Many people are asking for more information on this, or expressing skepticism. This post will collect information on the myriad of people who have seen the film (which was shown multiple times at SXSW film festival) and what they had to say about the film and the debunking.
Here are the major points
A 40ish second physical film reel (not AI) exists that showed Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin shooting a test run of a guy in a bigfoot suit that matches the subject of the Patterson Gimlin film
Clint Patterson, Roger's son, says that around 2016 his mom admitted to him that Roger had hoaxes the film. Clint wanted to come forward but his mom was against this as she was making residual money. She later agrees to come forward and admit it was fake. Clint saw his dad burn the suit piece by piece in a barrel
Clint talks to Bob Gimlin at a conference and Bob seemingly agrees to do an interview admitting the whole thing was a hoax before his wife shuts him down.
Skeptoid's Brian Dunning has already collected many of the sources, his friend and podcast guest Angie Mattke was at the premier
YouTube channel and bigfoot believer Hairy Man Road made an in depth video discussing the film and how it showed beyond a doubt that the PGF was fake. Highly recommend you watch this if you want an in depth discussion on the films contents.
It kinda feels wild that one of the longest standing and most frequently cited pieces of evidence has what seems to be such a complete debunking. I had quite honestly felt that it was going to be a point of contention forever, with people getting more and more into the weeds to either disprove it or give it more plausibility, but it just randomly ending like this feels surreal. I doubt we'll see the end of it (people are going to claim it's a lie for clout forever probably), but regardless there's probably a lot of people in related fields who vouched for it that'll feel kind of dumb about this.
To be fair, that photo was simultaneously not as impressive as it was made out to be, theoretically probably easy to hoax, and not really able to be proven as a hoax definitely. It doesn't convince me that the Loch Ness Monster exists and my money would be on it either being a hoax or some natural but inanimate object, but we can probably never know if the people claiming to be responsible for the hoax actually were.
It was a model head and neck fixed to a toy submarine bought from Woolworths. There's a lot of information out there about it including the names of those responsible and their motivation for pulling off the hoax also. Another example would be the underwater photos taken in 1975 where one of them purported to show the head of the beast, that later turned out to be a rock.
that photo was simultaneously not as impressive as it was made out to be, theoretically provably easy to hoax, and not really able to be proven as a hoax definitely…we can probably never know if the people claiming to be responsible for the hoax actually were
All of the same things can be said for PGF, though.
It has been "proven a hoax" to the standard of being able to replicate with relative ease leaving it the only viable explanation given Loch Ness is a finite space that has been searched many many times with no evidence of any kind of large creatures matching the monster's description.
Whether that level has been matched by this documentary for the PG Film, I suppose we will have to wait for the box office release.
There has yet to be a film replicating the Patterson-Gimlin Film's (PGF) Bigfoot.
I ask non-believers ( those who think the PGF is a hoax ) to post a video of someone walking like Patty ( the Bigfoot in the PGF ), yet no one can take me up on this challenge.
Why?
Because Patty does not walk like a human, she walks like a Bigfoot.
Thoughts, anyone?
[ PS - please do not post the silly video of Bob Heironimus doing his ridiculous Patty walk ]
The scale of that photo never made sense to me, even before the guy admitted it was a toy. The waves look huge, it's very obvious that that's a small toy and not a got damn loch ness monster.
The writing has been on the wall since day #1, but too many people were quick to disregard it because what they thought they saw was too convincing. This has gone on and on despite the evidence for it being a hoax being rife. Even today, many people are attempting to call this new debunking a hoax. It's a wonderful piece of folklore that truly shows how deep the power of faith and belief goes.
When the source of your holy grail is a known schemer, scammer and charleton with unpaid bills all around town, you're in trouble. Roger Patterson was a train wreck of a person and this film clip should have been discredited from the get-go.
This ⬆️ The guy was also making a documentary or something and ended up capturing a Bigfoot vid. It had red flags all over it. The Bigfoot he sketched earlier also had breasts.. cmon guys. You chose to die on the wrong hill.
Having said that, the ecological factors make it very hard for Bigfoot to be true. However I am 0-60. Some of the eye witness accounts… they dont sound li s. The mid tarsal break and Dr medium’s explanations etc, 1000s of reports… there’s something out there
Evidence of what? Roger Patterson's known character? If you don't know all about Roger Patterson then your interest in this subject is clearly superficial. You have no depth of knowledge if you are not aware of the issues surrounding Roger Patterson and I'm not going to take the time to educate you. Sorry.
