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

[Trogluddite]

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.

 

 

 

 

[xspider1]

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.

[wiiawiwb]

"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.  

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:14 AM by wiiawiwb

[norseman]

16 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

"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.  

 

 

 

Bob H. Lost any credibility in my eyes with the Philip Morris recreation. It was an abomination.

[Incorrigible1]

20 minutes ago, norseman said:

Bob H. Lost any credibility in my eyes with the Philip Morris recreation. It was an abomination.

 

But....but.......but Hairy Man Road said it's now a proven hoax!

 

Heh!

[jameskrav]

On 3/25/2026 at 12:01 PM, RedHawk454 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

 

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.  

[LocalGayCryptid]

On 3/26/2026 at 8:25 AM, Trogluddite said:

Adding to the interest in the breast thing, allegedly one of the pre-P-G- film magazine articles had an artists concept of how a female Bigfoot would look and it pretty much matches the Patty look-back moment.  While the text of that article can be found online, I haven't found one that includes the picture.  I hope to track down a copy of the magazine in the next month or two.

 

Was this the illustration that was featured in the March 1960 edition ofTrue magazine by Ivan T. Sanderson? Or something else entirely? 

[Trogluddite]

I thought it was the December 1960 edition, but it was in one of the True magazine articles that ITS wrote.  Right now I believe that they're all probably on the Bigfoot Encounters website, but they have text only for most articles.

[LocalGayCryptid]

34 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

I thought it was the December 1960 edition, but it was in one of the True magazine articles that ITS wrote.  Right now I believe that they're all probably on the Bigfoot Encounters website, but they have text only for most articles.

 

I only know of two he wrote for True, "The Strange Story of America's Abominable Snowman" for the December 1959 edition, and "A New Look at America's Mystery Giant" for the March 1960 edition. There's probably others I'm forgetting, though. I found an illustration from each I believe, but it'd be nice to verify them and see if the articles featured more!

 

 

From the December 1959 edition:

 

 

From the March 1960 edition:

 

[Sircalum]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capturing_Bigfoot
 

This describes the entire film content.

[langfordbc]

Here's the complete December 1959 True Magazine article:

[RedHawk454]

On 3/26/2026 at 10:32 AM, norseman said:

We are way beyond that.

 

We have knowers on this very forum.

 

we have people who claim to be knowers.  I am a believer but not a knower.

[VAfooter]

Not sure I want to be a knower anymore...

[idlehour30]

"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"?"

 

Just for clarity:

 

On Page 343 of The Making of Bigfoot, Bob states, "I was six foot tall and strong as a bull, and I guess I was what they were looking for."

 

On Page 359, Greg Long measures Bob with a tape measure and records his height at 6'1/4"

[Backdoc]

10 hours ago, idlehour30 said:

 

 

On Page 343 of The Making of Bigfoot, Bob states, "I was six foot tall and strong as a bull, and I guess I was what they were looking for."

 

Yea I am sure he was at the time 6' tall.   

 

 

10 hours ago, idlehour30 said:

On Page 359, Greg Long measures Bob with a tape measure and records his height at 6'1/4"

 

 

No one looking for accuracy uses a tape measure to measure height.  You mark the height and THEN measure the height if you are limited only to a tape measure.  When people use the standing tape measure method it is full of errors and often measures them taller than they are esp. due to a wraparound effect.   Further Long has a bias where he needs Bob to be as tall as possible.   Not saying he did this and if Bob H is 6' 2'' that's fine by me.   I won't take longs word for it but would gladly take Bob H doctor visit records as accurate. 

 

I personally could care less how tall Bob H is now so long as he is measured accurately.   Most people know how tall they were at their youngest and fittest.   When long quotes Bob H as saying he was 6" tall that is the most likely accurate take on his height in 1967.  I am sure Bob H reported these many times on any driver's license.  If he was a veteran, they measured him in the military.   Doctors' visits at the time would measure and weight him.  Bob Heironimus would know his height and have many opportunities to drill it into his head.  

 

Patty could be 6'1'' tall and Bob H and millions of others could fit in a Patty suit if it was a suit.  That's fine.  The issue is if Bob H could be a man in a suit.  

 

If I asked Roddy McDowell about his makeup process for Planet of the Apes, Roddy could likely tell me accurately in great detail all about the process.  

He could describe how it was applied, who applied it, how long did things take to dry, did it itch, and so on.  He could tell you who the nice person who brought him coffee and doughnuts by name.  

 

 

 

Bob Heironimus cannot do that.  

 

Bob H -just on a suit alone- has constant changing the descriptions.  They can't all be right and if they are constantly changing his testimony cannot be trust if the change is dramatically different from previous claims.  Anyone who was there that day and camped that night before knows the soil is not "White as snow "

 

For all these and more, reasons bob H height is the least of his concerns.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Backdoc