Leaderboard

Here's the complete December 1959 True Magazine article:

"O Ye of Little Faith." I've seen a few videos showing Bobby H. doing his walk. Patty's walk has nothing to do with the swinging of her arms. It has everything to do with the combination of: 1) The compliant gait and 2) the 41" step length and 3) the substrate upon which she walked which was uneven and moved beneath her foot and 4) her ability to maintain her graceful steps despite all the above while looking back as she continued to glide along. Those who think it's no big deal--try it at home. Place markers every 41" then attempt to do it in a controlled environment where the flooring is rigid and perfectly flat. Be sure to maintain your lower leg nearly parallel to the ground as you lift your knee while striding along. Next, go to the beach and attempt the same walk while barefoot where the subtrate will move as your foot sinks in. Finally, maintain that same 41" step length and lookback as you continue to walk, never looking down at your feet. I've never seen anyone who video'd themselves who didn't look like they were ready to topple over. A clumsy oaf, rather than a graceful and gliding ballerina, and those who've attempted it did so without a costume, including full head gear, and footwear that would leave 14 1/2" long impressions in the substrate that could be casted.

"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.

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.🤷‍♂️

^ Good points, although I have my doubts about them being classified as humanish. To me, just too much about them are non-human. But we will see...maybe... I would certainly love to see a reporter ask Trump at a news conference when he is going to release the "Bigfoot Files". I am not holding my breath for that to happen though. Currently reading Where The Footprints End, Vol. II. Finished Vol. I a few days ago. The basic premise is that Bigfoot is totally related to the Fae, UFOs, ghosts, orbs, etc. and all sorts of paranormal activity. Even if you are a firm F&B believer, you do have to admit that their research is impressive. They catalog how Bigfoot is intertwined with activities and events that have been described throughout history as Fae activity, ghosts, trolls, etc. and other folklore. Interesting reading and thought provoking, even if you dismiss their hypothesis. It will make you think. While I have always been a strict F&B guy, there is a lot of weirdness with Bigfoot that defies explanation. Thanks to Joe and Jessi over at Hellbent for helping me to "evolve" my thinking on this. Still believe in F&B for the most part, but I think there are other things happening as well that do not fit neatly into the traditional Bigfoot "box". Yeah, Woo happens... And finally, in regards to the original question, it will mean nothing. Plenty of other evidence point to their existence. As I have always said, every single one of the 10s, probably 100s, of thousands of reports cannot be hoaxes, hallucinations, misidentifications, and outright lies.

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.

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

The PGF while an amazing film? Proves nothing. The war isn't going to be won with films, interviews, conferences, plaster casts or audio analysis. The war will be won with bone, flesh, scat, blood and saliva. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Honestly, this whole thing seems like hearsay to me at this point, which is almost always considered to be weak 'evidence'. Bob G. himself could tell me in person that the PGf was a hoax (I really don't think he would) but, I would still doubt that. The PGf rehearsal being touted (as I understand), will need to be very convincing in order to sway my opinion. And, I would bet you a dollar that it isn't. If the PGf subject were or, if it even could be realistically replicated with, a costume, that would have been done many times by now.

And here we go w/a quick review of Evidence v. Egos. All times are from the YouTube transcript; all comments are made by Eric from Hairy Man Road. He managed to squeeze 3 minutes of specific information into 12 minutes this time, so his signal to noise ration is at least improving a little. 1:00 Patricia Patterson "admits that the 67 footage is a hoax." Who calls the P-G film "the 67 footage?" Is he referring to the new footage, which he mistakenly referred to as being shot in 1967 in his first video? Starting at 6:41, the narrator states that Jeff Meldrum (RIP) agreed that it was a dry run. In the last video he has Dr. Meldrum saying "it looks like a dry run." That's not an insignificant difference, and had a follow-up question been asked, it would clarify if Dr. Meldrum would have been able to offer a more complete answer. He might have, and that answer might be on the cutting room floor. The narrator then states that Patricia Patterson admitted that it was Bob Gimlin in the film. That's like claiming as a shocking development "that Japan once attacked U.S. forces in Hawaii." I think everyone with some actual knowledge of this matter knows that there was an earlier attempt at making a commercial film. Then at 6:51 the narrator declares that Bill Munns is only defending the film because he (Mssr. Munns) has a financial stake in the P-G film being real. If that's the case, Eric from Hairy Man Road has no credibility on anything he says because he has a financial stake in pushing his YouTube channel. He also claims that Bill Munns is about to release another book on the P-G film. "Everybody's saying that ..." Actually, there's only about 2 minutes of specific information that's even worth mentioning in this 12-minute clip.

