Forums

Credit where credit is due to Sircalum (for posting the link) and to Matt Moneymaker (for offering an alternative explanation for this film).  Everyone here seems to be accepting, at face value, that this new film was shot before the P-G film and was a rehearsal for it.   For those who can't (or haven't) read MM's Facebook post, he posits that the new film was shot after the P-G film and was an attempt to recreate the encounter.  Why?  One reason suggested by MM is that Al DeAtley wanted to have a longer film to show and - let's face it - the P-G film as originally shot is not all that good.  So perhaps Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson (and Bob Gimlin, if that's him in this film) wanted to have more film to show on the movie circuit and experimented with a quickly bought (or made) costume to see if they could get something useful.  If so, this would have been done within weeks of the P-G film while Roger still had the rented (and misappropriated) camera.  Alternatively, Al DeAtley could have been trying to prove to himself that the P-G film wasn't a hoax by trying to recreate it.   Only pointing this out because at this time, we don't know when the film was shot.  We know when the film was manufactured, but we know nothing else about when it was used, or when it was processed.  So if the film Capturing Bigfoot is labeling this as a "trial run" they have not, at this point, laid an adequate foundation for doing so.

#6 is a huge issue, there's just no reason for Johnson to have the original if he was asked by Roger (or DeAtley) to develop some footage.  Giving back a copy rather than the original makes no sense - the other way around does make sense if he felt the need to keep a copy.   You may not be aware, but the Den of Geeks podcast on YT interviewed Evans and his partner.  Evans (perhaps unwittingly) drops a bombshell:  Norm's brother Dave worked with Roger on hoaxes, and wore Bigfoot costumes !.  Yes, Evans is accusing Roger of being a serial hoaxer from 1965 to 1972 in Yakima.  Ignoring that insult, there's an obvious take from that:  Dave did a post-PGF reenactment with his brother Norm in order to mimic what his friend Roger had done.   And that's why Norm has the original, because its 'their' work and has nothing to do with Roger.  Dave could have sensed a challenge to do what Roger did, or was jealous and thought Roger was hoaxing (and a hoaxer would love to match another hoaxer).  That explains why the new footage has so much in common with the PGF.  Munns feels it is just too similar to be a coincidence.  So either Roger did a rehearsal and then waited 5 months to put into play all the things done in the rehearsal, or Dave Johnson studied the PGF and the following Spring tried to mimic the PGF as best he could.  That explains the 'thinner' bigfoot (no ability to convincingly make a massive Bigfoot) and the head that is different than Patty (couldnt match it, did the best he could).   If Gimlin is in the new footage, maybe he was so upset with Roger not taking him on tour and cutting him out of the proceeds that he went along with this reenactment.  Not a wise decision in retrospect, but perfectly understandable.  And if its not Gimlin (doubtful to me), then it further distances Roger from having anything to do with this new footage.  

Al DeAtley was Roger Patterson's brother-in-law; their wives were sisters.  He was also a successful construction/concrete mogul in Yakima (I think).  He was extremely wealthy compared to Roger and, probably not wanting his wife's sister to want for things, gave Roger a lot of money.  Once the P-G film was developed, DeAtley was the brains behind marketing it and making a profit off of it.  In his execrable book, The Making of Bigfoot, Greg Long interviews Al DeAtley.  Long makes it sound likes he's going in to interview the Godfather and has doubts about whether he'll be swimming with the fishes if he makes the wrong move while talking to DeAtley.  Long's book is more about making Greg Long look like a heroic journalist tha [to complete this thought] than to shed any light on the P-G film.        He's posted 30 videos over 2-4 years.  I'll defer for a final answer to others, but I don't believe he has any real credibility as a Bigfoot/Sasquatch researcher.  Had he not made this set of videos, I don't think anyone on the forums would know his name.  And there's a large dose of hypocrisy when he castigates Bill Munns for defending the P-G film "to make money" when this guy blocks some of his videos unless you're supporting him on Patreon so - wait for it - he can make money.   

^^ Old Mort, I agree with you on the source of the still - it's from the P-G film.  For some reason, the 1970 article which used that frame jazzed the green up to St. Patrick's Day levels of green.  So what the Capturing Bigfoot film is using is a print made specifically for publication in a magazine rather than a still from the original P-G film.