the primitive primate midsole flexure of apes, called a metatarsal hinge." (1:16) "The toes are capable of substantial splaying in slippery terrain, especially abduction of the big toe." (1:27) The average height of a Sasquatch is 7'10" (2:09+) The average weight of a Sasquatch is 650 lbs. The weight of a Sasquatch is derived by applying the formula that "exists between chest circumference and weight" in primates.

Jimmy Chilcutt, latent fingerprint examiner and crime scene investigator, Conroe (TX) Police Department.


Highlights: (1:04) In trying to debunk Sasquatch footprint evidence by using his expertise as a fingerprint technician, Chilcutt reached the conclusion that some of the casts he studied were real, "the geniune tracks of a reclusive animal that has yet to be documented and studied." (5:26) The dermal ridges of Sasquatch feet run lengthwise along the foot. "No way do human footprints do that-never, ever." In contrast, human dermal ridges run side to side. (5:40) "The skeptic in me had to believe (that all the prints were from) the same species of animal. I believe that this is an animal in the Pacific Northwest that we have never documented."