Leaderboard

Credit where credit is due to Sircalum (for posting the link) and to Matt Moneymaker (for offering an alternative explanation for this film). Everyone here seems to be accepting, at face value, that this new film was shot before the P-G film and was a rehearsal for it. For those who can't (or haven't) read MM's Facebook post, he posits that the new film was shot after the P-G film and was an attempt to recreate the encounter. Why? One reason suggested by MM is that Al DeAtley wanted to have a longer film to show and - let's face it - the P-G film as originally shot is not all that good. So perhaps Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson (and Bob Gimlin, if that's him in this film) wanted to have more film to show on the movie circuit and experimented with a quickly bought (or made) costume to see if they could get something useful. If so, this would have been done within weeks of the P-G film while Roger still had the rented (and misappropriated) camera. Alternatively, Al DeAtley could have been trying to prove to himself that the P-G film wasn't a hoax by trying to recreate it. Only pointing this out because at this time, we don't know when the film was shot. We know when the film was manufactured, but we know nothing else about when it was used, or when it was processed. So if the film Capturing Bigfoot is labeling this as a "trial run" they have not, at this point, laid an adequate foundation for doing so.

Fascinating. In particular, the 40 consistent behavioral similarities that Grok found in reported Bigfoot sightings is mind-bending. I really, really don't think that so many different people (eye-witnesses) would even be capable of making all that up. "Neither group (skeptics or believers) is comfortable with findings that suggest the phenomenon is real, but incomprehensible within current paradigms." That has been my take on the subject now for several years. Thanks for posting that video, Norseman. It is excellent.

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

After diving into quantum physics, quantum mechanics and quantum biology, I concur with the findings. I think John Greene's data base would have been useful for this.

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

#6 is a huge issue, there's just no reason for Johnson to have the original if he was asked by Roger (or DeAtley) to develop some footage. Giving back a copy rather than the original makes no sense - the other way around does make sense if he felt the need to keep a copy. You may not be aware, but the Den of Geeks podcast on YT interviewed Evans and his partner. Evans (perhaps unwittingly) drops a bombshell: Norm's brother Dave worked with Roger on hoaxes, and wore Bigfoot costumes !. Yes, Evans is accusing Roger of being a serial hoaxer from 1965 to 1972 in Yakima. Ignoring that insult, there's an obvious take from that: Dave did a post-PGF reenactment with his brother Norm in order to mimic what his friend Roger had done. And that's why Norm has the original, because its 'their' work and has nothing to do with Roger. Dave could have sensed a challenge to do what Roger did, or was jealous and thought Roger was hoaxing (and a hoaxer would love to match another hoaxer). That explains why the new footage has so much in common with the PGF. Munns feels it is just too similar to be a coincidence. So either Roger did a rehearsal and then waited 5 months to put into play all the things done in the rehearsal, or Dave Johnson studied the PGF and the following Spring tried to mimic the PGF as best he could. That explains the 'thinner' bigfoot (no ability to convincingly make a massive Bigfoot) and the head that is different than Patty (couldnt match it, did the best he could). If Gimlin is in the new footage, maybe he was so upset with Roger not taking him on tour and cutting him out of the proceeds that he went along with this reenactment. Not a wise decision in retrospect, but perfectly understandable. And if its not Gimlin (doubtful to me), then it further distances Roger from having anything to do with this new footage.

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 [to complete this thought] than to shed any light on the P-G film. 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.

Catching up after two months of overwhelming activity caused by a move to West Virginia .... I had not given adequate attention to this little snippet before. The quote from a Reddit user (on p.1 of this thread) that "This [Roger's Ahtanum Valley film] would later be re-filmed and released as Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot in 1976" implies that someone involved in the P-G film - whether it be Patricia Patterson (since Roger had passed away), Al DeAtley, or Bob Gimlin - with knowledge of the Ahtanum Valley film had helped create the movie to support the reality of the P-G film. In other words, Bob Gimlin and others were involved in an ongoing "conspiracy" to hide the fact that the P-G film was fake. Ronald D. Olson, aka Ron Olson, was an early Bigfoot researcher in Oregon who had planned in 1973 to capture Bigfoot in a steel cage and then in 1976 was using a computer to predict where Bigfoot could be found. See https://bigfootforums.com/topic/124725-oregon-1973-a-steel-cage-for-bigfoot/, https://bigfootforums.com/topic/127168-oregon-1976-a-computer-and-tranquilizer-guns-for-bigfoot/, and https://bigfootforums.com/topic/130473-oregon-1976-ron-olsen-defends-idea-of-bigfoot/#comment-1216088. Ron Olson was also the producer and one of the writers for Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot. No one in the cast of the Ahtanum Valley film is mentioned in the list of actors or crew for Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot on IMDb, which was filmed in Oregon, not Washington. Ron Olson likely would have had enough knowledge about Bigfoot and Sasquatch sightings and the Pacific northwest to come up with a script for a Bigfoot film without updating Roger Patterson's Ahtanum Valley film. Is it possible to prove, that Ron Olson didn't merely update Roger's film? No. But the bare assertion that Roger's film was "re-filmed and released" under a different name is wholly unsupported as well and seems to be a leap by those who want to discredit the P-G film. EDIT: I just added two newspaper articles about the film in the Historical Archive section; they can be read at

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'm confident it is and that those skeptics have another hole in their feet.

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

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.