Case Module
Bluff Creek chronology
The event sequence anchored first to the October 1967 source window.
Dates below are labeled according to source type. Later reconstructions are not silently promoted to contemporary documentation.
1958
Bluff Creek already had a public history of large-footprint reports associated with logging-road construction; this is context, not evidence for the 1967 film.
1966
Roger Patterson self-published a book advocating investigation of North American 'abominable snowman' reports. This establishes strong prior interest before the film.
1967-10-20
Patterson and Bob Gimlin reported encountering and filming a large hair-covered biped at Bluff Creek while traveling on horseback.
1967-10-20 evening
According to later reconstructions and the next-day press trail, Patterson contacted the Eureka Times-Standard and reported the event. Exact call timing remains a documentary reconstruction.
1967-10-21
The Times-Standard published the earliest detailed newspaper account located in the current dossier.
1967-10-26
Patterson and Gimlin were interviewed by Vancouver broadcaster Jack Webster; a digitized recording survives.
1967-10-27
Associated Press coverage following a Vancouver screening records early public and skeptical reaction.
1970sā1990s
The film was repeatedly copied, screened, analyzed and reproduced. Copy generation and image integrity become central technical issues.
1998ā2004
Bob Heironimus publicly claimed he had worn a suit; Philip Morris later claimed to have sold Patterson a gorilla costume. No alleged original suit has been produced in the present source set.
2013
Bill Munns and Jeff Meldrum published technical papers arguing the image is analyzable and that several visible anatomical features are compatible with biological anatomy.
2022
Modern skeptical and bibliographic work continued to stress unresolved replication, provenance, frame-rate and evidentiary questions.
2026
The case remains unresolved: the public record contains a genuine 1967 film artifact and extensive testimony/analysis, but no universally accepted identification of the filmed subject.