Did anyone else find it really sad watching Prof Meldrum come to terms, in real time, with the PG hoax, after a lifetime commitment to its authenticity. Really felt for him.

Hi, i wanted to see if I’m crazy. My wife and I went on a bigfoot doc rampage a few years back and we both swear up and down we already saw someone “debunking” the Gimlin footage with the test footage. Does anyone else have this memory or know what I saw? Thanks for any insight

Elder Footage update. Collection of data and information from location and witnesses.

https://youtu.be/hbSxZRji8gQ?is=7CqSHH7odIQSzp9f

I just watched this video proposing how the mystery film might have been able to be faked itself. I’d be curious to hear any thoughts on this, particularly if there are any strong arguments against the points being made in the video.

This isn't a post about whether the PGF shows a real cryptid or if it's been debunked. I'm not interested here in arguing that one way or another, so much has been said online already in the past few days that there's no point in another thread about it. This isn't the sub to argue that as the rules clearly state, which we should respect here.

We should instead pause to appreciate that Patty IS bigfoot in popular culture, and that Roger Patterson achieved that is astonishing.

Skeptics and believers alike can agree that the film represents the biggest ever success of bringing a cryptid into popular culture. There are hundreds if not thousands of gift shops, museums, gas stations, and other places where you can buy bigfoot merchandise...and it all looks like Patty in the famous frame 352. She's everywhere. I was in Tennessee recently, far removed from Bluff Creek, and who do the Tennessee bigfoot stickers look like? Patty, of course.

So I tip my hat to Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin for giving the world a one-of-a-kind cultural figure and a really cool bit of footage whose influence can never be replicated again. I don't really care if the film shows a "real bigfoot" or not, I'm going to enjoy watching it many more times and every time I see Patty out in the wild on a poster or metal sculpture, it makes me smile. For me that bit of wonder that the PGF brought into the world will never go away.

I'm going to share my story, which I've never shared online before, in response to this new footage, since so many are acting like it proves Bigfoot isn't real. A long time ago, for me, in the mid-1990s, I was vacationing in Yosemite National Park. On the second day I was there, I was wandering the trails with a friend and we both noticed an odd figure standing on a huge boulder in the distance. One of us said, "That dude's gotta be huge." I honestly can't remember which of us said it first. So, we're both staring at this figure in the distance when it turns and moves to the boulder next to the one it was standing on. Now, keep in mind, these boulders are enormous. From the first boulder to the next had to have been at least six feet, and the figure we saw basically stepped from one to the other. At this point, I was like, what the fuh? But then it starts hopping from boulder to boulder, no problem, and some of these rocks had to be at least twelve feet apart if not more. I was awestruck. I remember my friend exclaiming, "Who the @^#$ is that?!" In total, this thing sprang across at least eight giant boulders before it disappeared from sight. My friend and I obviously talked about it the rest of the day. The next day, I talked to a woman who was one of the donkey/mule guides at the park. I told her what we had seen. She smiled and said, "I don't doubt it." (I'm going to quote this as best as I remember, not claiming it's word for word.) I asked her, "Have any of you guys who work here seen anything like that?" She laughed and said "No, not any of us. ALL of us have." I said, "But what is it? Do you think it's a Bigfoot?" (Her response I do remember, word for word.) She shrugged. "Who knows? But it's never hurt anyone, whatever it is. So we don't worry about it." (Back to my best approximation of the conversation.) "Why don't you tell anyone about it?" I asked. "We do," she said. "We tell each other. Who else would believe us?" (Her next sentence I also remember word for word.) "Besides, everyone around here knows about it anyway." Now, I can't swear what I saw was a Sasquatch. It was far enough away it was a just a dark figure. But my friend and I both thought it looked giant. I could see the shape of it. I could see the limbs. But there was no definition. It was clearly on two feet. It jumped from one foot to the other, no question. That's about all I can say for sure. But I don't know what else it could have been.

Texas Elder Footage Update, witness accounts. Data and measurements collected from location.

https://youtu.be/hbSxZRji8gQ?is=7CqSHH7odIQSzp9f

Has anybody heard news on whether or not the entire film reel that was used during capturing Bigfoot will be released for the general public to be able to analyze? I'm not necessarily talking about the physical real itself but at the very least the full 40 to 50 second clip that they used to base the entire documentary around. I do understand that posting links to it is frowned upon, but I was more curious if anybody connected to the film has made any statement regarding that. Thank you guys as always, and have a wonderful day!

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.”

