Leaderboard

Not only is it not the pre-Patty Bigfoot, that exact still image appears to come from National Wildlife Magazine's 1970 October/November issue, which carried an article called "On the Trail of Bigfoot." That article includes a photo montage; this exact picture is at the center of the montage. The overblown green in this photo triggered a memory; upon review, the photo matches down to the "notch" in Patty's left (trail) leg. Trust but verify - the entire article is in the P-G Film reference library at

Long time since I've been on here, so I jumped on this am after seeing this article floating around on Reddit. Does anyone know someone that was in attendance? Any ideas how the community is going to react? For me personally knowing Bob it bothers me a bit but at the end of the day what does it look like if the PG Film gets gutted as a pillar of proof for so many? On our radio show, I called it last year in our year in review that the fate of the bigfoot community will stand in their ability to adapt to coming change. The change may be here, and it's not the DNA project that's been slow moving, it's a pillar being shook that many have held onto as the foundation of proof for what they think is out there. The world is far stranger than we understand, there is more out there than we can see with out own two eyes. In my opinion, the truth of the Sasquatch rests within the First Nations stories and not in some dusty film canister from 1967. What's the general here consensus at the moment? https://www.austinchronicle.com/screens/sxsw-film-review-capturing-bigfoot/?fbclid=IwY2xjawQg6ZtleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFoNHhyTTJiamNYcWxZRjVYc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHi7cW4mJJFjY2H7KROAh4hcPrF00rtvtsmjF4z530FkcM4xD70JokAmgF-ss_aem_7Dleq1MsNeJ1hkkm2nHgPg

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

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

That image is a PGF frame that comes right after 352. It captures some actual greenery which confuses the viewer into thinking that it is a different location and season. Full frame is below.

I use a variety of mapping softwares with Cal Topo being my favorite. There is a feature in Cal Topo that allows you to draw bearing lines on the map. You can also print any map to a PDF, using whichever mapping software you prefer, then draw parallel lines on that PDF using a protractor if you have Adobe Acrobat or similar software. Then you can print copies from there. I'll do that when I go out with several friends so each of us has the same map with identical magnetic-north lines on it. For fun, I enjoy using just a topo map and terrain association to guide me to my destination. I'm typically under the canopy of trees so you can't see peaks, saddles, or other easily-identifiable terrain features. You have to rely on more subtle items to guide you. Very difficult at first but easy to pick up with practice. When I plan to go to a new location, I carefully study the topo map in advance and try to visualize the hike in 3D before I set foot at the trailhead. That way, you use your mind's eye to help guide you. It is particularly helpful when you're bushwhacking as you will instinctly know if you're not on course based on what you are seeing, or not seeing, as the case may be.

Hi Darby! I have some finger prints to send to you.

Little ravenous Dinosaurs! They can make quick work of a well baited bear stand.

I had to clean up in and around a storage shed the other day so the wife can use it for a chicken coop. There was a garbage can behind the shed with dog food in it that I use for bear bait, and the food had gotten wet. I was going to drag it out to a local spot just to lay it out with a camera on it as a scouting event, but multiple disasters still regularly happen here at the house, and I've been denied the time to do anything but wipe asses here. So I dumped it in the swale on the property. The magpies were on it within minutes. Their noses are as good as that of a bear, and the speed of their arrival is much quicker. One would think that they knew that food was in the can, but I never saw them hanging out on the can. But once it was poured out, there they were, almost immediately.

That totally makes sense! Thanks for the insight!

I'm already sick of this film, and I've never even seen it. It's somewhat fascinating though. Just pops out of nowhere with zero context. Nobody saw the Norm Johnson angle coming. If, as described, this newly discovered footage is taken in late '66 or early '67, at a completely different location, different season, different environmental conditions, different lighting, different subject, different actor, different camera angle, different subject behaviour, different filming style - then what the heck is he supposed to be testing, exactly - that he can successfully film someone walking in the woods? 1) We're told by Munns and others that there are specific Patty-esque movements on the found footage. That means they have the exact intricate movements planned many months before, then they wait, and wait - for many months. Given that he took a loan to finish his doc that was due for repayment in early June 67, they apparently had the suit and the camera and everything rehearsed down to the movements way before then - and they wait for something? Until late October, 500 miles away when they've already tested what it looks like, filmed relatively speaking on their doorstep, presumably in Bigfoot HQ in Washington, judging by what is described. 2) I think the earliest we have a record of a K100 and Kodachrome II in Patterson's hands is May 13th 1967. That's not to say he couldn't have had another sometime earlier, just that there is no record or other footage known to have been filmed on a K100 prior to May, as far as I know. 3) If, as the Director asserts, it is Al DeAtley in the suit based on his movements, then they have the suit and the actor. It may have been made to measure for Al, as Bob H certainly does not mention being measured up. Why would you want to risk exposing your hoax by dragging some car crash like Bob Heironimus into the inner circle, if you already had someone? That makes no sense from a risk perspective. 4) They have specific movements of the actor all planned and rehearsed in late 66/early 67, then in August they put Bob H in the suit and let him "walk up and down 3 times" in Patterson's back yard (from Long's interview). They never train him on specific movements or show him the film they shot. Then magically, the next time Bob H meets them in October, he dons the suit and out come all the specific moves again that he's never been coached how to do. Doesn't make sense. 5) Where are the other takes? They do one take for 40 seconds almost a year earlier, and then.....? 6) They film a rehearsal of a hoax. They then either don't bother to take possession of the developed film, or they let Norm Johnson keep the original, while he palms them off with A COPY. A copy that could be a smoking gun for their hoax, because they can tell it's not the original from the copy markings? Also - zero sense. If Norm is pulling a fast one, then why keep the original? Just give the original back, as they have no way of knowing the original has been copied. 7) Norm Johnson's wife is so worried about him being implicated in a hoax, she requests that he 'put the film away' in a safe. If you are that worried, you would just destroy it. To me, many of the above points don't make any sense if the footage was a rehearsal, but they make much more sense if it was a recreation.