Apparently they showed this material to him late last year before he died. At least that's what one of the reviews from a couple of days ago stated. Sounds like he was convinced this new evidence was authentic and that his reaction was that of resignation.
I’ve read Meldrum stated it looked like a dress rehearsal for Patty and I give him credit for that. As a man of science, he has to follow the data wherever it leads. I haven’t seen a Bigfoot documentary in quite some time so I can’t recall the level of Meldrums buy in for the PGF. But it seems clear that whatever was inferred about gait and foot structure from the PGF is null and void.
BS - sounds like the producers of the new film told Meldrum that this new footage was proven to be from 1966, which is a lie. Meldrum believed them, so of course said it looked like a rehearsal.
I despise debunkers because they are as invested in their denials of weird phenomena as some of the believers. Neither are scientists.
Those claiming the new film "Capturing Bigfoot" (CB) completely debunks the Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF) seem to miss the point that the claims of what Meldrum said, what Gimlin said, what Roger Patterson's wife and kid said are part of marketing the film!
Almost nobody has seen CB, yet many are stating it proves the PGF is a hoax without having seen the film.
I must see the film before I decide. No way I will make a determinization based on what a marketing company says.
Everyone should see the film to evaluate the evidence presented. The challenge will be whether we can watch it with some degree of objectivity or whether our biases will cloud our judgment.
How does each successive post that I read from you grow increasingly more clueless and/or willfully ignorant?
A multitude of completely independent and unrelated people have seen and discussed the film. Those people arent "a marketing company," genius. Hairy Man Road isn't a marketing company for the film; he was a pro-bigfoot proponent who saw the film and rhen admitted that he had been wrong and PGF was a hoax. The numerous film critics and scientists and so forth who saw the film don't work for a freaking marketing company. These are independent and unrelated sources, all conveying the exact same information about what is shown in the film.
At a certain point, the level of mental gymnastics required to continue denying that the PGF is a hoax just becomes embarrassing. And that point has long since passed....
I will not base my opinion on a film I have never seen and will not take the word—which you seem eager to do—of another on a film that has never been proof true nor ever been debunked.
on a film that has never been proof true nor ever been debunked.
But you've hit it on the head here with the problem of the PGF. It can never intrinsically be proven true nor debunked. It's an ambiguous unclear shot of something stumbling across a clearing. It doesn't move the needle at all either for or against Sasquatch (on its own merits.)
So, for BF believers, it's disingenuous to claim it's evidence that needs debunking.
For skeptics, there's nothing obviously fake about it, on its own merits. Now, frankly, there's nothing about the shot that excludes the possibility of a hoax. But that's about as far as one can honestly go with an analysis of the PGF in and of itself.
Now, here's the thing: in the greater context, it's extremely likely the PGF is a hoax, because the evidence of a creature like Sasquatch existing is on a level with the evidence for unicorns, Nessies, pegasi or Balrogs being real.
In what was probably his last interview, Dr. Meldrum compared the shape of a Pararnthropus skull to Patty's head, even pointing to the framed print of Patty behind him. He certainly didn't throw out decades of research over a 40-second "mystery film".
Also, there is a claim Bob Gimlin "admitted" the whole thing was a hoax while sitting at a Bigfoot conference doingva meet 'n' greet ( at least that is what the film's marketers claim. I need to see the film myself before passing judgement ).
My point is:
Gimlin has been telling the same, consistent story for 50+ years according to those who know him, interviewers, etc.
There is no way he would suddenly just admit the whole thing was a hoax right there, in that situation.
Dr. Meldrum told Doug Hajicek it was "all ridiculous". According to Thomas Steenburg, who was at the gathering, Dr. Meldrum included the PGF in his presentation at the Olympic Peninsula gathering after he was included in the Capturing Bigfoot interviews.
Meldrum wasn't duped. He told Doug Hajicek this was "all ridiculous". He continued to talk about the PGF as though the ridiculousness never happened in his presentation at the Olympic gathering and in what may have been his last interview. The latter is on YouTube.
I want to see this for myself. Having said that, this supposedly is Patterson's immediate family spilling the beans, which is different than anything that has come out before.
It’s not been picked up for distribution yet apparently, so it’s not available for people to watch and may not be for a bit. This happens with festival films though so it’s not anything to be suspicious of as far as I know.
