· 109 comments · Save ·
For Sale Mar 29, 2026 at 4:32 PM

New doc ‘Capturing Bigfoot’ presents new evidence in Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film

Posted by ubcstaffer123


New doc ‘Capturing Bigfoot’ presents new evidence in Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film
Times-Standard
New doc ‘Capturing Bigfoot’ presents new evidence in Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film
documentary filmmaker Marq Evans’ Capturing Bigfoot wrapped its premiere at the  2026 SXSW Film & TV Festival in Austin, Texas this month. The feature film presents new evidence about the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film, one of the mo…

🚩 Report this post

109 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Mildly_Irritated_Max Mar 29, 2026 +406
The people in the conspiracy and cryptozoology subs are freaking out about this movie it's pretty funny. Looking forward to it popping up on streaming. They just pulled it from film festivals due to fears of piracy of whomever they sold it too, so should be showing up soon.
406
EddieDantes22 Mar 29, 2026 +113
That was smart. 99 percent of people only want to see the supposed dry run footage in the suit.
113
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +64
The main Cryptozoology sub leans skeptic on most cryptids so they're not the ones doing it. I've seen some crazy stuff from other communities though. There are claims that the new footage was shot *after* the Patterson Gimlin film by Al DeAtley (Patterson’s brother in law and financier) because he wanted to see if Patterson’s video is real by...shoiting a recreation of it? People are saying that the Bob Gimlin who appears in the new footage is a doppelganger hired by DeAtley After hearing that Bob Gimlin might have confessed in this documentary, people suddenly started desperately saying he has dementia based on nothing. Gimlin was going to bigfoot conventions with his "PGF is true" story up to this day and no one ever said anything about dementia when he was backing up their story. It's kinda like a religious community reacting to their holy book being debunked.
64
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
Yeah, there's a difference between serious cryptozoologists and believers. The believers just want to believe and cling on to anything while the serious cryptozoologists want to get to the truth and if something is fake, they prefer to know it so they can move on. They don't understand people clinging to fake things and feel there is no point in that. Sure, some of the serious cryptozoologists, who still believed in the old tape (many had already determined it to probably be fake), was disappointed or shocked, but even they accept it.
1
markglas Mar 29, 2026 -32
The main Cryptozoology sub has been frothing over this. The skeptics are running hard with wild claims that the doc completely proves that the PGF is hoaxed and therefore somehow the idea of Sasquatch is dead. Not sure about the Gimlin confession nonsense. Again wishful thinking on behalf of the zealot skeptics trying to put the subject to bed using wild inaccurate claims. The irony is delicious.
-32
neverclaimsurv Mar 29, 2026 +33
I'm a cryptid enjoyer but a skeptic for the most part, and the borderline religious fervor people have with the PGF is insane. I always call bullshit on the people saying it can't be fake because you can see the tendons jiggling, or the muscles moving under the fur....no one will convince me you can see all that shit in the very blurry, shaky, 1960s era footage that we got. You are bullshitting me.
33
Doright36 Mar 30, 2026 +1
Cryptic conspiracies can be a bit of fun "what if" speculating...mostly with some friends and a few beers... heck 20+ years ago you could even have a bit of fun with them in some casual internet forums when looking to just waste some time.. but I think they lose any fun when things get too serious about them and sadly, especially online, people are just too serious about everything these days.
1
postmodest Mar 30, 2026 +1
If you watch the stabilized footage, the clear crease between the buttocks ant the thigh is pretty damning.
1
Helpful_Engineer_362 Mar 30, 2026 +31
You sound like you're in denial. Also "zealot skeptics" is hilarious coming from a Bigfoot believer.
31
shrug_addict Mar 30, 2026 +3
The irony is delicious...
3
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
I was in the cryptozoology sub and checked, and that's not at all my interpretation. Most felt it was an obvious conclusion that most cryptozoologists had already concluded. Some who still believed it was real was disappointed or shocked but saw it as just a bump on the road. All of them felt the people who kept clinging to the original video as just ridicules and embarrassing. All of them are excited to see it themselves. Many skeptics don't seem to understand the difference between serious cryptozoologists and the "believers". The serious cryptozoologists see this as a science and take any new discovery as an important new step, even if it disproves something. Because clinging to anything false is just a dead end that wont lead anywhere.
