Leaderboard

Here's the complete December 1959 True Magazine article:

"O Ye of Little Faith." I've seen a few videos showing Bobby H. doing his walk. Patty's walk has nothing to do with the swinging of her arms. It has everything to do with the combination of: 1) The compliant gait and 2) the 41" step length and 3) the substrate upon which she walked which was uneven and moved beneath her foot and 4) her ability to maintain her graceful steps despite all the above while looking back as she continued to glide along. Those who think it's no big deal--try it at home. Place markers every 41" then attempt to do it in a controlled environment where the flooring is rigid and perfectly flat. Be sure to maintain your lower leg nearly parallel to the ground as you lift your knee while striding along. Next, go to the beach and attempt the same walk while barefoot where the subtrate will move as your foot sinks in. Finally, maintain that same 41" step length and lookback as you continue to walk, never looking down at your feet. I've never seen anyone who video'd themselves who didn't look like they were ready to topple over. A clumsy oaf, rather than a graceful and gliding ballerina, and those who've attempted it did so without a costume, including full head gear, and footwear that would leave 14 1/2" long impressions in the substrate that could be casted.

"O Ye of Little Faith." We have the answers in our midst. Go back to the BFF 1.0 and review the analysis and discussions about Patty's proportions, including calculations, related to that. I am fortunate to have followed them daily, in real time, watching issue after issue unfold and then be addressed with calculations. It was a true pleasure. I believe Gigantofootecus first posted his observations about Patty's proportions in November 2005. He used photogrammetric calculations to arrive at his conclusions. Anyone claiming PGF is a hoax has to get past those calculations--good luck, you better brush up on cosecant-squared theta, you'll definitely need it. Absolutely fascinating work to formulate his conclusions. Then came Bill Munns with his detailed treatise which methodically examined every aspect of Patty's body in the PGF from head to toe. He left no stone unturned with his stunning and detailed work viewed from the perspective of an expert in filming and suit construction. There probably is no one who knows more about the PGF than he. Then, SwetiYeti painstakingly presented his elbow/arm proportion analysis. It's all there for everyone to view. There is no new video that can undo the spectacular work nor refute the conclusions heretofore by BFF members with respect to the PGF, in my opinion.

^ Good points, although I have my doubts about them being classified as humanish. To me, just too much about them are non-human. But we will see...maybe... I would certainly love to see a reporter ask Trump at a news conference when he is going to release the "Bigfoot Files". I am not holding my breath for that to happen though. Currently reading Where The Footprints End, Vol. II. Finished Vol. I a few days ago. The basic premise is that Bigfoot is totally related to the Fae, UFOs, ghosts, orbs, etc. and all sorts of paranormal activity. Even if you are a firm F&B believer, you do have to admit that their research is impressive. They catalog how Bigfoot is intertwined with activities and events that have been described throughout history as Fae activity, ghosts, trolls, etc. and other folklore. Interesting reading and thought provoking, even if you dismiss their hypothesis. It will make you think. While I have always been a strict F&B guy, there is a lot of weirdness with Bigfoot that defies explanation. Thanks to Joe and Jessi over at Hellbent for helping me to "evolve" my thinking on this. Still believe in F&B for the most part, but I think there are other things happening as well that do not fit neatly into the traditional Bigfoot "box". Yeah, Woo happens... And finally, in regards to the original question, it will mean nothing. Plenty of other evidence point to their existence. As I have always said, every single one of the 10s, probably 100s, of thousands of reports cannot be hoaxes, hallucinations, misidentifications, and outright lies.

Because we know film site? And it was massively studied? We have a darn good idea of how big Patty was. Jim McClarin is 6 foot 6 inches tall.

Depends on her mood I suppose lol. I'm currently typing this one handed after testing the theory with my wife 😂.

New (to me) about orca culture.

RIP Gareth Patterson, he sadly passed last week.

