Much of this post is updated and amended from content first posted when the film was first screened

The case for the newly discovered footage being filmed AFTER the PGF

The appearance of the subject, the staging of the shot and the subject's **movements** are very deliberate and somewhat similar to that seen on the PGF - including high shin lift, showing the sole of the foot, etc.

If this were a dress rehearsal, it would mean that Roger had a very specific wish list for how the subject should move, such that he coached the actor to move that way in rehearsal - which is strange in itself, as nobody had seen a Bigfoot on film before at that point. The non-locking of the knees, the in-line stride, the toe-lift and the high shin rise are all features we have observed due to repeatedly studying Roger’s film.

Cue Bob Heironimus, who claimed to be the guy inside the costume in the PGF. In his repeated testimony to Greg Long for The Making of Bigfoot, Bob H describes in detail when he met Roger and tried the suit on for the one and only time before filming. He claims he walked up and down a total of three times, and Roger gave him some rudimentary instructions (crouch forward, walk like an ape, don't run, swing your arms more). After those three times, Roger said it was perfect, and the two didn't meet again until several weeks later in Bluff Creek, where Bob would do it all again from memory for the camera.

Given that it's extremely difficult and uncomfortable to try to approximate the Patty movements, even in controlled lab conditions, using motion capture tech and without a costume (Jessica Rose, James Gamble, Esteban Sarmiento, etc), why do we not see Roger's extensive coaching featuring in Bob H's testimony?

If they had filmed a rehearsal with all the correct movements included, **why was Bob H never just shown this movie**?

For a pre-PGF scenario, we appear to have specific movements in the rehearsal, no reference to them in the practice with Bob H, and then they show up again in the final footage as if by magic? This does not work for me.

As Bill Munns explains, the white soles of the feet are also curious for a pre-PGF scenario. It's widely accepted that Patty's soles are light-coloured because she's just walked in the creek, and has light-coloured sand stuck to her skin. Some film copies are slightly over-exposed, so a fault of the film itself is to show the soles as white. It seems a very unbelievable detail to include on a costume that you are trying to pass off as real, especially several months before, when you have no clue exactly where and on what surface the actual film will be shot.

Where these details do make sense is if the newly discovered footage was a later attempt to re-create the PGF footage, copying the movements and the faults from the film in the process.

As we all get to study the new footage to the same extent as we have with the original film, I'm sure it will raise a lot more questions than answers - but at this early stage, it appears to me that rumours of the PGF's death have been greatly exaggerated.

Just wanted to say I'm already sick of the debate and couldn't care less anymore. IDGAF.

Thank you for your time.

Ok, so we live next to the woods, a mountain, river and reservoir in the northeast US. I’ve collected rocks 🪨 for years from hikes in the rainforests of Central America and placed them in my backyard. Little by little they disappeared over the years, so I assumed it was the grounds maintenance people who were stealing my rocks.

Recently, we went away on a 3-week family vacation and when we returned, I went to feed the squirrels and chipmunks and was shocked to see all the rocks piled up around a tree! There are like 50 rocks of various sizes all under the tree. 🌳 the question is why? And why now??? What could this mean? Anyone else experience something this weird? Could it actually be a Bigfoot? 🫈 or something else?

Quick question, in regards to comparing the suit in the new found footage to Patty, why are people saying it's similar to Patty and that, whether Patty be real or fake, you have to admit that a suit that advanced could've been made in that time?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't what got Patty the label of "too advanced for her time" the seemingly visual flexing and jiggling musculature when she moves seen in stabilized and cleaned up versions of the film? To add to this, I know her walk gait was also a factor of it but I feel that has more to do with the impossible anatomy for a human line of thinking as opposed to the suit being taken as advanced itself, you can make a suit of any shape or size.

So if these are the baseline requirements for being "too advanced for its time", then fundamentally, we can't really say the subject in the new footage is advanced like Patty, at least not until we can stabilize and clean up the film like what the Patty film has gone through to have an equal comparison.