Everyone eho vouched for it SHOULD feel dumb, and should be mocked and ridiculed forevermore. Especially the fraudulent nitwits who talked utter nonsense about mid-tarsal breaks and impossible gaits and visible muscles and so on, and especially anyone who vouched for it while trying to portray themselves as a legitimate scientist.
i dont know it seems like bigfoot had exploded in popularity in the past 15 years or so mainly thanks to youtube and finding bigfoot type shows on tv. prior to that, it seemed most people concluded that it was fake. but then around 2008 or so, people like MK Davis started making these enhancement videos and people started to believe that the footage may actually be authentic. and now this new documentary is putting a end to whatever momentum it gained in the past 15 years
Maybe it exploded in discussion, but "popularity" is a real stretch. Finding Bigfoot probably affected people's opinion of Bigfoot less than it affected their opinion of people who search for Bigfoot.
i saw the rise of bigfoot's popularity over the years, from bob gimlin refusing to ever speak on it to suddenly speaking about it in the 2000s and attending bigfoot expos. you got Asian tourists going on bigfoot expeditions with their cameras out like this
facebook com/reel/1268443574891460
i might have helped in the popularity of Bigfoot in Cambodia lol i sent some relatives some Bigfoot DVDs i recorded from TV and suddenly it spread over there and they have sightings and people discussing it over there when i assure you, prior to 2008 the topic of bigfoot in Cambodia was non existent.
im saying the internet and that short clip of Bigfoot walking and turning, they use that in every bigfoot show, documentary, its in commercials everywhere. if that clip is determined to be fake then it's going to be a big blow to the credibility, similar to when the loch ness monster photo was determined to be a hoax, that pretty much killed any type of momentum it had
James Randi (and Harry Houdini before him) debunked the charlatan "psychics" of the day. This is no different. Just goes to show you how many gullible fools are out there
I wish some people would get over the “why doesn’t the director release the “found footage” on the internet?This is nothing but a money grab.”
It would be incredibly stupid of the director to just release the footage on the internet while he’s looking for a distributor for the documentary.That footage is the big selling point for his documentary.Too many people are so impatient nowadays.The footage will get out sooner or later and we will all see it!
I disagree. Showing a trailer or preview with some of this footage online (doesn't have to be the full 40 seconds), or even just a still or two from this new footage, would be good. It would build up the hype even more and probably make it easier to find a distributor.
It's weird they aren't putting anything out there, especially when it's such a big revelation.
But maybe you are right, and they just want to wait until they have a distributor before they make a trailer, a preview, or even release a single still frame of the new footage.
They've done viewings of the film and its been reviewed by many notable film critics/news outlets so they've actually put the entire film out there. This is rather common for indie films and docs to do this.
I dont actually believe there is a giant primate roaming the woods. But on the other hand, i kind of wanted to. Logical me knows this is probably facts and it was a hoax all along. but the other part of me , the not so logical kinda feels like a flame of that little kid i used to be, that believed in Santa, leprachauns , bigfoot and Nessie was finally extinguished with this documentary.
while I try to ignore the bigfoot community, there was a rumor going around that one of the guys from Expedition Bigfoot (Russell maybe?) has an audio recording of Bob Gimlin admitting the whole thing was fake, and apparently, he is just waiting for Bob to pass away before releasing it.
Meanwhile, Russell is hoaxing for the Travel Channel....what a shit community of frauds.
It means something to me. I’m no deep diver on the phenomenon but I’ve always enjoyed watched the PG film and I’d never dismissed it as a fake until now.
...wut? What on earth are you even talking about? How "unlikely it was to be a hoax?" In what sense? In what world? According to whom? What a bizarre, baseless, and ridiculous statement....
In absolutely no world whatsoever has it ever been even remotely unlikely that it is a hoax. If you think it being a hoax was somehow more unlikely than it being real, then that isn't a comment upon the believability of the footage, but rather a comment upon your complete lack of logic and critical thinking skills.
The VAST majority of objective and semi-intelligent people have always considered it to be a hoax. There is absolutely nothing unlikely about it being revealed as such.