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.

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.

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!

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.

This is a really fascinating video, thanks so much for posting! It's kinda nitpicking, but I think it's an important point that it's not really a 'debate' as no one is trying to 'win' or score cheap points, it's very much a discourse and that is so much more productive. I feel like a lot of these discussions turn into debates where people compete against each other to try and 'win' the argument and at the end of the day everyone loses. For full disclosure, I am sceptical by nature. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in ghosts and I don't believe aliens have visited earth. On the topic of bigfoot or sasquatch I'm very much torn as when I see the 'Patty' film it just looks real and genuine to me. That looks like a massive, weighty, bipedal ape that is definitely not a human in a suit and moves with a real looking cadence. However, there are so many questions surrounding other evidence sources such as testimony, hair samples, lack of body, lack of better definition visual record etc. As I said, I'm actually really torn on this subject as it's a bit of a Occam's razor to me: Is it simpler for me to explain away the lack of a cadaver, lack of fossil record, lack of good visual record or is it easier for me to explain away the 'Patty' film which I think looks very much real. I just can't explain away the film, I've tried to rationalise it and have read Mr. Munn's fascinating book and I can see no way realistically in 1967 that a couple of Cowboys pulled that off as a hoax, I think they filmed a real live animal there but that brings up just so many questions....................

It’s 2026 and people are still desperately trying to discredit the film. So far all attempts have failed as none of them address the issues that exist with replicating the film subject with 1960’s costume technology.

Such surely brings into question any conclusions our new member draws.

I volunteer to perform a blindfolded feel test on any purported Patty "suit" and live female test subject.

Interesting, as even Kitakaze is suggesting it's the Ahtanum Valley footage, which is discussed I believe in Greg Long's book, so it seems Joshua is at odds with Marq Evans on this. Okay - the breast thing is a bit suspicious, but we can't tell until we see those boobs.

Lots of good channels. I particularly like Studying Sasquatch, Hellbent Holler, and Small Town Monsters.

Got the emergency lights hooked up. Neighbor kids love them, lol.

Just got back from a 3200-mile road trip from Washington to the AZ/Mexico border and back. I won an auction for a 2009 IH ambulance in Marysville, WA so had to take a sidetrack to there and pick it up. Plan is to convert it into an RV for exploring the Idaho woods. I would have loved to find one in 4x4, but realized most of my weekend trips didn't really need 4wd. The new rig is very beefy and not in too bad of shape. Going to strip the interior and build a log cabin-themed interior complete with little wood stove.

I'm partial to Cabin in the Woods. And a close second is Hellbent Holler.

This is kind of where I'm at on it, only to say that I don't think it is suppression so much as in-action, which is the easiest thing to do. If I were a Government, or University Scientist that believed in Bigfoot, I don't think I would say too much either, until I had indisputable truth. (They have some great benefits there that most people don't want to lose. lol) As far as the OP; imo, that won't happen in a million years so, I can't say much about that.

Bingo! Or tries to....even if revealing it or confirming it would be in everyone's best interest. Or would be a five minute topic and then disappear.

Have you heard of the Otang? The YouTube video called 'South Africa's Sasquatch: The Otang'. Simply go to YouTube and call up the title to see this video. Maybe someone can post a clickable title. Is this a new primate that popped up in a flash or has it been hiding in the jungle all along? Why are some calling it a Bigfoot? Will this discovery help the economy of South Africa or will this discovery shut down profits from the jungle?

The Green/McClarin discussion (between themselves) is on YT. McClarin is quite sure he was stepping "within inches" of the trackway. He says there was still some plaster residue to observe. He also had been to the site a few days (or maybe it was a week) after the PG filming , so he knew the trackway well. Green is considered to have been within a yard of where Roger was filming (they triangulated it repeatedly until things lined up), and knelt down to mimic what Roger had to do. So its a very good re-creation. Even Packham in the (skeptical) BBC documentary admitted that Patty was "just a few inches taller" than McClarin, but that puts the subject at 6'8" or more. And that's in stride, hunched over. Standing height would be more (there's a formula for it). Seven feet even is not out of the question at all.