Yea I am sure he was at the time 6' tall. No one looking for accuracy uses a tape measure to measure height. You mark the height and THEN measure the height if you are limited only to a tape measure. When people use the standing tape measure method it is full of errors and often measures them taller than they are esp. due to a wraparound effect. Further Long has a bias where he needs Bob to be as tall as possible. Not saying he did this and if Bob H is 6' 2'' that's fine by me. I won't take longs word for it but would gladly take Bob H doctor visit records as accurate. I personally could care less how tall Bob H is now so long as he is measured accurately. Most people know how tall they were at their youngest and fittest. When long quotes Bob H as saying he was 6" tall that is the most likely accurate take on his height in 1967. I am sure Bob H reported these many times on any driver's license. If he was a veteran, they measured him in the military. Doctors' visits at the time would measure and weight him. Bob Heironimus would know his height and have many opportunities to drill it into his head. Patty could be 6'1'' tall and Bob H and millions of others could fit in a Patty suit if it was a suit. That's fine. The issue is if Bob H could be a man in a suit. If I asked Roddy McDowell about his makeup process for Planet of the Apes, Roddy could likely tell me accurately in great detail all about the process. He could describe how it was applied, who applied it, how long did things take to dry, did it itch, and so on. He could tell you who the nice person who brought him coffee and doughnuts by name. Bob Heironimus cannot do that. Bob H -just on a suit alone- has constant changing the descriptions. They can't all be right and if they are constantly changing his testimony cannot be trust if the change is dramatically different from previous claims. Anyone who was there that day and camped that night before knows the soil is not "White as snow " For all these and more, reasons bob H height is the least of his concerns.

I think they're suppressing discovery because these creatures will be determined to be a human species, and that will cause a whole new level of political, legal, and real estate problems. Simultaneously, discovery will be too disruptive to the sasquatch species. Currently, they're almost universally left alone by humanity. That will not be the case after discovery. Keeping them mythical is better for everybody, especially the sasquatches.

The PGF while an amazing film? Proves nothing. The war isn't going to be won with films, interviews, conferences, plaster 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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes it does. Most Bigfoot videos including this “gotcha” video we haven't the foggiest idea where the film site is. Yes McClarin and Patty may be misaligned by a few feet. Albeit the sticks and stumps are lining up close. But a few feet? Yah. McClarin is walking pattys track way. Its still visible. But John Green and Roger Patterson almost assuredly are not standing in the exact spot. But close. Thats ALOT better metric than a flat ZERO. Where is Todd Standings filmsites? We don't know. Go take a pick from X Y or Z off the youtubes. The PGF is the most studied Bigfoot film-site in the world. 99.9 percent of them? We have no idea where they were filmed. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. As Bill Munns would tell you? There is value in that. 100 percent. Nothing takes the place of a body of course. And Bob H. is 6’2” tall. It’s not Patty’s height that impresses me. It’s her bulk and muscle movement. And it always has.

Reviews of YouTube reviews. That's what's being discussed here. It is truly a strange world that we live in.

Here is the PGF section link: For newer members, Kit was a long time and strongly anti-PGF skeptic on here some time back. His postings can still be found in the PGF section if anyone is interested in his comments. I saw those comments a few days ago when all of this broke. I guess he is still around... Welcome back SW! Supposedly, Bill Munns has seen it, but I do not know that to be a fact. I am very interested in his opinion of this.

I don't know. I will likely gut the entire rear box and build it up from there. But that will take a ton of time. And I don't have a shop. First steps will be to do maintenance on the rig and do some minor corrosion repair on the aluminum. Going to buff and wax the exterior, detail the interior, and sell the Stryker system. Once I get the rig cleaned up and repair all the little things, then I will evaluate it's retail value vs. cost/time of converting it to a class C motorhome. I'm also planning on building an RV pad and snow shed, along with a smaller shop, on some property in Idaho. I may want to just focus on that project since this summer is going to be hell in the Idaho mountains due to the low snowpack and winter that never came. The camping season is going to be about a month or so before they shut down the woods and ban campfires due to extreme fire danger. But there are some amazing ambulance conversions out there!

I am not a huge fan of Money maker. But I think he is right, it comes down to the suit. And as I said before we shall see if it stacks up.

This is a really fascinating video, thanks so much for posting! It's kinda nitpicking, but I think it's an important point that it's not really a 'debate' as no one is trying to 'win' or score cheap points, it's very much a discourse and that is so much more productive. I feel like a lot of these discussions turn into debates where people compete against each other to try and 'win' the argument and at the end of the day everyone loses. For full disclosure, I am sceptical by nature. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in ghosts and I don't believe aliens have visited earth. On the topic of bigfoot or sasquatch I'm very much torn as when I see the 'Patty' film it just looks real and genuine to me. That looks like a massive, weighty, bipedal ape that is definitely not a human in a suit and moves with a real looking cadence. However, there are so many questions surrounding other evidence sources such as testimony, hair samples, lack of body, lack of better definition visual record etc. As I said, I'm actually really torn on this subject as it's a bit of a Occam's razor to me: Is it simpler for me to explain away the lack of a cadaver, lack of fossil record, lack of good visual record or is it easier for me to explain away the 'Patty' film which I think looks very much real. I just can't explain away the film, I've tried to rationalise it and have read Mr. Munn's fascinating book and I can see no way realistically in 1967 that a couple of Cowboys pulled that off as a hoax, I think they filmed a real live animal there but that brings up just so many questions....................

