I'm not a bigfoot/sasquatch nut or anything, but even though there are definite gaps on the story where there shouldn't be, one concern about the film really stands out to me.
The creature captured on the film in question. The argument of 'this is a man in a costume' just doesn't add up if you pay really close attention to it. Mind you this was shot in 1967, and though the filming equipment was known to be wonky in the film community, analysis reveals some truths to Patterson's claim, but demands further scrutiny in others.
Anywho, back to my point. If this is a man in a costume, this is a VERY VERY well made costume. During watching you can see no bunching of material, sagging, etc. Also, the subject in the original film is a good distance away from the camera it seems, but still appears as quite tall and large.
To me this suggests two possibilities. Either these guys went and found an obscenely tall and built individual in 1967, made a suit that a major film production studio fully staffed with skilled tailors and designers would have had trouble making for the time period at their own expense for the sole purpose of perpetrating a ridiculous hoax, or this is a damn sasquatch.
It's a shame the original film up and disappeared circa 1980, so all we have left is the copies. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.isu.edu/media/libraries/rhi/research-papers/ANALYSIS-INTEGRITY-OF-THE-PATTERSON-GIMLIN-FILM-IMAGE_final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiN2aS-lf7xAhWLAZ0JHU_1BcUQFjAEegQIDRAC&usg=AOvVaw3EIE8zDUqxsBEpfB7roPWC
My reference material, Idaho State University inquiry in to the Patterson-Gimlin film. It's a bit of a read, but intriguing.