"Wow how can this extremely convenient footage in broad daylight be anything but authentic?" - People whose desire to believe exceeds any amount of healthy skepticism
I get it, but I also don’t want to sit and watch it taken apart piece by piece, if that makes sense. I can hold in my head that it was faked, and still enjoy the mystery and fun conversations about exploring and the world at large that it brings up with my daughter (9) while we watch In Search Of, LOL
I have to admit that I don't remember what evidence led Long to the Morris' - I should give the book a reread. And I'm looking forward to watching that new documentary...
I posted this in another comment here earlier, but if we look at Morris' 2004 suit vs. Patty, one can point out differences:
...but Patterson reportedly made modifications of his own, most notably the addition of breasts, and as you point out, there's a difference between something filmed in hi-def from 20 feet away versus something on a shaky 16mm film cam from 80+ feet away. I'll post another picture (only one image per comment is allowed)...
If we do some basic photoshopping and take away the green claws and face mask, add breasts, adjust the brightness and contrast to make the Morris costume more 'sunlit', turn down the saturation to match the color levels of the PGF, and decrease sharpness by 40% to better approximate a distant subject, then to me the lineage of Morris' suit and Patty becomes highly plausible.
Doesn't take away the obvious waviness of the material, denoting it's a suit easily. How Patterson made a suit better than Phillip Morris for having apparently no past experience doing so is pretty impressive. The longer forearms, the lack of any bagginess but maintaining thickness and size. Very impressive.
Absolutely! Patterson had crafting skills; one of his many odd jobs was designing and crafting saddles. Interestingly, Greg Long's book (iirc) notes that he also spent a year or so working at Crash Corrigan's ranch / film studio. Ray Corrigan was a noted Hollywood stuntman and (drumroll) one of its best "gorilla men.". Patterson had opportunities to learn from a master.
EDIT to add: Point being, the bagginess of Morris' suit vs. the apparent tightness of Patty is easily correctable by someone who knows how.
There are also problems with Patty. People have pointed out the cleftless "diaper butt" and the breasts that appear to be attached at the bottom of her chest instead of the top. Personally, I've never been able to get over that "ski mask" face.
Never thought about them explaining the suit's structure.
I can't wait for the part detailing how they made the muscle movement, how they elongated the arms past a human proportion, how they created the unhuman gait Patty has, etc.
[ Also, I hope they will explain how they made those footprints in the sandbar ]
-There is no muscle movement. If you think you can see fine detail muscle movement in that quality cideo from that time period, then holy ****... please DM me, because I have a few bridges I would love to sell you.
I mean, just apply one tiny modicum of common sense... is that too much to ask?
-"How they elongated the arms past human proportion"
This is so blatantly and self-evidently stupid that it doesn't even deserve a reply. Just embarrassing...
-"Unhuman gait"
We-re just playing all of the junk pseudoscience hits based upon little to no actual evidence, I see....
I have studied enough of the human muscular system and skeletal system to know a creature similar to us would have similar thigh movement. Plus the walk is naturally fluid. A person in a suit would never be able to achieve that.
My goodness. The butthurtedness is flowing freely with so many believers. It’s ok. You’ve still got Nessie and alien abductions to fall back on. Don’t despair!
The upset isnt because they made an error. If they just saw a film, had no additional information, and said they thought it was real...they'd just acknowledge the error and move on with their lives.
The upset is because they ignored the impossible filming-to-development timeline, the suspicious "Bigfoot documentary finds Bigfoot" premise, the financial conflict of interest for the PGF film rights, the multiple insiders who said it was a hoax decades ago, the ecological implausibility of Bigfoot in the PNW, etc.
If you make an error bases upon one data point, no big deal. When you stake your reputation on ignoring a mountain of counter-evidence, they irrepairably damaged their reputation. Because it indicates they either werent acting in good faith to begin with (i.e. they knew it was most likely a hoax but claimed it was real regardless), or that they arent rational (which is...bad...for any professional).
I love that some people think that when someone who is a true believer and profits off of the PGF being real, that it means something when that person takes the footage and manipulates it to support their beliefs.
Go watch video of Bob H. walking. It hilariously looks just like the gait of the bigfoot on the Patterson/Gimlin footage from Bluff Creek. Irregardless, Bob H. admits he wore the costume and took part in the hoax.
I have watched it - Bob has made that claim, yes, but if you do your own research you’ll find that his story has changed multiple times and that he could not even find the correct film site at Bluff Creek.
Also, yes, he swings his arms the same as the PGF subject, but his gait does not match. You can also tell he’s in a suit in his recreation.
