Leaderboard

Found on a Facebook site, presented as I found it. Presented for your perusal. I don't know its veracity. It does align with some of my thoughts: Here's what BFRO's founder, Matt Moneymaker said about the new Patterson Gimlin film documentary: BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) - est. 1995 Matthew John Moneymaker · There is a film festival entry at South by Southwest (Austin TX) called “Capturing Bigfoot”. I can save you the time and frustration from watching this clickbait crock. I was going to ignore this story, but the clickbait potency of the keyword “Bigfoot” has helped the story get into the Hollywood Reporter newspaper (very influential), so I am forced to comment on something that I would prefer to not even dignify. It was known at the time, and since that time in the late 1960's, that real life cowboy Roger Patterson was trying to make a documentary about the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mystery when he and Bob Gimlin obtained their famous footage in 1967. He shot a lot of footage, but mostly B-roll. They were from Washington State. The famous 1967 footage was shot in northern California. Most of the other stock footage was shot in Washington State, where this old reel was found. As with EVERY OTHER big documentary and TV series about the Bigfoot subject, Roger wanted to dramatize a few bigfoot encounters, which required using a man in cheap costume. ALL big documentaries and TV series on the Bigfoot subject (until CGI & AI) have had a Bigfoot costume on hand for various re-creation shots — shots which are not presented as actual footage of the creature. It was a necessary part of the visual storytelling for the Bigfoot subject. Patterson’s wife Patricia recalls the use of a cheap costume for this purpose, though she only saw it one time when it was not being worn. The "long lost reel" that is being touted by these sleazy producers at South by Southwest is just story recreation footage using this hokey dramatization costume which bigfoot researchers have known about for years. The lost reel from Washington shows an obvious human is an obvious cheap ape costume. It looks nothing like the actual creature they got on camera in California. Because of that stark difference these sleazy producers are trying to spin this cheap costume for dramatizations as a "trial run" for the eventual 1967 costume. The simple fact that no one has ever been able to duplicate the 1967 “costume”, with all its anatomical peculiarites and massive musculature, has shown sensible people for more than 50 years that it is not a costume. There have been several well-funded and well-staffed attempts to similate what you see in the footage. All of those efforts failed. National Geographic at one time touted the bogus Hieronymous costume story (he claims he was the man in the costume), then years later aired an episode of a different series where the footage was examined with the most modern techniques and computer enhancement and measurement analysis. That subsequent Nat Geo program revealed a foot anatomy on the Patterson creature that is impossible to fake with a man in a costume, so it was determined that the Patterson creature could NOT have been a man in a costume. This recent film festival entry called "Capturing Bigfoot" is just one in long parade of sleazy deceptive productions since the 1990's that have regurgitated and repackaged long-debunked claims because the ploy will still get some cultural traction, riding on the enduring popularity of the bigfoot mystery. It is just a cinematic form of clickbait, as are the news stories about the film, some of which have a subscription paywall in front of the article … for all you Bigfoot diehards who they assume will pay to read about this film … Roger’s son Clint is being paid by the producers of the film. He was flown down to the film festival to give interviews. His mother Patricia knows that the 1967 Patterson film is legitimate and there was no hoax. She has said that very firmly her entire life since that time. Clint waited til his mother was around 100 years old before he took money to sell his deceased father down the river. Clint was very young when the 1967 footage was obtained, and not much older when his father died from cancer. He has no direct knowledge about his father’s accomplishment except what he knows from his estranged mother, and what he has heard from his new pal Bob Hieronymus. Patricia has always said that Roger did not fake the PGF. She would know much better than Clint, though not as well as Roger’s partner Bob Gimlin, who is also still living. Read real-life Bigfoot encounters in my book "Mysterious Creatures: Cryptid Encounters - Bigfoot Special" here 👇 www.bigfootencountersbook.com

Sooooo ... Bob Gimlin was in on creating a fake P-G film with Roger Patterson? And never said anything to blow up the fraud that Roger had allegedly committed? I've just posted a long-lost and/or little-known 1978 newspaper article with comments from Bob Gimlin. Do these comments sound like a man who owes Roger Patterson, Patricia Patterson, or Al DeAtley any silence about the P-G film if it was, as now claimed, a fraud?