1
MyUsernameIsAwful Mar 29, 2026 +221
I really want to see this. It’s supposed to have practice footage of the Patterson-Gimlin film which proves it to be a hoax. I always thought it looked like a two-part costume with a a top and bottom, and I want to see if I’m right about that. When it turns at the waist, it looks to me like its top and bottom are just butted together, there’s none of the tugging of the flesh that should happen when an animal twists.
221
Biggieholla Mar 29, 2026 +83
So the documentary is about proving the hoax and not proving Bigfoot?
83
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +74
Yes. The documentary claims to literally have found new footage of them testing out the suit from the PGF.
74
OrangeDit Mar 30, 2026 +1
Sooo... Why do a documentary and not just show the footage? /s
1
godzilla_dropkick Mar 30, 2026 +1
💸💸💸
1
one_is_enough Mar 30, 2026 +1
💰 💰 💰
1
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
Because he wanted to explore it and its origin. And making documentaries is literally his job. Film makers also need to make money.
1
indeedilyso Mar 30, 2026 +1
you serious?
1
OrangeDit Mar 30, 2026 +1
No
1
whodis_itsme Mar 29, 2026 +14
Yep, pretty much!
14
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
Not according to the director. He states that it only explores the new footage and try to determine its origin. He's very clear when he states that it was not made to prove a hoax, just to get to the truth about the new footage.
1
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +67
According to the article it also has Patterson's family confirming the hoax. Which is just, at this point we have like 5 different people who admitted involvement.
67
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +13
I think his son does but he was a little kid when it all happened and wasn't involved himself.
13
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +16
People said the same thing about Ray Wallace's kids and they straight up had the tools he used to fake the original Bigfoot tracks. Patterson lived until 1972, and continued to associate with multiple people involved in the various bigfoot projects. Clint Patterson was 12 when Roger Patterson died. You'd basically have to pre-suppose that neither Patterson himself or anyone else *ever* mentioned anything about the hoax again, and nothing in his personal effects pointed in the direction of a hoax. *And* that no one outside of a tight circle knew. It's also hardly the only indication. The guy in the suit, and the costume makers are have both admitted it. *With* corroboration from people involved. It simply doesn't wash. The entire story around the origin of this thing is just too much.
16
vortigaunt64 Mar 29, 2026 +10
One would expect that a huge hairy ape man would be noticed and well-known to the indigenous people of the region as well, and many bigfoot enthusiasts claim as much. Actually looking into the stories that supposedly prove its existence though, shows little to no folklore that describes the modern creature's supposed appearance.
10
BabypintoJuniorLube Mar 30, 2026 +1
As a kid/ teen I loved Cryptid shit on TV in the late 90s. Seemed like hundreds of claims per year of people seeing bigfoot. But then every human on earth started carrying cameras with them at all times and the number of recent bigfoot claims is basically zero.
1
robmneilson Mar 29, 2026 +17
I remember seeing a stabilized and uprezzed version of the film years ago and the soles of the feet looked weird. Would love to see hi-res on the big screen. I assume someone would have scanned the original negative at some point.
17
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +34
You've almost certainly never seen the unaltered footage. Almost every common presentation of it is a cropped, stabilized, and color/contrast corrected version. Of which there are several. But a direct scan of one of the extent copies is available. If not always particular high quality online, and definitely looks like it's running at too low a frame rate. But we don't know what frame rate it was shot in. It's suspected be around 18 frames per second. [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patterson\_Gimlin\_Bigfoot\_Film\_Unedited.webm](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patterson_Gimlin_Bigfoot_Film_Unedited.webm) The versions that are commonly shown make the footage out to be MUCH higher quality than it actually is. > Would love to see hi-res on the big screen. I assume someone would have scanned the original negative at some point. There is no original negative. And likely wasn't one to begin with. The film is thought to have been shot on color reversal film. Apparently 16mm and suspected