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

[Trogluddite]

That would be critical information to the P-G film timeline.  Would you happen to have any cites to an actual first hand account of this purported confession, or is it all Reddit "heard it from a friend who heard from a friend who heard it from his cousin's first boyfriend's grandmother's ex-husband?" (Bashing Reddit, not you.)

[VAfooter]

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!

[Backdoc]

3 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

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."  

 

 

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. 

 

 

[Sircalum]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

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. 

 

 

No Bob Gimlin supposedly confesses on the new documentary “Capturing  Bigfoot” after being shown a newly discovered film of a trial run in 1966 he was in with Roger’s brother in law in the costume. That’s according to some reliable reviewers that have seen the show.

[Incorrigible1]

Reviews of YouTube reviews.

 

That's what's being discussed here. It is truly a strange world that we live in.

[VAfooter]

51 minutes ago, Sircalum said:

No Bob Gimlin supposedly confesses on the new documentary “Capturing  Bigfoot” after being shown a newly discovered film of a trial run in 1966 he was in with Roger’s brother in law in the costume.

 

I have heard that, but we will not know until the video is available for mass viewing. Hopefully, Evans is setting up deals with some of the streaming channels to get it out to the public soon.

[Trogluddite]

1 hour ago, Sircalum said:

No Bob Gimlin supposedly confesses on the new documentary “Capturing  Bigfoot” after being shown a newly discovered film of a trial run in 1966 he was in with Roger’s brother in law in the costume. That’s according to some reliable reviewers that have seen the show.

I'll try to find that, thanks for the info.

 

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

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. 

I was not saying anything contrary to what you said.  The "confession" (in air quotes) on X creatures is the only "confession" by Bob Gimlin that I knew of until now.

[Backdoc]

1 hour ago, Sircalum said:

No Bob Gimlin supposedly confesses on the new documentary “Capturing  Bigfoot” after being shown a newly discovered film of a trial run in 1966 he was in with Roger’s brother in law in the costume. That’s according to some reliable reviewers that have seen the show.

just my prediction from the hype machine….

 

 

 

You know, when “found footage” is hyped to the public with some great reveal.   

 

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

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. 

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

Don't make too much of the 1966 mfg date. Per Bill, this new footage is obviously shot AFTER the 1967 PGF.

[Backdoc]

The fatal logic of any Gimlin Confession:

 

Anyone peddling any confession has the inconvenience Gimlin still happens to be alive.   If there is some out-of-context statement by Gimlin used to strain a 'confession' from Gimlin he still gets the final say.

 

Gimlin has never backed down from what he has said.   He might be less sharp than the old days, but he can answer a basic Q and shown the willingness to do so.

 

 

 

 

[RedHawk454]

22 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Still doesnt mean anything with regards to how tall Patty is/was.  The 6'6" bruh could be a few feet further back to scale in this photo.  If he was further back and he was scooched up a few feet, he might be as tall as Patty or even taller.  Wasn't Bob H around 6'4"?

 

point is that the point your making is compelling arguments for how tall Patty May be, nothing is still definitive for how tall Patty is/was

 

Edited 1 hour ago by RedHawk454

[RedHawk454]

18 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Reviews of YouTube reviews.

 

That's what's being discussed here. It is truly a strange world that we live in.

 

Mayhaps the creators of the Capturing Sasquatch documentary know that hyping the film up a month prior to its release to the general public is good way to create interest and therefore create a bigger box office for it?

 

Whats happening right now, the discourse about Capturing Sasquatch and the authenticity of the 1967 PGF is intentional on their part.

 

 

I'm saying this prior to seeing the Capturing Sasquatch documentary, its entirely possible some people are trying to make money off a man who died 50+ years ago.  It's one final shot to see if someone can make money off the 1967 PGF.

[Backdoc]

17 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Don't make too much of the 1966 mfg date. Per Bill, this new footage is obviously shot AFTER the 1967 PGF.

 

 

I haven't seen the film.    I'm betting there will be enough clues pointing to an obvious post-PGF filming.

 

 

Which came first?

 

Star Wars 1977

 

 

 

Family Guy Star Wars Episode 2007

 

 

 

In order to try to sell the hoax the film makers MUST have their film/ smoking gun occur BEFORE the PGF.   1 film discovered after mean nothing.  20 films discovered after mean nothing.  It just would represent a curious oddity no more than the fake Gimlin should he ever appear.   If he did, it wouldn't detract from the real Gimlin.