Let them produce their evidence before a panel (jury) just like the sasquatch community has been doing. Not to make everybody "believe", but to call for investment into the phenomenon. As I type we have Congress investigating claims of extraterrestrial invasion in aerial/submersible vehicles based upon testimony and radar evidence. The sasquatch community has every bit as much testimony and historical reference along with plenty of trace evidence and photographic evidence. Yup. IF these creatures exist, some within government MUST know about it. Just like with the UFO phenomenon.

Definitely looks like a bait site to me. Maybe Bear? We used to use boughs to cover bait so it makes it harder for the birds to pack it off. Its amazing once they find it how ravenous camp robbers, crows, ravens, etc are.

I don't need to waste time with the found footage. I am wondering what is written on the leader / trailer?

No, the footprint casts can't be used as evidence to support the PGF because there is no continuous film showing that those footprints were made by Patty. Even if those footprints were genuine(made by an actual bigfoot), that doesn't necessarily mean that they were made by Patty. It could be that Patty was actually just a person in a costume, but those tracks were made by an actual bigfoot. It could be that Patterson and Gimlin faked those tracks, but Patty was real. The point is, those tracks can't be used as evidence for Patty being a real Bigfoot because there's no film footage to show that they're connected. And any reasons can be given as to why there's no footage of Patty being the one that actually made those footprints, but they're all irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you like this or not, that's just how evidence works. However, the footprints CAN be used against some claims, regarding Patty. I posted a link in the PGF section of this forum that demonstrates how it can be used to do that.

A local young family contacted me recently, after seeing the latest episode (#3) of Small Town Monsters - Sasquatch Quest, about getting to some of the sighting locations, so Thomas, MagniAesir, and I are taking them on a road trip to several of the sites along the west side of Harrison Lake tomorrow. They seem pretty excited about getting out there, so I hope we don't dissapoint them. Bill (MagniAseir) and I are in the planning stages of an epic late summer road trip from our homes near the southern border of BC all the way to the Arctic Ocean, at Tuktoyaktuk, NWT. We don't expect to encounter Sasquatch there, but we should see just about every other type of northern critter, moose, caribou, grizzly, maybe even muskox or polar bear. It's a bucket list trip for Bill, and I'm excited to come along!

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.

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!

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.

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.

If they have located footage that Roger took of a person in a suit walking through woods - then aside from it being a valuable find for the archives: a) we already knew a drama documentary was being made - this has always been known since the PGF was released - no change b) it would be entirely expected that there would need to be such footage to put in the drama documentary. It would be pretty difficult to do it without - no change c) if it is indeed the Ahtanum footage, as Kitakaze states in my comment above - it appears to match the timelines of the drame documentary footage, not the PGF - no change d) if it is the Harry Kemble memo footage (whether or not that is the same as the Ahtanum footage), then Harry's memo makes clear that this has no similarity with the PGF in terms of filming timeline, camera, lens, filmstock, style or processing - no change If there is no direct link to the PGF then they are merely selling us something we already have in a new shiny sensationalist wrapper. Given the rumours of the film maker and/or Clint Patterson pursuing people in their 80's and 90's - Pat Patterson and Bob Gimlin for confessions, it suggests no link and more than a hint of desperation to me.

Very good learning tool but I disagree with his approach toward declination. "East is least and west is best" sounds simple but it adds an element of work in the field that, in my opinion, is totally unnecessary. Moreover, if a person is trouble, because they are injured or suffering from hypothermia, and not thinking correctly, they may add the declination rather than subtract it. Now, they will be far off course and that error may needlessly cost them their life. I always draw declination lines on my map in the confort of my home and before I ever go into the woods. That way, I can take readings on the fly without ever having to orient the map. The declination lines drawn in advance cure that problem. A few other issues can rear their ugly head in the field that cause taking a reading a challenge. How do you easily orient the map so when there is a torrential downpour? When you took a reading, were you sure there wasn't metallic substance in a rock just below the surface you laid the map that could affect the magnetic needle? With my approach, I can lay the map on an electromagnet and it doesn't matter. I'm no longer using the magnetic needle to take a reading. My approach allows you to take a reading the fly, in rain or snow. It doesn't matter, it is quick, and there is no stopping to orient the map. Here is the best information I've ever found that talks about navigation skills and terrain association and it demonstrates the map-marking technique I mentioned above: https://www.adkhighpeaksfoundation.org/adkhpf/navagation.php Here are two video that show the technique of drawing magnetic north lines on a map. The bottom one discsusses declination at length if you are so inclined: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpXibF_yK2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peu7uMp0cVU Edited because I wanted to link a 2nd video by the same individual

Meldrum did tell us we ignored him.

I’m not Bart but Rogan got him to admit the truth. Now a documentary proves it with confessions and pre planned test run.