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

[jameskrav]

On 5/6/2026 at 10:25 AM, idlehour30 said:

I'm already sick of this film, and I've never even seen it.  It's somewhat fascinating though. Just pops out of nowhere with zero context. Nobody saw the Norm Johnson angle coming.

 

If, as described, this newly discovered footage is taken in late '66 or early '67, at a completely different location, different season, different environmental conditions, different lighting, different subject, different actor, different camera angle, different subject behaviour, different filming style - then what the heck is he supposed to be testing, exactly - that he can successfully film someone walking in the woods?

 

1) We're told by Munns and others that there are specific Patty-esque movements on the found footage. That means they have the exact intricate movements planned many months before, then they wait, and wait - for many months. Given that he took a loan to finish his doc that was due for repayment in early June 67, they apparently had the suit and the camera and everything rehearsed down to the movements way before then - and they wait for something? Until late October, 500 miles away when they've already tested what it looks like, filmed relatively speaking on their doorstep, presumably in Bigfoot HQ in Washington, judging by what is described. 

 

2) I think the earliest we have a record of a K100 and Kodachrome II in Patterson's hands is May 13th 1967. That's not to say he couldn't have had another sometime earlier, just that there is no record or other footage known to have been filmed on a K100 prior to May, as far as I know.

 

3) If, as the Director asserts, it is Al DeAtley in the suit based on his movements, then they have the suit and the actor. It may have been made to measure for Al, as Bob H certainly does not mention being measured up. Why would you want to risk exposing your hoax by dragging some car crash like Bob Heironimus into the inner circle, if you already had someone? That makes no sense from a risk perspective. 

 

4) They have specific movements of the actor all planned and rehearsed in late 66/early 67, then in August they put Bob H in the suit and let him "walk up and down 3 times" in Patterson's back yard (from Long's interview). They never train him on specific movements or show him the film they shot. Then magically, the next time Bob H meets them in October, he dons the suit and out come all the specific moves again that he's never been coached how to do. Doesn't make sense.

 

5) Where are the other takes? They do one take for 40 seconds almost a year earlier, and then.....? 

 

6) They film a rehearsal of a hoax. They then either don't bother to take possession of the developed film, or they let Norm Johnson keep the original, while he palms them off with A COPY. A copy that could be a smoking gun for their hoax, because they can tell it's not the original from the copy markings? Also - zero sense. If Norm is pulling a fast one, then why keep the original? Just give the original back, as they have no way of knowing the original has been copied.

 

7) Norm Johnson's wife is so worried about him being implicated in a hoax, she requests that he 'put the film away' in a safe. If you are that worried, you would just destroy it.

 

To me, many of the above points don't make any sense if the footage was a rehearsal, but they make much more sense if it was a recreation. 

 

 

#6 is a huge issue, there's just no reason for Johnson to have the original if he was asked by Roger (or DeAtley) to develop some footage.  Giving back a copy rather than the original makes no sense - the other way around does make sense if he felt the need to keep a copy.  

You may not be aware, but the Den of Geeks podcast on YT interviewed Evans and his partner.  Evans (perhaps unwittingly) drops a bombshell:  Norm's brother Dave worked with Roger on hoaxes, and wore Bigfoot costumes !.  Yes, Evans is accusing Roger of being a serial hoaxer from 1965 to 1972 in Yakima.  Ignoring that insult, there's an obvious take from that:  Dave did a post-PGF reenactment with his brother Norm in order to mimic what his friend Roger had done.   And that's why Norm has the original, because its 'their' work and has nothing to do with Roger.  Dave could have sensed a challenge to do what Roger did, or was jealous and thought Roger was hoaxing (and a hoaxer would love to match another hoaxer).  That explains why the new footage has so much in common with the PGF.  Munns feels it is just too similar to be a coincidence.  So either Roger did a rehearsal and then waited 5 months to put into play all the things done in the rehearsal, or Dave Johnson studied the PGF and the following Spring tried to mimic the PGF as best he could.  That explains the 'thinner' bigfoot (no ability to convincingly make a massive Bigfoot) and the head that is different than Patty (couldnt match it, did the best he could).  

If Gimlin is in the new footage, maybe he was so upset with Roger not taking him on tour and cutting him out of the proceeds that he went along with this reenactment.  Not a wise decision in retrospect, but perfectly understandable.  And if its not Gimlin (doubtful to me), then it further distances Roger from having anything to do with this new footage.  

[Trogluddite]

On 3/17/2026 at 2:07 PM, Sircalum said:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1ChDwHxLzj/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Credit where credit is due to Sircalum (for posting the link) and to Matt Moneymaker (for offering an alternative explanation for this film).  Everyone here seems to be accepting, at face value, that this new film was shot before the P-G film and was a rehearsal for it.

 

For those who can't (or haven't) read MM's Facebook post, he posits that the new film was shot after the P-G film and was an attempt to recreate the encounter.  Why?  One reason suggested by MM is that Al DeAtley wanted to have a longer film to show and - let's face it - the P-G film as originally shot is not all that good.  So perhaps Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson (and Bob Gimlin, if that's him in this film) wanted to have more film to show on the movie circuit and experimented with a quickly bought (or made) costume to see if they could get something useful.  If so, this would have been done within weeks of the P-G film while Roger still had the rented (and misappropriated) camera.  Alternatively, Al DeAtley could have been trying to prove to himself that the P-G film wasn't a hoax by trying to recreate it.

 

Only pointing this out because at this time, we don't know when the film was shot.  We know when the film was manufactured, but we know nothing else about when it was used, or when it was processed.  So if the film Capturing Bigfoot is labeling this as a "trial run" they have not, at this point, laid an adequate foundation for doing so.