All Activity

In this episode, we delve into the extraordinary experiences of Rick and Mandy from southern Ohio, who have spent years encountering something they can’t fully explain in the forests surrounding the Ohio River. Living in a region known for dense woods, winding back roads, and hidden pockets of activity, they share how a simple day of hiking turned into a series of ongoing encounters that continue to unfold. Describing moments of being followed through the trees, hearing unexplained vocalizations, and discovering massive footprints and unusual structures, Rick and Mandy paint a vivid picture of a place where the normal rules of the woods don’t seem to apply. Their experiences span remote trails, cemeteries, and quiet stretches of forest where something always seems just out of sight. They also explore the deeper side of what they’ve witnessed, from strange environmental changes to encounters that challenge the boundary between physical and unexplained phenomena. Over time, their curiosity has grown into a dedicated effort to understand what shares these woods with them. Join us as we follow Rick and Mandy’s ongoing journey through southern Ohio, where each trip into the forest brings new questions—and the feeling that something is always watching from just beyond the tree line. 🗣️ Share Your Story Had a Bigfoot encounter or strange experience? Send it to bigfootsociety@gmail.com – your story might be featured on the show! 🎥 Watch & Subscribe on YouTube 🔴 Subscribe here → Bigfoot Society YouTube 💬 Leave a comment & let us know your thoughts! 📞 Leave a voicemail with your story → Speakpipe (Use multiple voicemails if needed) 👥 Share this episode → Watch & Share 🎧 More episodes → Podcast Playlist 🌲 Recommended: New Jersey Bigfoot Encounters 💥 Support the Show & Get Perks ✅ Join the community on Supercast – Become a Member ✅ Listen ad-free & early on YouTube – Join Here 📱 Let’s Connect Instagram: @bigfootsocietyTwitter: @bigfoot_societyTikTok: @bigfoot.society🧰 Tools & Partners I Use (Affiliate Links) These help support the show at no extra cost to you: Beam (Better Sleep): Try BeamWildgrain (Better Bread): Join HereSeed (Probiotics): Get SeedMedi-Share (Healthcare): Learn MoreLMNT (Electrolytes) Free Sample Pack with your first purchase! : Get LMNTOrganic and non-GMO groceries delivered for less http://thrv.me/uarEhS🎙️ Podcasting Tools: Repurpose.io: Try ItDescript: Sign UpStreamyard: Start RecordingRiverside.fm: Try Riverside🎧 My Audio Interface: View on Amazon ☕ Buy Me a Coffee – Support Here 🛍️ Grab Some Merch – Shop on Etsy 📬 Mailing Address: Bigfoot Society 125 E 1st St. #233 Earlham, IA 50072Listen to the Podcast

The PGF while an amazing film? Proves nothing. The war isn't going to be won with films, interviews, conferences, paster casts or audio analysis. The war will be won with bone, flesh, scat, blood and saliva. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Honestly, this whole thing seems like hearsay to me at this point, which is almost always considered to be weak 'evidence'. Bob G. himself could tell me in person that the PGf was a hoax (I really don't think he would) but, I would still doubt that. The PGf rehearsal being touted (as I understand), will need to be very convincing in order to sway my opinion. And, I would bet you a dollar that it isn't. If the PGf subject were or, if it even could be realistically replicated with, a costume, that would have been done many times by now.

If this film is a fake then I’m completely delusional and shouldn’t be evaluating the phenomenon.

From The Morning Astorian of Astoria (OR), a story published on January 2, 1923 of a hairy wild man with bulging muscles in the south Jersey woods. It was a human, but that likely won't prevent it from showing up as a Bigfoot encounter in some books.

Sasquatch Novelty Sign Colorado Springs, CO - Bigfoot Crossing Sign Bigfoot Metal Sign hotelier.com.pyView the full article

It wouldn't change anything for me. I've never found the PGF particularly convincing.

And here we go w/a quick review of Evidence v. Egos. All times are from the YouTube transcript; all comments are made by Eric from Hairy Man Road. He managed to squeeze 3 minutes of specific information into 12 minutes this time, so his signal to noise ration is at least improving a little. 1:00 Patricia Patterson "admits that the 67 footage is a hoax." Who calls the P-G film "the 67 footage?" Is he referring to the new footage, which he mistakenly referred to as being shot in 1967 in his first video? Starting at 6:41, the narrator states that Jeff Meldrum (RIP) agreed that it was a dry run. In the last video he has Dr. Meldrum saying "it looks like a dry run." That's not an insignificant difference, and had a follow-up question been asked, it would clarify if Dr. Meldrum would have been able to offer a more complete answer. He might have, and that answer might be on the cutting room floor. The narrator then states that Patricia Patterson admitted that it was Bob Gimlin in the film. That's like claiming as a shocking development "that Japan once attacked U.S. forces in Hawaii." I think everyone with some actual knowledge of this matter knows that there was an earlier attempt at making a commercial film. Then at 6:51 the narrator declares that Bill Munns is only defending the film because he (Mssr. Munns) has a financial stake in the P-G film being real. If that's the case, Eric from Hairy Man Road has no credibility on anything he says because he has a financial stake in pushing his YouTube channel. He also claims that Bill Munns is about to release another book on the P-G film. "Everybody's saying that ..." Actually, there's only about 2 minutes of specific information that's even worth mentioning in this 12-minute clip.

