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.

Here's the complete December 1959 True Magazine article:

"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 😂.

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 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.

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

I thought it was the December 1960 edition, but it was in one of the True magazine articles that ITS wrote. Right now I believe that they're all probably on the Bigfoot Encounters website, but they have text only for most articles.

^^ 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).

Patty's height is only an issue for two reasons: 1) If the height was so extreme as to be out of human range no human could fit in any suit. Say Patty is 8 foot tall (she isn't), Patty would NOT be a man in a suit. 2) If some person of a known height such as Bob Heironimus claimed to be Patty, they must match Patt's height. If Patty was 6'6" and Bob H was 6'1'' it's pretty hard for Bob H to be Patty. Jim McClarin could be tall enough at 6'5''. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEIGHT: We must put 1960's heights in perspective: NBA Heightrs Form the 1960s to Today The height of NBA players has evolved significantly from the 1960s to the present day. Here's a brief overview of the trends: 1960s: The average NBA player was around 6'3" tall, with guards being shorter and forwards taller. Sure Bill Russell was tall (6'10") but people in general were NOT as tall in the 1960's as they are now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WEIGHT: Patty's issue is not so much the height as being massive in size. You can still be average height for a tall guy and still be really big: [ A ] Animals Gorillas are the largest primates, and their size and weight can vary significantly by species and gender. Western Lowland Gorillas: Adult males typically weigh between 300 to 500 pounds (136 to 227 kg) and stand about 4 to 5 feet tall (1.2 to 1.5 meters). Eastern Lowland Gorillas: Adult males can weigh up to 484 pounds (217 kg) and stand about 5 feet 7 inches tall (1.7 meters). Mountain Gorillas: Adult males can weigh up to 220 kg (484 lbs) and stand about 5 feet 7 inches tall (1.7 meters). [ B ] People Football player size. 6'4'' 315lbs The "Blind Side" is one inch shorter than Jim McClarin ! Here is HOF defensive player John Randle. He looks Massive at just 6'1' 290. Compare this man just 6'1'' tall to the taller 1960's Jim McClarin. One seems massive wouldn't you say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, the issue with the PGF walking subject of Patty is not the height measured by a tape measure but the MASSIVE nature of Patty. Just like the Gorilla under 6 feet tall, the massive body speaks for itself: Give people a chance and they will show you who they are. Sad.

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.

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

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.

NVM

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 🙄

from the *EDIT* Director of the film.

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 cant speak to the involvement in the current film, I'm sure your all too aware of the effort he was making toward his own though. I have seen him being active on the Coalition page on FB since the morning of this release. Its the first I've seen of him in ages.

I'd say 'yes' to both but it's clear to me that both would be generally outside of the norm for human height and speed observation, hence the exaggeration.

That quote is exactly what Joshua Kitakaze posted on the Facebook page for Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot thinking. See link below. https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartbigfoot/permalink/26549825624622858/

In my opinion, the gears have shifted, the VAST majority of folks in the "community" are no longer interested in finding answers, they are here for the pop culture phenomena that is "bigfoot". For that reason, forums full of information and data points are of little interest when youtube other social platforms are spoon feeding them. these kinds of spaces are for the dedicated at this point. what they are dedicated to is another question lol. finding answers? their skepticism ? their belief? I've dropped back over the last 2 years myself due to other projects and other research opportunities that yield quantifiable data. Those other fields feel far more rewarding because i can actually "bring it home" so to speak. as mentioned by @Scratchy pushing it on a subreddit may help boost registration and activity over here.

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.

That's a pretty truck

We should go camping this summer! 👍

I have been watching forums die a slow death for years. I.e. The old jet boating forum Mean chicken is gone. Along with it all of its extensive knowledge. The younger crowd doesn’t do forums for some reason. They stick with social media. And then cry about censorship, etc. I just don’t get it. I find forums like these much easier to navigate and interact with.