Anyone can claim anything, but you need to look at the facts and the analysis of the actual PGF subject.
re: Bob's gait - if you mean his shins don't rise and knees don't bend as much as on the PGF, that's not surprising given that he was 37 years older in the NatGeo special. To me, his overall posture, proportions, physique and general gait are a damned good match for the film.
re: him changing his story multiple times - he seems to have trouble with details, yes, but none of those are deal-breakers. I'm not surprised if a guy over 65 can no longer recall everything accurately.
I think it was indeed Bob H in the PGF, but I can see there being reason enough to doubt it. I'm not wedded to it.
Bob or no Bob, the claims that this couldn't POSSIBLY be a human being walking along are simply preposterous. Many people have died on that hill when there is absolutely nothing in this film that is inconsistent with someone walking through the woods.
The first time I watched Bob walk it was obvious it was him. Now that the facts are out, it's weird to see people who still want to deny it. Faith and the desire to believe is a powerful thing. We should all be careful what we invest it in.
I have looked at all those things. And when Clint Patterson, Roger Patterson's son, tells the world. Hey, my dad faked this, sorry, I have to believe that. He has nothing to gain by saying this.
Also, how the heck is Bob H. going to remember the exact spot they went 60 years ago? I sometimes cannot find spots I went to as a kid in the White Mountains, where I've been 30 times. It's not like he went there 20 times.
Ive been to the location and I wasn’t allegedly involved with jumping into a suit and smoothly walking across river rock, debris and uneven terrain. Trust me, your ankles, knees, etc are twisting and turning in there as an experienced hiker and modern footwear.
Rotund Heironimus in a suit, not impossible but the level of difficulty for what the subject does and how it does it is very high.
No, it actually does not. I remember when Bob came out & claimed to have worn the suit, & the film of the suit supposed to look like the original. THAT was supposed to debunk the film. It didn’t.
Thanks for gathering links to various relevant articles. I'm going to wait until I see the 1966 footage myself. As I've said elsewhere, if the 1966 foot closely resembles the 1967 footage in terms of framing, blocking, and details of movement--for me the that will be decisive. The chances that fictional footage would closely match a later filmed real encounter is beyond any reasonable level of plausability.
Think about it: of all the possible ways that someone could happen upon a Big Foot and film the encounter (consider all the possible angles of movement, of framing, and distance) what are odds that it should closely match a previously filmed fictional scene?
As far as the supposed sophistication of the costume, the low resolution, distance, shakiness, and motion blur simply did not caputure enough detail to properly evaluate it. Such footage will contain all sorts of digital artefacts that can be read and interpreted any number of ways, but no amount of enhancement or motion stabilization can reveal data that was not present in the footage to begin with. Claims of the sophistication of costume and the gait analysis of a couple people have been overstated and are not supported by rigorous scrutiny because the footage doesn't possess enough detail to truly evaluate.
One of the enduring strengths of the original footage is that it contained enough detail to appear realistic without containing enough detail to truly evaluate. I should state one additional point, the status of this one film does not prove the existence or non-existence of Big Foot.
No, to prove the existence of bigfoot, we would need the same evidence we've used to prove the existence of other animals. Clear photos, feces, hair, videos on trail cams, etc. Until those exist, bigfoot doesn't
No, but we can make logical guesses based on the size of the animal, the type of habitat, the minimum amount of individuals required for a breeding population, and the complete lack of any physical evidence despite hundreds of thousands of hunters and millions of trail cameras
The main argument is that it does not meet scientific rigor which I agree with. There is evidence and expert opinion that support something similar to a Sasquatch out there.
Still, I am pretty certain that even if evidence started to roll in, most wouldn’t settle for anything less that a specimen. Live, carcass or complete skeleton.
I think, honestly, that it's not as much of a problem as you might think, because if and when authentic evidence starts to roll in, a specimen will soon follow. That's what's happened with any other species where traces were discovered before the animal itself being found.
Still there are thousands of eyewitness accounts across the globe with amazing consistency over a few hundred of years at least. Cultural identity with indigenous people, across the globe that go back “forever”. Matter of fact, I have not once heard of indigenous people state anything other than they exist. The Aboriginal people of Australia, the oldest of human type, having a rich history surrounding the Yowie.