Bigfoot Believe Vinyl Decal Sticker Car Window Wall Bumper Sasquatch Yeti Funny hotelier.com.pyView the full article

30 seconds in, "It seems they don't want to accept the facts." What facts has this cretin brought to light? Zip.

Why so mean to this guy?

I wouldn't be expecting anything from Bob at this point. I know a lot of folks are holding out hope he will come forward one way or another but its HIGHLY unlikely to happen. It will be very interesting to see this doc when it finally hits a platform to view it.

Suppose this kerfuffle over the Gimlin film turns out to prove it was indeed a hoax. How will it personally affect your belief in BF and how do you think it will affect research and merchandising? Personally, I have friends who have seen them. If these friends told me the sun wasn't going to rise tomorrow, I'd go buy a flashlight. So irregardless of real or hoax, I believe. I think the harm will be that if there is proof of fraud, the subject will be set back decades. People are already calling it a fake without even seeing the movie and the "evidence". In my own opinion, and without seeing the film or knowing those involved, I think this is a opportunistic moneygrab by a kid who is on the outs with mommy and is doing what he can to get even.

^^ Oh yeah, I don't trust youtube transcripts. Some of the ones I posted in the P-G film reference thread took hours to correct the garbage that they spit out. I have not yet seen the actual Capturing Bigfoot film (and probably won't for another week due to stuff). Reiterating for the benefit of others, not trying to start a flame war (especially since one of the things going on is a move to West Virginia....) Going through the junk transcript from "I Saw the Footage ... It's a Hoax!," what the guy who saw the footage is saying, not what's actually in the Capturing Bigfoot film, At 3:18, there is a discussion about Clint P and his relationship with other members of the family. Clint (not his mother) states that Bob H was in the Patty suit at 4:09 to 4:23. At 11:18 the narrator begins describing the bad relationship between Patricia Patterson and Clint P - could be because he's letting the cat out of the bag or it could be because Clint P is making up things about his dead dad or saying things he knows nothing about. At 17:31, the narrator repeats Clint P's story that his mother told him that Bob H was in the suit. At 20:28, the narrator begins talking about Clint P's reunion and possible rapprochement with his mother. At 21:36, Patricia Patterson is quoted for the first time (in this video, not the actual film, perhaps) and talks about how the film is cursed and has ruined people's lives - people like her, for example. Almost two minutes later, at 23:42, she's directly quoted as saying "Yeah, yeah, that's that's it. That makes sense now. I'm glad this is out there." That's what? That quote doesn't say anything about the intent behind the newly found film or the veracity of the P-G film. I also have no problem with Bob Gimlin's wife being protective of him given his age and the possible mental acuity problems that come with age. Don't know if Mr. Gimlin has those or doesn't, but his wife certainly would and would know how people could twist his words. Declining to do an interview is not evidence of guilt (says every defense attorney I ever went against).

I'm just waiting for someone to present this to Gimlin...aged man that he is... and just ask for a final, definitive answer. Bigfoot and Murphys Law are conjoined twins it seems. You see one, and you get a blurry photo. You hear it, but get no recording. You watch one crossing the road and everyone else in the car is asleep. An fellow with a checkered past who has questionable methods starts making a movie about Bigfoot and actually films a real one... What and who are you to believe?

if your using youtube or google transcript those can be a little wonky. this is a somewhat accurate run down but Patricia DOES make the claim at some point in the production that it was a hoax and she knew it. her introduction stated it was a curse. Judy stopped the team from interviewing Bob more than he just didn't show up for a interview. mind you it was an ambush style interview and Judy is very protective of Bob. as for why now since they were making money? either the money isn't going as far as it used to Patricia is nearing end of life as well and has no need for it. is the only thing I can guess. copy that.

^^ I know. Didn't think it was you. I'm throwing bricks at the claims made by the film and filmmaker. Sorry for the confusion.

"Yes, Bob saw the new footage and gives a very compelling answer to it. People will need to use their own judgment on what and when he knew." That was a direct quote from the Director, and not me speaking on opinion.