It’s the Philip Morris - Bob H. Recreation from 20 years ago. It’s an abomination. Again, it’s not that Roger was a con man. He was. It’s not that Bob G. gets dates wrong or facts wrong from 60 years ago. He does. The 800 lbs Gorilla in the room is Patty walking across that creek bed. Which 20 years ago they failed spectacularly to recreate.🤷‍♂️

Try Darby Orcutt's study at NCSU, maybe won't have to use your dime

Have you heard of the Otang? The YouTube video called 'South Africa's Sasquatch: The Otang'. Simply go to YouTube and call up the title to see this video. Maybe someone can post a clickable title. Is this a new primate that popped up in a flash or has it been hiding in the jungle all along? Why are some calling it a Bigfoot? Will this discovery help the economy of South Africa or will this discovery shut down profits from the jungle?

This is quite interesting.

Latest bigfoot discussion

I just want to emphasize this before anyone gets in trouble. No religious topics may not be discussed in the open forum. However, you may discuss them in the Tar Pit if you like. Thank you RedHawk, for your discussion of your incidents. I would have been out of the basement a lot sooner than you!

Bingo! Or tries to....even if revealing it or confirming it would be in everyone's best interest. Or would be a five minute topic and then disappear.

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

There is declination marker at the bottom of topo maps. The problem with that is it is very small and when taking a reading in bad weather you can easily be off by a few degrees. Over 500' it wouldn't matter much but over a mile it could mean life or death. It is always much easier to spread a map out in the warmth and comfort of home and draw the magnetic lines. You can also do it on the computer with mapping software and and then zero im on the particular area you are going. That way, the parallel lines are printed on the map itself.

It gets better and better. Here's yet another Bill Munns interview, with further explanation and speculation by Mr. Munns. At 12:50, Bill discusses that the newly "discovered" film is either a rehearsal or, in his opinion, more likely a recreation of the actual PGF, after the event. In the new footage is a man on horseback with a rifle, pretending to be Bob Gimlin. There's someone in a "modestly halfway decent suit, nothing spectacular" walks thru the woods "virtually duplicating to the nth degree the PGF." Bill points out that in this film the Patty subject raises the foot straight up and down and you see the whole bottom of the foot. "And it's pure white exactly like Cibachrome print #72 of the PGF, and it's virtually identical." The producers of the documentary asked Bill's opinion of the footage and he said "A, it's obviously a man in a suit. The suit isn't anything spectacular. It's not like an off the rack Halloween costume that Phillip Morris would sell. It was custom made for this filming, but it's not Rick Baker, Stan Winston, John Chambers Hollywood quality. It's not anywhere near that. I'd say it's a medium grade proficiency making the suit." Bill actually held the "new" film, and he gave them details they didn't have before. It was 1966 mfg (but the shooting/exposure date is unknown. The fact the costume has white feet is telling, as it matches the overexposure seen in reproduced prints. Per Bill, no serious costume would utilize white feet. I'm half ways thru, I've more to see, but wanted to share this additional interview with you.

The embarrassment known as X Creatures did NOT have any confession from Gimlin. For those who don't know, X creatures was a show which appeared several years ago on TV. It had enough budget to produce a "Patterson Film Recreation". While the show talked about bigfoot they essentially linked the idea the PGF created the belief in Bigfoot. Instread of making a suit out of era materails, they used an off the rack suit with modern materials such as stretch fur. In spite of this the recreation was a failure. They talked to Gimlin in an interview by telephone essentially catching him at home like a tele marker. To me, they cherry picked the dialog. In spite of this Gimlin made it clear he did not think he was hoaxed and what he saw he considered real. Gimlin does say he would be open to consider being hoaxed. During that same sentence he makes he doesn't beleive that and gives reasons why this wasn't possible. Result: Gimlin didn't think he was hoaxed by anyone. Gimlin didn't think it was a man in a suit. X Creatures twisted this conversation misrepresenting Gimlin was a naive witness being fooled by Roger. That is not what happened and anyone watching the show knows it.

The beauty of the PGF is that, it doesn’t provide any proof that Sasquatch is real, but it can’t be disproven either. The film is inconclusive. And that’s what makes it great. Both sides can only make claims. Nothing so far has been definitive

That’s a frame from the 1967 film. It comes after frame 352.