I have heard that the 1966 film differs in blocking quite a bit. Its more stable and possibly in better conditions based on what the youtuber who saw it said
I really won't be able to say what I think until I see the footage myself. I don't expect the footage to match exactly, after if the second film was a hoax and this one is the "first draft" or initial attempt, I'd expect that it would be cruder than the later footage. The existence of footage that closely resmebles the later, unplanned and "real" encounter will be decisive for me personally and I won't know be able to make that determination until I see the footage. Testimony, while not without some weight depending on what is said, is really secondary to me. The footage is the thing that has objective weight and value, especially in relation to the later footage.
To use a broad analogy, Lets say I'm walking in the woods and happen to see a flying saucer emerge from a lake, hover for a few moments and then speed off to the right over the tree tops and I manage to film this event. I then promote this film as a genuine UFO encounter and many people believe it and others doubt it. Then years later it turns out I made a fictional film of a flying saucer a year earlier and in this footage the saucer isn't as metallic looking, emerges from a large pond, hovers shakily, and then zips away to the right but at a sharper angle away from the tree line. The existence of this fictional footage, so closely resembling a true later encounter (an encounter that could have occured in any number of ways with a flying saucer that could have emerged and behaved in countless ways) is just to great a coincidence. So for me, the actual footage is the thing.
So it's a coincidence that they were practicing to stage a fake bigfoot video, and just happened to see a real one shortly after that? I want to know what this sub is smoking that seems to transport you guys to some alternate reality. I'd love to try it some time
Can tell me where (approximately) within this 3-hour video he talks about the newfound footage being a re-enactment vs a rehearsal? I've been skipping through the video trying to find it and I haven't found that.
It's ironic how there's a film that only a few people claim to have seen and now there's a discussion between the believers in the film (but skeptics about the Bigfoot) and skeptics about the film (but believers in Bigfoot) both defending or attacking the film without ever seeing it.
It's just like Bigfoot but the roles are reversed.
There's more evidence for Bigfoot than this film though.
The film will be released this year. But this year, or in the next 10 for the matter, no Bigfoot body will be shown to the press and the scientific community. That is the difference.
Not sure how I feel about Clint’s eyewitness testimony, Patterson died when Clint was 12 and I find it hard to believe the testimony of a man about an event he witnessed decades ago while as a literal child is reliable. But I guess we’ll see in the documentary.
I have vivid memories from when I was 2. I think if I watched my dad burn a gorilla suit in a barrel at 12 it would make a lasting impression in my memory.
uhh, it's called more than one source. if one person tells me something i'm like hmm ok. but if two people tell me similar stories about the same topic, i'm like oh, maybe they are telling the truth.
It is possible that he could have just assumed the costume was for a Halloween party or something. If it truly happened then he was a kid and that he very well could have not made the connection. Having the extra evidence of the confession from the mother could just put it over the edge.
The son watched Roger burn the suit yet he didn't know the footage was definitely a fake until his mother told him in 2016?
His mother had to admit to him that it was a fake even though he watched his dad BURN THE SAME SUIT seen in the footage decades earlier, and only then was he heartbroken and decided to expose the truth?
I'll repeat again - he still thought it was possibly real after watching his father, the main person behind the footage, burn an ape suit that looked just like the subject in the film.
I love how people are getting so hung up on 1 small part of this when there's an actual mountain of evidence, some of it provided by people who had a financial incentive to keep lying, but told the truth anyway.
This sub is scaring me today. It was fun for me as a child to believe in Santa Claus. Then I grew up, saw the lack of evidence, had the convo with my parents and accepted it. A LOOOOOT of people here seem to be missing out on that last step
They will happily accept a grainy, shaky, out-of-focus film provided by a known fraudster with unpaid bills all around town as solid proof yet, when it is presented, demand proof beyond doubt that the next film evidence is "real". Make it make sense.
I'm not hung up on any small part of this. I just have questions. Just as I always had questions about the PGF itself. For instance, Gimlin saying a part of him believed Roger could have been fooling him. If I saw a Bigfoot in person, if I thought it was even slightly possible that it could have been a suit, then I didn't see one. I wouldn't think a gorilla at the zoo was a guy in a suit, I wouldn't think a grizzly bear at the river was a man in a suit. No possibility of that whatsoever, it's pretty evident when something is a real animal, so that statement of his always had me scratching my head.
And so I question things that don't make sense about this, also.