We are way beyond that. We have knowers on this very forum.

"Aliens Are Real" New Revelations -What Secret About Aliens Would Makes a Man Cry For 3 Days?View the full article

Part of being fooled is wanting to believe the thing one is being fooled by. If a person has 100% belief there are no such thing as any life on other planets, they probably have a 0% chance of being fooled by a hoaxed lying saucer photo or story. If a person is 100% convinced Martians are visiting earth, they are more likely to believe stories about UFO's and the like and thus increase their chance to be fooled by any hoax of such a topic. This is why people who are die hard bigfoot skeptics will ignore all the holes in Bob Hieronimus story and be convinced he was the man a Patty suit. When it comes to this new film (and I have not watched it) we have two main forces at work: 1) those who produce it as a work product will craft the story and film in any way which helps sell a smoking gun. 2) those who wish to believe it will dismiss things which hurt the narrative and elevate anything which they can stretch to fit the narrative. Being fooled by something is easier if the person is already convinced before the fooling begins.

Okay, I looked at the transcript of this video because it's a typical podcast or webshow which crams 4 minutes of information into 30 minutes.... Clint Patterson, the "witness" in the new film is 66-years old. That makes him 7 years old when the P-G film was made and probably 12 years old when his father passed away. Clint Patterson never states that his father admitted the hoax to him. Clint Patterson claims that his mother stated that Bob Heironimus wore the P-G film suit. Patricia Patterson is in this film (Edited to Add: According to this reviewer, she does not say "The P-G film was a hoax." She does call it a curse, which is not inaccurate, I'm sure.) Clint P states that she "disowned him" after he stated that he was going to discredit the P-G film, but reading through this reviewer's comments, it sounds like Clint P was on the outs with his family long before that. Clint P apparently hadn't seen his mother "in quite a long time." This film apparently relies on Greg Long's taped interviews of people used for his book. The film also shows clips from Greg Long's speaking tour discrediting the P-G film. Clint Patterson supposedly didn't report "the truth" sooner because Patricia Patterson was making money off the P-G film. (Then why would he discredit the film now?) The "telling" reaction from Bob Gimlin appears to be that he stated at a 2024 Bigfoot conference that he was "ready to tell the truth," but never did the follow-up interview that he agreed to make. This falls short of being a confession that he was in on a hoax in the P-G film. It sounds like the key test for most people will be how close the Patterson Ahtanum Film shot man in a suit is to the Patty suit. Notwithstanding Bill Munns' great work on the film, I think it still might be possible that Roger Patterson was such a bad filmmaker that even a film expert could be fooled.

If Bob Gimlin confessed that the P-G film was a hoax, the director would have most likely said that up front. If he said that he participated in an attempt to make a homemade movie about a Bigfoot, that is an NS2 moment for people who are immersed in the P-G film history and facts. I'm not one of those people and even I know that there are stills from the earlier homemade film showing a bunch of cowboys and their trusty Indian guide (Bob Gimlin, who is part Native American, but who wore a costume) who were going to capture Bigfoot. Adding to the interest in the breast thing, allegedly one of the pre-P-G- film magazine articles had an artists concept of how a female Bigfoot would look and it pretty much matches the Patty look-back moment. While the text of that article can be found online, I haven't found one that includes the picture. I hope to track down a copy of the magazine in the next month or two.

Of course the BF world blows up when I'm in the middle of some real world concerns. So as I go through this thread I'll probably find that many of these things have been asked and answered. While it is irrelevant who a witness (or victim) is, their reputation for honesty or lack thereof and past examples of dishonest behavior can be used to demonstrate that their claim in a specific instance cannot be credited. A very long time ago, DAs almost never prosecuted alleged rapists if the victim was a known prostitute - who the victim was personally should have been irrelevant to the alleged crime. And a convicted embezzler can be the victim of embezzlement. However, his past convictions could be relevant to demonstrate that his claims that he was a victim should not be credited. His past actions would go to the weight the jury would give to the testimony. Unfortunately, Roger Patterson's past actions (misappropriating the camera he used, repeated dishonorable failure to repay debts) do give a reason to trust his statements about what happened at Bluff Creek less. BUT, his statements are only one item of evidence. Bingo. Unfortunately, those who are not deep in the weeds won't know that this supposedly new adverse information was known and addressed. What Meldrum said is that "there's several possibilities ... the first one is its bullshit ..." Cutting off the other possibilities and claiming that Meldrum "stated that the P-G film is bullshit" is affirmatively misleading. Hopefully, this is due to an innocent error on the poster's part and was not an intentional manipulation of Jeff Meldrum's statement.

No lollipops while driving? These rumored Washington state laws may not be true Tacoma News TribuneView the full article