Leaderboard

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.

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.

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

what is going on with you? you posted the same thing 2 weeks ago. this isn't the ah ha you think it is.