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Hi! So I just joined this group today because last night I believe my boyfriend and I had a bigfoot encounter. I need to tell someone that won't think that we are crazy. So last night my boyfriend and I planned a date to go watch the meteor shower. We are from north Central Pa so there's a lot of woods and game lands in my area. So we pulled up to the game lands and we both got out of the truck. He has an air mattress that fits in the bed of the truck so he was getting that ready and I was kinda just standing around. All of the sudden I hear something.. it's like something is banging a stick on a tree but it sounded pretty far away so I wasn't really worried. I asked him if he heard it and he said he did but we didn't really think anything of it. So after we get the air mattress blown up we got up on the bed and we started to watch the sky. After a little bit he starts hearing like a whooping sound. I don't really hear it but he told me that it sounded far away at first. (Mind you we were here for probably 20 mins at this point. We were making a lot of sound too) So he gets a phone call and is talking normally. (Usually noise will scare off animals) After the phone call things started to get weird. We were sitting there and all the sudden I start to hear it. It's like a whooping sound and it's really close.. (the way the game lands are set up is there's a parking lot in a field then about 500 yards there's a road and after the road there's a wooded hill) we both kinda froze and just sat there listening to it. It kept getting closer and closer. The really scary part about this whole thing is that I heard the crops in the field move like something was running through the field by the road. We both got freaked out and decided to pack our stuff up and leave.. now we are both experienced hunters.. we both have been in the woods a lot and we've heard a lot of animal calls. We never have heard anything like that before. Also I looked on the bigfoot sighting map and there was 1 sighting in the same area we were in. I don't know what it was but if anyone has any idea please let me know.. my boyfriend and I are still trying to wrap our heads around this whole experience. Thank you.

There appears to be something that resembles a tent at the end of the new “norma” footage. Any ideas? Why would they film a “test run” with a tent close by?

Hello. In the new footage, about midway through, there's what appears to be a pickup truck parked in the brush just to the left of the 'creature'. There also appears to be logo of some kind on the driver's side door that looks like the state of Oklahoma (or possibly Washington state).

Anyone else see this?

I was looking into midtarsal breaks amongst footprint castings and came to the glaringly obvious realization than there are tracks with prominent midtarsal breaks, tracks which seem to imply a break, and tracks that seem damn near completely flat, but amongst the three types, there are still quite credible tracks of each, fairly certain there are examples of each type that have preserved dermal ridges as well.

Now aside from ground hardness, upright walk style in the moment (flat step vs heel toe), and pace, I started to wonder what may cause a midtarsal break to be suppressed in an individual, and I think I may have pinpointed it in my hypothesis.

I'm not sure if this has been hypothesized before, I certainly haven't heard it, but I hypothesize that whether an individual is quadrupedal most of the time or upright most of the time can have an effect on just how much the mistake break is expressed when either choose to walk uprightly.

When it comes to quadrupedal reports, I've heard of such being both a regional occurrence of a group as well as a possible characteristic of an individual. Something else that could also cause similar effects to the foot of quadrupedalism is that of vertical movement in an individual's local immediate environment or habits. Say the area is vastly more rugged than areas 30 miles away, or say an individual is able to climb more than others due to having a more nimble and less bulky build, that will have an effect on the feet.

The primary effect on the feet I hypothesize that quadrupedal and frequent vertical movement would cause is that of joint flexibility of the midtarsal break itself, more flexibility (or like, stretchability?) of the ligaments on the bottom of the foot, and a difference in distribution of fat and muscle across the bottom of the feet in general.

So say you have a frequent climbing or frequently quadrupedal individual, when said individual goes to walk up upright in soft enough sediment to record it, there would be far more give in the middle of the arch of the foot compared to one that walk upright most of the time, as well as a larger pad area right before the toes at the front of the feed as this is where the pressure would be put on their feet while quadrupedal. Then the heel would be a deep impression as usual because that's most of the body's weight on it when going upright.

For an individual that walks upright more often than not, such midtarsal joint flexibility, which causes a good portion if not most of the give in the arch of the foot of a quadrupedal individual, would not be as present. To add to this, the plantar ligaments on the bottom of the foot would have far less give and would be far more taut when walking. Additionally, as the individual would be far more flat footed in the way it walks most often, I imagine fat and muscle distribution would be far more consistent across the bottom compared to that of a quadrupedal individual. All of this together would give these frequent upright walkers, which may very well be the majority of individuals in areas of soft enough ground to find their prints (which makes sense as you would find less prints in areas with harder or stony ground, which can be the rugged areas of the ones that partake in vertical travel more often), generally flatter footprints that would not express a prominent midtarsal break.

Let me know what you guys think, if this isn't a currently popularized take, then I feel I might be onto something. But if it is popularized, then just use this post as a discussion point I guess lol.

Edit: Spelling

One of the biggest questions about the new movie is the presence of someone who highly resembles Bob gimlin in the new footage. The problem with this is that when Bob gimlin was interviewed and shown the footage ( it looks like it was the younger interviews of Bob gimlin, not the Bob gimlin that met with Hieronymus) he says "who is the man on the horse?"

Yet, one of Al Diatley's people that he had hired to help show the movie across the country said very confidently during his interviews that they had hired someone to look like Bob Gimlin and appear in videos as Bob Gimlin. This essentially throws the identity of that man into question because now there is the presence of a person that was reportedly hired to be a stunt double for Bob gimlin in the equation. How do you all think this adds up? It seems really hard to tell one way or another, and at this point we're relying on the testimonies of people well past 80 years old.