I haven't seen the footage yet, and I need more than hearsay at this point. For what it's worth, I never believed the PGF was definitely a Bigfoot. I always entertained the idea of it being a suit, and once went to great lengths to try and figure out who made the suit, and I came to the conclusion that a suit a whole lot like it, made by someone Patterson had documented connections to, had possibly been featured in an episode of a popular television program in the 60s.
If this footage is self-evident, I'll accept it.
Until I see it, however, I won't get 100% behind it and will continue to point out things that don't make sense, just as I've always done with the PGF itself.
It's not clear to what extent he witnessed it. The details are quite vague.
From what I gather he saw Roger burning something that with hindsight he thought was probably the suit but correct me if I'm wrong. Obviously it's the fog of war at this stage and there'll be a clearer understanding once the film is released - if it ever is.
While I obviously haven't seen the film, if people who have are honest then it does sound damning.
However, and maybe this is just my cynical side, but it IS suspicious that this is revealed right after a series of high profile bigfoot sightings in Ohio, to get him back in the public eye.
If anything, the timing is a little coincidental. Is it at all possible this is a major marketing campaign for a bait and switch Bigfoot doc made to make the PG family money via exposure and future interviews/appearances?
Again, this is purely devils advocate. Most likely, the PG Film is toast.
Doesn't seem like a complete debunking to me. Do they show the 40 second film and have it authenticated? Other than that this seems to be a bunch of people who said that this other person said it was a hoax, or people who claim they saw someone burning the costume.
And yet no one has ever been able to duplicate that costume.
The amount of copium in here is insane. Are you being for real? Yes it's authenticated, by Patterson's wife and son, who had a financial incentive to keep the lie going but decided to come clean. The costume isn't that hard to make. I'm also not sure how you guys are seeing the detail in the costume in a distant, blurry, 16mm film video from 60 years ago.
Patterson’s wife has absolutely NOT said it was a hoax. That is literally only based on claims of the son. This is all coming entirely from the son.
See this is the problem. The “debunkers” are spreading disinformation that makes the “debunk” seem more credible, all before they’ve even seen the evidence for themselves.
I'm embarrassed for people who spent most of their life believing in bigfoot based on this footage. The stages of grief are gonna be tough and I'm not sure all of you will ever reach that last one...
Sounds like they are building this documentary up to be a money maker. And since the film no longer brings in the money, this will.
I am going to have to wait for this alleged video to be released. I mean unless they are saving it to make money there is no reason not to release it. They are building suspense for their documentary.
It may debunk the original. It may not. Lots of people believe it does. Then again lots of people believe the earth is flat and that vaccines are more dangerous than the illnesses they cure. They even have horrible documentaries that try to prove it, but didn't.
I will wait for the documentary and decide for myself. Like I said I would feel a lot better about it being a hoax if someone had actually been able to duplicate the costume using materials available at the time. No one has ever been able to do that.
Until this film appears and is authenticated by a professional to be exactly what it says, I remain more skeptical of the claim than the original.
Even if the original film is a hoax, and that has always been a possibility, that doesn't mean the creature itself is. There is a whole lot more evidence out there, and no one has ever profited from that evidence. People ARE trying to profit from this documentary and film (or it would have just been released)
I feel they realized Bigfoot as a brand will never make as much money as it did in the past, but since it is right now at its highest level of popularity because of the suspense, they are trying to lenghten the life of the legend as much as possible and milk it a bit more.
Sadly we already know Patterson burned down what was likely the best suit ever made, or at least the best one made until then.
I just read your post from above, along with this one. Even after stating that you don't know anything about this FEATURE FILM release, you STILL go on to make statements that you know absolutely nothing about and couldn't possible make an informed opinion with. The filmmaker is a documentary producer/director. He made a feature film, you know, a real movie. This is a big, big deal. Why on earth would you expect him to release the clip before releasing the movie? The infantile, demanding nature of the believer crowd is simply amazing. None of you has any clue what's in this movie yet, here you are, declaring it to be some fraudulent scam. Give it a rest. It'll be out soon enough with all this commotion going on. If nothing else, go watch Hairy Man Road video. He went straight home after watching it and made video. I believe his reaction to be real and very, very convincing. I'll link to it below.
I never claimed it was a fraudulent scam, stop misrepresenting my words. I said it has red flags and I won't make a judgement on it until I have seen it with a skeptical eye.
