Leaderboard

"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.🤷‍♂️

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yesterday I read comments on the Sasquatch Odyssey video I posted just above. Wow, some brutal, hurtful comments toward Mr. Munns, including some from "Hairy Man Road," whose video also appears in this thread, dismissing PGF as a hoax. What a jerk he's proven himself. Bill calmly, respectfully, logically, and with knowledgeable expertise puts forth his views on the new/old footage, even providing the documentary producers with information about the film that they didn't previously know. "Hairy Man Road" proceeds to insult Bill thru comments on a third-party's video. Real class.

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.

NVM

Yeah, I’m still confused how the image above is supposed to disprove the PGF?

If I had a Bigfoot movie with my friends back in my youth (1970's ) any bigfoot would look like footage from the PGF in the following sense: -Any footage would have a Bigfoot subject. -The camera would come on to the subject. -Unless the video was designed to have bigfoot attack the cameraman, the Bigfoot would walk away or run away. -The setting would be in some sort of outdoors, probably wooded area. That generic happening would be common in nearly any bigfoot video. It wouldn't make it "Trial Run" or anything else. This reminds me of the Roger Patterson drawing appearing in Roger's book PRIOR TO the PGF event. It didn't signal a pre-PGF tell, it was just a drawing inspired largely from other reports.

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.

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

I am not killing the messenger. You were cherry picking some “gotcha moment” Rogan video short against Meldrum. Which is a crock. It doesn’t even remotely represent what Meldrum said in the full interview let alone years of conferences and his BOOK!? Really? Have you read it? So hence forth I will be scrutinizing you based on this slanderous event you perpetrated on this forum. Sorry.

Kind of like Meldrum’s “confession”??? Give me a break.

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

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.

I don't understand your concern about someone "gutting" the PGF. It stood the test of time here on BFF under an electron-microscope type analysis and it is entirely irrelevant who Patterson and Gimlin were personally. Go ahead and try to destroy their reputation. It doesn't change the fact that a video is out there every aspect of which has been analyzed here at BFF over the many years. In my opinion, anyone who wishes to claim the PGF was a hoax has to specifically disprove Gigantofootecus' ASH ratio calculations and Patty's forearm ratio. Not knowing those two issues intimately, much less at all, tells me everything I need to know about someone's ability to intelligently discuss the PGF. Moreover, have they read Bill's Munn's works, which, in my opinion, are a veritable treatise on the PGF, or even know who he is? There are many people who have opinions about a lot of things they possess little or no knowledge. Let them come here and debate both critical, and tangential, issues of the PGF itself.

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/

Score!

Sasquatch Theory and Half Inch Wrecking Crew. Oh, and Outlaw Country.

That poster was my friend Bill Miller, who unfortunately passed away 6 or 7 years ago. That test was done on the shore of Harrison Lake, here in BC. He is sorely missed in our local research circle.

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.

Oops, wrong spot. Preview, lol.

I watch your reservoir videos on YouTube!

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.

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.