^^ 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.

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

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

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!

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

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 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.

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.

Seeing is believing I guess, I will withhold judgement til I see it.

Interesting debate about Bigfoot. Ran across this. Many of you probably already have seen this. What I like about the video is Meldrum has a polite debate with this somewhat skeptic Erika Gutsick Gibbon. She brings up respectfully reasonable points and Meldrum does a great job answering each one. I learned additional things just listening to these two (and Esp Meldrum). It is a loooooong video but if you have the time, It is informative. I wish more discussions could be on this level. Finally, Meldrum does a good job essentially being kind and not dunking on her when it is obvious he could.

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

I'd say 'yes' to both but it's clear to me that both would be generally outside of the norm for human height and speed observation, hence the exaggeration.

I just came across this BFRO report: https://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=79845 Short story shorter: 3 witnesses reported seeing a Bigfoot in Oklahoma walking off a powerline easement from more than 1,500 feet away. I'm not a field researcher but 1,500 feet away, across a river, windy conditions, late afternoon, and down a powerline cut area do not seem like good conditions for clear observation. Any researchers on here who are comfortable with BFRO referring to this as a "Triple A" sighting? If so, why? I'm not challenging what the witnesses reported seeing. I just think from an evidence perspective that a Class A designation is a bit ambitious.

That quote is exactly what Joshua Kitakaze posted on the Facebook page for Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot thinking. See link below. https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartbigfoot/permalink/26549825624622858/

Hi Skinwalker13, Yes, indeed. I was following the discussion on Reddit last night, and contributing to it. See my post from a while ago. This seems like the debunking doc. There is or was a 3 hour one in the pipeline that was staking the claim for authenticity too. I eagerly await that, and hope it has not been halted by the sad passing of Dr Meldrum. It may not be quite the death blow to the PGF that it's being talked up to be though. Being here in the UK, I haven't seen this yet - but from the descriptions that have been posted on Reddit, I believe the ''footage reveal' they are talking about sounds a lot like the footage mentioned in the Harry Kemble memo, which if true would be kind of neat as this has never seen the light of day probably since Harry reported seeing it. I wrote a comment saying as much on Reddit yesterday. They are calling the footage a 'woodsey dress rehearsal' for the PGF. The film makers and hardened sceptics will no doubt puff this up for all it's worth as some kind of smoking gun, which if it is the Kemble footage, it most certainly won't be. As far as I know there is no connection between the Kemble footage and the PGF, apart from Roger - but they were filmed in different locations months apart using different cameras, filmstock and techniques and in wildly different circumstances.

In my opinion, the gears have shifted, the VAST majority of folks in the "community" are no longer interested in finding answers, they are here for the pop culture phenomena that is "bigfoot". For that reason, forums full of information and data points are of little interest when youtube other social platforms are spoon feeding them. these kinds of spaces are for the dedicated at this point. what they are dedicated to is another question lol. finding answers? their skepticism ? their belief? I've dropped back over the last 2 years myself due to other projects and other research opportunities that yield quantifiable data. Those other fields feel far more rewarding because i can actually "bring it home" so to speak. as mentioned by @Scratchy pushing it on a subreddit may help boost registration and activity over here.

We are working on that currently.

No doubt! He really took Bigfoot out of the folklore and hoax word into the modern world. "Science" -in the purist elitist meaning of the word- tells the Bigfoot world we need to have a more science-based approach. Then, when someone like Dr. Meldrum delivers exactly what they demanded they knock him down for not being scientific enough. The rest of the science world not blinded by arrogance applaud Meldrum, give him the credibility he deserves, and will give him his due. Im guessing most people in science liked him and respected him. I would even bet many who didn't secretly applauded the guy. One of these guys on TV (Dr. Began?) said words to this effect: Sometimes in history those who are ridiculed turn out to be right. I'm not saying I agree with Dr. Meldrum but I have to applaud his science approach, knowledge. To some extent he is very brave to take on this topic. If the public ever has proof of bigfoot (dead or alive) I predict Dr. Jeff Meldrum will retroactivity be looked at as a visionary. Maybe a building or institute will be named after him.