Leaderboard

"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.

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.🤷‍♂️

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 😂.

Getting my overlanding/exploring rig more capable. While not nearly as awesome or capable as Norseman's Ram, it can go on some roads that stock pickups might not be able to. Just a leveling kit with 37s, a 13.5k winch, and beefy bumper.

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.

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 2026 and people are still desperately trying to discredit the film. So far all attempts have failed as none of them address the issues that exist with replicating the film subject with 1960’s costume technology.

Such surely brings into question any conclusions our new member draws.

I volunteer to perform a blindfolded feel test on any purported Patty "suit" and live female test subject.

Interesting, as even Kitakaze is suggesting it's the Ahtanum Valley footage, which is discussed I believe in Greg Long's book, so it seems Joshua is at odds with Marq Evans on this. Okay - the breast thing is a bit suspicious, but we can't tell until we see those boobs.

Lots of good channels. I particularly like Studying Sasquatch, Hellbent Holler, and Small Town Monsters.

Got the emergency lights hooked up. Neighbor kids love them, lol.

Moose stand 7 to 8 feet tall at the shoulder, are 9 to 10 feet long, weigh 1,200 to 1,800 pounds and where there is a high concentration of them, there are still large amounts of ripe growth available to them and other animals. They run up to 35 miles per hour. Brown bears are 4 to 5 feet tall at the shoulder and 8 to 10 feet tall when standing on their hind legs. They weigh up to 1,500 pounds and can run 35 miles per hour and can kill many moose, caribou, elk and deer in a year. So, I don't find those descriptions of sasquatches ridiculously far fetched, just somewhat exaggerated due to witness perception.

I'm partial to Cabin in the Woods. And a close second is Hellbent Holler.

^^ 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.

just my prediction from the hype machine…. You know, when “found footage” is hyped to the public with some great reveal.

Merged the Capturing Bigfoot by Sircalum with this one. Please try to keep this topic to a minimum number of threads. We have this topic here and one over in the PGF section for specifically the Capturing Bigfoot documentary. And any number of other very topic specific threads in the PGF section for everything under the sun regarding PGF. Thanks!

If you're referring to a short clip of Bob Gimlin speaking to the X creatures TV show, you can see it in writing (and in the show itself) here at the Forums. Just go to There is a transcript of the show which you can review if you want to skip to Bob Gimlin's purported "confession."

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.

So I’ve been a “researcher/experiencer” since 2008, and had my first sighting late 2013/early 2014. So far I’ve had three up close sightings, tons of audio(and have some audio too!), tonnnnns of gifting experience etc. I love interacting with the Bigfoot. I have a method of leaving laminated pictures out for them in the spots I go to and have found it’s a fantastic way to collect hair from them as it sticks to the pictures, I currently have some from a year or so ago from a few different states and am very interested in starting a routine of collecting hairs and testing them. I can probably fund it all myself, and would love some pointers and direction on how to go about collecting the hairs in the best manner possible and the whole process of getting them tested!

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.

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.

Pre-Clovis? Not so fast. Interesting discussion regarding whether the Monte Verde site, in Chile, is truly Pre-Clovis. Monte Verde is a linchpin site in the Pre-Clovis theory debate. The video author interviews a paleoarchaeologist who has submitted new research disputing the accepted age of the human artifacts found at Monte Verde.

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.

Appreciate that! Thanks, man The Half Inch Wrench guys are good. I always enjoy Small Town Monsters stuff.

Mentions methods that could conceivably add perceived muscle movement to suits, yet fails to demonstrate any such effects on the various suits that have been put forth, over the years. None of those proposed suits have even approached the biological movements seen in the PGF. I predict the Capturing Bigfoot expose will be less than satisfying.

Meldrum was just repeating Joe’s line where he explores what he thinks is a possibility. The only arguments presented here by skeptics are that people close to Patterson claim it’s a hoax. Meanwhile Patty herself has characteristics that aren’t repeatable with costumes.

Well, yeah - but Rogan also thought that Bob H walked identical to Patty based on nothing more scientific than the eye test, so I'll reserve judgement.

No. We have no body. Therefore we cannot rule out option A. No film includes a body for science to poke. You’re taking Meldrum out of context there. It’s cheap. A three second gotcha doesn’t erase his years of research on the subject. Or Bill Munns for that matter….. This might work on Reddit or some Facebook page. But it won’t work here. 🙄

I don't know who Bart is, nor do I care, but his YT video revelation is a complete swing and miss. ::eye roll::

Allegedly in the film there is a "rehearsal" of sorts. those who have seen the footage cant tell if it was part of the original movie Roger was going to make or actually a rehearsal for bluff creek. It is supposed to start streaming this Thursday, time will tell.

I just came across this BFRO report: https://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=79845 Short story shorter: 3 witnesses reported seeing a Bigfoot in Oklahoma walking off a powerline easement from more than 1,500 feet away. I'm not a field researcher but 1,500 feet away, across a river, windy conditions, late afternoon, and down a powerline cut area do not seem like good conditions for clear observation. Any researchers on here who are comfortable with BFRO referring to this as a "Triple A" sighting? If so, why? I'm not challenging what the witnesses reported seeing. I just think from an evidence perspective that a Class A designation is a bit ambitious.

Just got back from a 3200-mile road trip from Washington to the AZ/Mexico border and back. I won an auction for a 2009 IH ambulance in Marysville, WA so had to take a sidetrack to there and pick it up. Plan is to convert it into an RV for exploring the Idaho woods. I would have loved to find one in 4x4, but realized most of my weekend trips didn't really need 4wd. The new rig is very beefy and not in too bad of shape. Going to strip the interior and build a log cabin-themed interior complete with little wood stove.

I am excited to share that we have expanded our research efforts with the adoption of using some of the latest in thermal drone technology, we have just concluded or first LIVE thermal drone search over one of our study sites. We will be doing more of these in the future and welcome folks to join us in our live chats during our streaming events.

One of the questions regarding the PGF is how was it that Patty could leave a deeper impression in the sandbar than Roger's and Bob's horses. There was well-known poster here on BFF who did an experiment on a sandy beach and posted his results (and video or pictures I think). It turned out that his foot impression was deeper than a horse whose rider had it walk near his tracks. I was flummoxed how a heavy horse on small hooves would not be deeper that a much lighter person with larger feet. The moral of that story is that the mechanics of a foot's movement are far more important than the weight of the person/animal making the impression. I wish I could remember the BBF poster's name but cannot. It was a while ago.

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.

Interest in many things comes in waves, ebbs and flows. Is it possible your time of joining the forum coincided with one of the peaks? I know this to be true of my own. Thinking of a parallel .. no athlete runs 4 minute miles 7 days a week. It is true of our interest here. I think the period we are in now with less interest, less bright shiny things to draw our attention, is more representative of bigfootery over the long haul. There is also a change of medium when it comes to information exchange. There are TONS of small bigfoot groups on facebook. Lot of people trying to monetize their interest which I think distracts from the larger communities like this one. There is not much to do but get out there and do your own thing in the woods.