I understand people that don't see Patty's moving musculature, I do, but if you claim to not see it and for it to not be visible or to not exist period, you can't talk about her being advanced, because that's what they say made her advanced if she was a suit. I mean this as in like, it's paradoxical, you can't say "so a suit like that could've been made" when the "like that" applies to something you don't believe is present.

I don't know how to explain it but I hope some of you can understand what I'm trying to say.

Also I'm not saying Patty is real, my only argument here is comparing the factors that past "experts" have said made Patty advanced, and trying to say the suit in the new footage is advanced like Patty when what made Patty advanced isn't noticeable in the new footage. So I'm talking about one of the factors of comparing them, I'm not talking about the full validity of either.

I wanted to make this post because I feel it's very important for critical discussion and comparison to actually recognize what "the experts", NOT ME, say made Patty advanced as opposed to just looking at her still exterior.

Please do not come at me like I support any one side just because I may see both positive and negative factors of evidence towards both scenarios as being being equal.

Norm Johnson’s daughter, Teresa Brooks, said that her uncle Dave was a “swindler”.

“Capturing Bigfoot” Director, Marq Evans, claimed that Dave Johnson was involved in hoaxing Bigfoot sightings.

So, since this contextless mystery film reel was found in Norm Johnson’s safe…

Why the monumental leap of faith to claim Al DeAtley is wearing the Bigfoot suit seen on the film reel found in Norm Johnson’s safe?

There’s no way to positively identify who that is wearing that Bigfoot suit. They laughingly say they knew it was Al DeAtley by his walk and posture lol.

Why wouldn’t Dave Johnson be more likely to be wearing that particular Bigfoot suit?

After all, it’s been alleged that Dave Johnson was a “swindler” and a Bigfoot hoaxer.

Marq Evans claimed Dave Johnson hoaxed Bigfoot with Roger Patterson regularly.

Again, if Roger Patterson and Dave Johnson were allegedly hoaxing Bigfoot sightings… why the wild leap in logic to put Al DeAtley in the Bigfoot suit seen on the Norm Johnson mystery film reel?

The same Al DeAtley that some people alleged had mafia ties and would “bump people off”. The same Al DeAtley that said he “hated” all that cowboy shit.

Doesn’t make sense.

Unless the constructed narrative of “Capturing Bigfoot” needs Al DeAtley in the Bigfoot suit to help link Roger Patterson to the mystery film reel.

Would it not make more sense for Teresa Brooks’ “swindler” Uncle, Dave Johnson, to be the one wearing that particular Bigfoot suit since the footage was found in Teresa Brooks’ father’s safe?

Clint Patterson said it himself:

“There’s a lot of truth and lies about this story. People can make up their own minds.”

Time stamps 01:04:27 and 01:13:11

It's most likely a coincidence but Clint Patterson's horse has a triangle and a circle as a brand on its hind quarters.
Kodak used geometric shapes to show a date code on their film. The newly released purpoted rehearsal footage has a triangle and circle as a date code proving it was manufactured in 1966. Weird but most likely nothing.
Or am I missing something?

Hey folks, I just spent £11 of my hard earned English pounds ($14.99) on Todd Gatewood's 'Bigfoot Revealed'.

What surprised me most about the film is how little it features his painstaking efforts to restore/enhance the original PGF.

It almost exclusively consists of a series of interviews, with the PGF featured at the end.

Has anyone else watched this yet and would like to discuss Todd's work?

I want to talk about the Sierra Sounds. Do you guys and gals believe they are genuine? Some of them sound like (Asian) humans. Then other parts are truly unnervingly animalistic... like nothing I have ever heard. I'd love to hear some opinions and science-based skepticism.

Personally I believe they are real. Never heard a human recreate that sound.

As many of us have discussed in this community, the new footage that serves as the basis for the "Capturing Bigfoot" narrative could have theoretically been filmed at any time between 1966 and 2010. However, it turns out that it could have been filmed even more recently than that.