New Film Shown at South by South West "Capturing Bigfoot"

[Skinwalker13]

6 hours ago, VAfooter said:

 

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.

Bill has seen the footage, apparently he's in the documentary as well. He shared his opinion on a podcast this week but it takes over an hour of Tom Clancy like details to get to his opinion. Which was essentially he thinks that it has no legs to stand on. I don't think he is able to sperate himself from his work on the PG film to review this footage objectively. I could be wrong but it didn't come across that way in his interview. 

[VAfooter]

As always, everyone will have to make their own evaluation. No doubt, this new documentary is going to be scrutinized as much or more than the PGF itself, at least for the next few months, or at least until it is absolutely proven right or wrong, one way or the other...

 

Obviously, the key evidence is going to be the found film and whether experts, both sympathetic and hostile, and others can actually examine it for themselves (not counting on that to happen). Even then, we may not get a undisputable answer.

[Incorrigible1]

11 hours ago, Skinwalker13 said:

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. 

 

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

[jameskrav]

Meldrum is on a podcast dated May 3rd and there's no mention of the new footage or wavering of opinion about the PGF.  I dont know how long it takes to go from 'finished podcast to uploaded to YT', but if he's telling people in April that big things are coming, yet makes no mention of it on a May 3rd podcast, that's confusing.  When did Meldrum see the footage (on a projector I hope) ?  Some obnoxious poster (the guy who insists the helmet is the Wu Chang mask or something like that) says Meldrum saw the footage 2 years ago.  I hope this new footage is going to show what has long been rumored at:  Roger did have a suit for playing around with.  Unless the suit matches Patty very well, it's a nothing burger.  But if it does, then its hard to escape the conclusion.

[Sircalum]

 

The end of Patty 😢 

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, Sircalum said:

 

The end of Patty 😢 

 

 

[jameskrav]

now there's a YT video saying two plus marks on the film indicate it was manufactured in 1968.  A PDF straight from Kodak shows all the codes and ++ = 1968.   So maybe Munn's is correct and it was a post PGF filming (my apologies).  I have no idea why DeAtley would create a risky film (that would cast serious doubt on the PGF if revealed) when you already have film of seemingly a real Bigfoot.  

[jameskrav]

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.  

[CelticKevin]

Okay, so my long winded two cents is this:
 

If this was a hoax, where is the costume? If it was that good and undoubtedly revolutionary in design and realism, then why would they destroy it or let it be lost? Any good con man would keep such an article around to keep milking the public. Cripes, look at Fraud Standing and his abysmal fakes. Everyone with half a brain cell can see his evidence is as phony as a football bat but that doesn't keep him from parading it out for whatever publicity he can get. By all accounts Patterson was an opportunist. So why didn't he keep that suit working for more such amazing film and press? You can't tell me something as good as that would be allowed to be lost or disposed of out of fear. 

 

As for Meldrum saying something big was coming, perhaps he was NOT talking about it being proven a hoax, but rather this film would stir up a detrimental controversy and set BF research back several years. Maybe he knew the powers that be would be working to suppress evidence or muddy up the waters. 

What about Gimlin? Has anyone gotten his reaction to this yet? I'd be real interested to see his reaction to it and what his response would be. I can't honestly think anyone involved would be worried about legal repercussions as we've seen hoaxes before and nothing of substance has happened to the hoaxers. Hell, if it was a hoax, they could make even more money writing books and making appearances talking about how they pulled it off over so many years. 

 

Could this be people just tired of dealing with it and deciding the best way to get bigfooters off their backs and make a little cash is to **** in everybody's punchbowl and call it a hoax? Or even simpler, it is just a way to get a bit of money and be sensationalistic to feed the machine? Because....why now? Why now are they choosing to make this revelation at this time? Why not 5 years ago or 10? It seems over 10 years ago I read a book, forget the title, about it being a hoax and people who knew Patterson at the time talked about seeing the suit in a box in a trunk and how they all knew what was up but had reasons for keeping quiet. I didn't let it eat at me. But you are forced to keep a open mind to the possibility. And after reading Munns book, and others, I leaned further into it being legit. 
 

I agree that too many people have seen and heard Sasquatches and collected enough evidence that they more than likely exist. I also know that until we have at least two bodies, the mystery will always be with us. I've always felt the footage was real. But I will admit, now there is that kernel of doubt. And that is sad. It's akin to seeing your dad stuff your stocking at Christmas when you're a kid. 

[Sircalum]

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

[Incorrigible1]

Just now, Sircalum said:

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

 

You sure do seem to place lots of store into this "influencer's" opinion. 

[langfordbc]

On 3/16/2026 at 1:40 PM, Sircalum said:

https://people.com/famous-1967-bigfoot-film-was-staged-says-director-of-new-doc-11926085
 

The PGF is now a proven hoax.

 

 

On 3/16/2026 at 6:44 PM, Sircalum said:

https://people.com/famous-1967-bigfoot-film-was-staged-says-director-of-new-doc-11926085
It’s damning if you read the breakdown here that said I haven’t seen it myself yet.

 

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

[RedHawk454]

Kinda researching this new documentary and it seems like proponents of this documentary are heavily relying on anecdotal evidence..  which is ironic since our side gets ridiculed all the time for relying on anecdotal evidence. 

[Incorrigible1]

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. 

 

 

[RedHawk454]

So allegedly Patterson burnt the patty suit in a barrel which took 30 minutes 

 

but didn’t burn the rehearsal

footage..

 

how convenient!