include data found by James Randi and others:
1. the time-frame given by Patterson does not wash: he was not in an area where he could get the film developed
2. to get it developed in time to show it to a group of scientists the next day, is just impossible.
3. he could have carried the film to a larger town with a print facility, but not on the time-frame he alleges he did it in; there simply was too much distance to cover, and the day of the week is also wrong
So, on balance, it's clear the Patterson film is a hoax, and a set of data of other kinds also supports this reality.
One part of the latter, is that Patterson had written a book with an illustration that closely matches the "creature" he ended up filming, complete with large breasts and a sagittal crest on the head
These traits don't occur among humans, but Patterson's bigfoot clearly has to be human since it has human, not primate, footprints.
The presence of ape suits in the area during that time frame, was another clue. There were a few too many people with them in the area, a remote forested area of northern California. It simply wasn't party city.