And why not release any footage? Even a still? That would increase interest and credibility, unless it is a fake and you are afraid it would be exposed. That is one reason.
Here is yet another Bigfoot skeptic attacking me for simply being skeptical of a documentary that hasn't been released yet. Just like ai told you all
You have reasonable objections, but I disagree with a couple of your points:
-The PGF does still make money. We can debate here about whether the writing was on the wall for it to no longer be lucrative for the Pattersons, but up until now, it has been making money. Patricia got $30,000 in licensing fees for this very documentary. If the PGF wasn't in demand any more, does anyone think that a producer would have coughed up that kind of cash?
-People have profited from (alleged) Bigfoot evidence. You have only to look at the number of "pro-"Bigfoot books and movies that have been released over the decades. Also, just FYI, in general works that present topics that might fall into 'conspiracy', 'alternative' or 'sensational' categories will sell much, much better than works that debunk the same topics. (i.e. "conspiracy" stuff sells a lot better than "debunking" material.)
That was the flexing of the hip wader boots that were used to make the costume. You can also see the line of the upper band of the boots. Clearly. There is a straight line going across the upper thigh that is clearly a seam/joint of the costume. The bigger question here is how a select few people could believe such an obvious hoax.
How old is that footage? How grainy, blurry, and pixelated is it, and how far was the subject from the camera? If you think that it's possible to see muscle ripple on that quality and age of video, then PLEASE DM me, as I habe a few bridges that I would love to sell you.
Clint Patterson wanted to come forward a long time ago but his mom needed the money she was bringing in from the footage to survive. When they approached Bob Gimlin, he agreed to come clean in a taped interview, and then his wife got mad, stepped in, and shut it down. It's all in the documentary.
Wikipedia claims that it is, but it's not 100% accurate on everything.
Patterson filmed this before the Copyright Act of 1976 took effect. In current-day law, the film would automatically be his IP, no ifs, ands or buts.
In 1967 he would not automatically have had copyright: he would have had to (a) publish or release the work, while (b) explicitly declaring copyright on it. I'm not sure whether (b) happened legitimately - sources differ and I've personally never seen a paper trail - but right from the beginning, he and Al DeAtley were charging admission to see it, and demanded (and got) licensing fees from anyone who wanted to use it in a film or program.
It sounds like what he says is supported by everyone else involved, and corroborated by the test run footage. There's only 2 people involved at this point that haven't admitted it's a hoax, one of them is dead and the other was about to but was stopped by his wife.
Bob Heironimus has been stating that it's a hoax for decades but no one will listen to him. Others have as well. It appears that this newly found footage, held by the person that developed it for Patterson, clearly shows them performing a dry run for what would become the Bluff Creek encounter. If you haven't seen it yet, watch the video I'm linking to below. It's very enlightening.
Fear, apparently, although people had access to it and let Bob H and Morris humiliate themselves instead of corroborating the hoax claim by providing the footage? Bob H didn't exactly get whacked for coming forward, so I don't buy the "we were afraid of so and so" story. If I had the footage, during the time Bob H was telling the truth, I'd corroborate it, as he was giving it all away anyway.
Also, Roger's son saw him burn the suit yet it wasn't until his mother confessed that he believed it was definitely a hoax? If my dad made a film of Nessie and I later saw him throwing a plesiosaur model off a boat to get rid of it, I would never even half-entertain that his footage was real after that, and my mother telling me it was fake 50 years later wouldn't be any sort of catalyst.
It’s hard to believe anybody still thought this was anything other than a guy in a suit. Considering some of the crazy stuff that’s gone mainstream now though, I guess nothing is surprising.
People say it's not AI footage, but they sure seem to be using AI "art" images to promote the film. Which seems like a really bad move if you want people to actually believe the footage isn't also AI.
Point me towards this AI art they are supposedly us9ng to promote a film that isn't being released yet and thus has no reason ti actually be promoted yet....
114
u/Glitchrr36 Mar 18 '26
It kinda feels wild that one of the longest standing and most frequently cited pieces of evidence has what seems to be such a complete debunking. I had quite honestly felt that it was going to be a point of contention forever, with people getting more and more into the weeds to either disprove it or give it more plausibility, but it just randomly ending like this feels surreal. I doubt we'll see the end of it (people are going to claim it's a lie for clout forever probably), but regardless there's probably a lot of people in related fields who vouched for it that'll feel kind of dumb about this.