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.

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.

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.

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!

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.🤷‍♂️

Why so mean to this guy?

^^ Oh yeah, I don't trust youtube transcripts. Some of the ones I posted in the P-G film reference thread took hours to correct the garbage that they spit out. I have not yet seen the actual Capturing Bigfoot film (and probably won't for another week due to stuff). Reiterating for the benefit of others, not trying to start a flame war (especially since one of the things going on is a move to West Virginia....) Going through the junk transcript from "I Saw the Footage ... It's a Hoax!," what the guy who saw the footage is saying, not what's actually in the Capturing Bigfoot film, At 3:18, there is a discussion about Clint P and his relationship with other members of the family. Clint (not his mother) states that Bob H was in the Patty suit at 4:09 to 4:23. At 11:18 the narrator begins describing the bad relationship between Patricia Patterson and Clint P - could be because he's letting the cat out of the bag or it could be because Clint P is making up things about his dead dad or saying things he knows nothing about. At 17:31, the narrator repeats Clint P's story that his mother told him that Bob H was in the suit. At 20:28, the narrator begins talking about Clint P's reunion and possible rapprochement with his mother. At 21:36, Patricia Patterson is quoted for the first time (in this video, not the actual film, perhaps) and talks about how the film is cursed and has ruined people's lives - people like her, for example. Almost two minutes later, at 23:42, she's directly quoted as saying "Yeah, yeah, that's that's it. That makes sense now. I'm glad this is out there." That's what? That quote doesn't say anything about the intent behind the newly found film or the veracity of the P-G film. I also have no problem with Bob Gimlin's wife being protective of him given his age and the possible mental acuity problems that come with age. Don't know if Mr. Gimlin has those or doesn't, but his wife certainly would and would know how people could twist his words. Declining to do an interview is not evidence of guilt (says every defense attorney I ever went against).

^^ I know. Didn't think it was you. I'm throwing bricks at the claims made by the film and filmmaker. Sorry for the confusion.

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.

Yes it does. Most Bigfoot videos including this “gotcha” video we haven't the foggiest idea where the film site is. Yes McClarin and Patty may be misaligned by a few feet. Albeit the sticks and stumps are lining up close. But a few feet? Yah. McClarin is walking pattys track way. Its still visible. But John Green and Roger Patterson almost assuredly are not standing in the exact spot. But close. Thats ALOT better metric than a flat ZERO. Where is Todd Standings filmsites? We don't know. Go take a pick from X Y or Z off the youtubes. The PGF is the most studied Bigfoot film-site in the world. 99.9 percent of them? We have no idea where they were filmed. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. As Bill Munns would tell you? There is value in that. 100 percent. Nothing takes the place of a body of course. And Bob H. is 6’2” tall. It’s not Patty’s height that impresses me. It’s her bulk and muscle movement. And it always has.

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.

just my prediction from the hype machine…. You know, when “found footage” is hyped to the public with some great reveal.

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.

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!

If you're referring to a short clip of Bob Gimlin speaking to the X creatures TV show, you can see it in writing (and in the show itself) here at the Forums. Just go to There is a transcript of the show which you can review if you want to skip to Bob Gimlin's purported "confession."

At the end of the day though, proportions, analysis, and other units of measurements or what not to determine if the PGF is authentic doesn't mean anything. It's just a bunch of guys doing the best they can to come up with compelling arguments as to why it authentic. I was actually kinda happy Bob Gymlan (the BiGFo0T content creator on youtube) took a shot at thinkerthunker because of thinkerthunkers methods of analysis using horizonal lines and stuff to measure proportions. Which is fine, but youtube videos analysis doesnt prove the PGF is real nor does anyone else's methods. They're just compelling arguments and thats all they are. I dont know who it was but someone claimed Patty was 7'4" at least. NO ONE knows how tall Patty is/was.

NVM

The beauty of the PGF is that, it doesn’t provide any proof that Sasquatch is real, but it can’t be disproven either. The film is inconclusive. And that’s what makes it great. Both sides can only make claims. Nothing so far has been definitive

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

That’s a frame from the 1967 film. It comes after frame 352.

In the spirit of the topic! Favorite LB song ever, and I do not even hunt (but I will wet a line once in awhile...).

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.

So allegedly Patterson burnt the patty suit in a barrel which took 30 minutes but didn’t burn the rehearsal footage.. how convenient!

Bob Gymlan correctly splashes big bucket of cold water on the debunking, saying "Wait, hold your horses." He states that it will all boil down to the realism of the "rehearsal" footage.

So I am able to collect hairs from them on a pretty repeatable basis over time, and am interested in starting a routine of getting these hairs I collect collected in the best way possible and also getting them tested(of course). I can likely fund the effort myself. I work a lot, this is a very busy time for me, but would like to get this effort rolling. Anyone that has some pointers on how to proceed can PM me or preferably just reply here.

So I’ve been a “researcher/experiencer” since 2008, and had my first sighting late 2013/early 2014. So far I’ve had three up close sightings, tons of audio(and have some audio too!), tonnnnns of gifting experience etc. I love interacting with the Bigfoot. I have a method of leaving laminated pictures out for them in the spots I go to and have found it’s a fantastic way to collect hair from them as it sticks to the pictures, I currently have some from a year or so ago from a few different states and am very interested in starting a routine of collecting hairs and testing them. I can probably fund it all myself, and would love some pointers and direction on how to go about collecting the hairs in the best manner possible and the whole process of getting them tested!

The only thing that's been proven in this thread is that you are a fool.

It’s over for Patty but there was Bigfoot before and after so Bigfoot is not dead.

Oops. A re-check of Eric Hairy Man's commentary says 'square circle' . No mention of ++ . That means it was 1965. If its triangle circle its 1966.

The end of Patty 😢

The dude jumped so many conclusions that he had to duck hitting the moon.

Hairymanroad, a YouTuber, went to SXSW to watch the second screening. Based off of his, and one other individual who went to a screening from the BF community the 40sec of 1966 film, in the words of Jeff Meldrum, "looked like a test run". Then goes on to describe how "it was "patty" but slightly different, a different guy in the suit. The lines were all the same." It's not looking great guys. Steenberg, and small handful of others, seem to have been told the same message from Meldrum starting in April of 25. "Something big is coming in relation to the PG-film". I want to see the film too, they are shopping around for a market release but according to the director they have two more film festivals to attend before anything like that will happen.

I’m hearing Bob Gimlin confesses to a hoax in this documentary. If that’s true it’s over for the Patterson, Gimlin film.

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

Depends on her mood I suppose lol. I'm currently typing this one handed after testing the theory with my wife 😂.

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

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.