Is that not just after frame 352? That is the exact rock/stick formations from Bluff Creek, the 66 footage isn’t in Bluff Creek from what I’ve read. Just looks like a filter over the Patterson footage.

Bob Gymlan correctly splashes big bucket of cold water on the debunking, saying "Wait, hold your horses." He states that it will all boil down to the realism of the "rehearsal" footage.

So I am able to collect hairs from them on a pretty repeatable basis over time, and am interested in starting a routine of getting these hairs I collect collected in the best way possible and also getting them tested(of course). I can likely fund the effort myself. I work a lot, this is a very busy time for me, but would like to get this effort rolling. Anyone that has some pointers on how to proceed can PM me or preferably just reply here.

It’s over for Patty but there was Bigfoot before and after so Bigfoot is not dead.

Oops. A re-check of Eric Hairy Man's commentary says 'square circle' . No mention of ++ . That means it was 1965. If its triangle circle its 1966.

The dude jumped so many conclusions that he had to duck hitting the moon.

Hairymanroad, a YouTuber, went to SXSW to watch the second screening. Based off of his, and one other individual who went to a screening from the BF community the 40sec of 1966 film, in the words of Jeff Meldrum, "looked like a test run". Then goes on to describe how "it was "patty" but slightly different, a different guy in the suit. The lines were all the same." It's not looking great guys. Steenberg, and small handful of others, seem to have been told the same message from Meldrum starting in April of 25. "Something big is coming in relation to the PG-film". I want to see the film too, they are shopping around for a market release but according to the director they have two more film festivals to attend before anything like that will happen.

I posted on another thread about this that Bill Munns opines that the new found footage was Al trying to convince himself that Roger's PGF was not itself a hoax (since Al was going to take it on tour and was worried he'd be at risk of fraud). My head was spinning at that explanation. If the new footage has the 'subject' doing Patty things (lifing it's foot to 90 degrees, etc), has breasts , and has a similar head (the most important), then it's pretty much done. Why Roger would wait a year (being constantly poor) to film the cash cow makes no sense to me however. That the film was in the possession of someone who worked at Boeing (they had a film lab) may finally explain how the PGF was developed so covertly.

so my understanding of this threads to sum up in cliffs is this: -Theres a new documentary that came out that doesn't disprove Sasquatch, but casts doubt about the 1967 PGF with the 1966 PAF to draw viers to the idea that the 167 PGF is bs, and that sasquatch isnt real -and to this day the PGF is still inconclusive something like that to sum it up?

Q&A with Eric Palacios (the guy who saw the Capturing Bigfoot documentary and whose YouTube debrief was posted earlier). In this YouTube video, you get good questions from Todd Prescott and Thomas Steenburg. Eric provides clarifications about what was claimed in the video.

If what Eric is saying here is accurate, Meldrum was stunned and said it looks like a test run for the pg film. It's 30min long but worth the listen. Again, going back to my opening statement, what I saw, what 75% of our report base states, and many other reports around NA, what I saw only looked like Patty in the sense that it was covered in hair. Sasquatch stories predate the PGF and will likely continue until human extinction. The truth is out there, it's just not likely to be anything close to what we think it is. https://youtu.be/WBuWLe1MC_A?si=GORMNkDynvfkrHQl

If it’s real? Do you get to keep your arms? 🤣

No doubt! He really took Bigfoot out of the folklore and hoax word into the modern world. "Science" -in the purist elitist meaning of the word- tells the Bigfoot world we need to have a more science-based approach. Then, when someone like Dr. Meldrum delivers exactly what they demanded they knock him down for not being scientific enough. The rest of the science world not blinded by arrogance applaud Meldrum, give him the credibility he deserves, and will give him his due. Im guessing most people in science liked him and respected him. I would even bet many who didn't secretly applauded the guy. One of these guys on TV (Dr. Began?) said words to this effect: Sometimes in history those who are ridiculed turn out to be right. I'm not saying I agree with Dr. Meldrum but I have to applaud his science approach, knowledge. To some extent he is very brave to take on this topic. If the public ever has proof of bigfoot (dead or alive) I predict Dr. Jeff Meldrum will retroactivity be looked at as a visionary. Maybe a building or institute will be named after him.

Extremely sad. First and foremost obviously for his family. He seemed a very genuine and likeable man. Secondly for the Bigfoot community, who've lost one of the most intelligent, erudite and respected believers. Thirdly, for the man himself, who sadly never got to see the object of his interest confirmed by the mainstream and never got to study Bigfoot as a proven species rather than a cryptid.