to be Kodak. Reversal film is basically slide film for motion picture. There's no negative, the film run in the camera *is* the complete positive image and you load that directly into a projector. Reversal film also tends to be lower quality than negative motion picture film. Largely because it's contrast ratio and latitude is bad, and it has a very large grain structure. So it's very easy to both under and over expose portions of the shot, in the same shot. And images are prone to noise that lowers the overall resolution. With 16mm film being low res to begin with. The *best* case, with better quality film. In Super 16, a higher quality version of the standard. Is a resolution around HD/1080p level. On top of that the original film doesn't even still exit, or at least it can't be found. It disappeared sometime after 1980, after being borrowed from the film archive that held it by cryptozoologist René Dahinden. IIRC there's a couple of copies extent. Apparently 7 known early copies. At least a few are suspected to be 1st generation. But they were likely run off from an interstitial negative produced from the original. Which means they're technically 2nd generation. And with analog media you lose information and quality with each generation of copying. So you'll never see it in high res. Because it's *not* high res footage, and wasn't shot with tools or film stock that was meant to be high res. This also means all the claims of what's visible in the footage, are just wrong. The original stock and shooting conditions weren't capable of recording that level of detail to begin with. And the copies we have are nowhere near high enough quality for any of that to have been preserved even if it had been clean footage.
34
LiquidAether Mar 29, 2026 +9
That's a fascinating summation
9
robmneilson Mar 30, 2026 +3
If its reversal or negative the original celluloid can be scanned if it does exist. 16mm will certainly be scannable above 1080p. 35mm film is higher than 4k resolution in itself.
3
TooManyDraculas Mar 30, 2026 +1
You can scan above 1080p all you want. It contains around that much information. Higher resolution scans will just let you see the grain. Which can be useful, but isn't making it higher quality. Also as mentioned the originals do not exist. All extent footage is at best a 1st gen copy, and we're not even sure of that. Or how they were produced. As mentioned *best case* for 16m is considered around 1080p. And this was not shot on that type or grade of film, and not shot in conditions conductive to that. Professionally shot, negative film stocks on cinema grade cameras shot in controlled conditions. Using Super 16mm, which has a larger frame area. Convert well to 1080p, and no higher. 35mm maxes out at 5.6k. And old projection prints commonly compare as slightly lower quality than 4k. As do 35mm reversal stocks which were commonly used for "dailies", news shoots and test footage. Film quality and resolution does not map cleanly to digital resolutions.
1
justatouch589 Mar 29, 2026 +3
I'm not sure what generation of film is the on wiki page but it's sourced from a YouTube channel called The Invisible Redneck. It is the unedited film but I'm not sure that is the best quality that exists or is publicly available. I've seen other versions that are enhanced but they still look sourced from a better print than this one. Enhancement can only do so much.
3
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +6
Yeah there's better copies around (even for download on that very page). It's just the easiest to link. Most versions you see have been lightened significantly and color corrected. But the stabilized and very nice looking ones you've seen have been significantly upscaled and altered. You can't "enhance" at all. Properly lightening things can reveal a bit more detail. But anything upscaled is drawing in detail that's not there. And even image stabilization often involves some of that. "Enhancement" is a concept and term straight out of CSI. The amount of information recorded is the amount of information recorded.
6
justatouch589 Mar 29, 2026 +4
The ones for download is the same video at different resolutions but its still the same bad quality at any resolution. It's redundant but that's just wiki formating. [look](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60mSMmhTZU) at this still being used as the background for this stabilization. Upscaling can't do that much. It's far better quality and looks to be a direct scan of some generation of film. You can even see the edges around the frame. The one on Wikipedia is just someone filming the projected image on a screen (you can even hear the projector running) and isn't a direct scan as you claimed. It's not an ideal image capture and the bulb looks to be overly bright but that could be because the camera capturing it is low res. I'm just saying there are MUCH better copies out there that may or may not be enhanced.
4
AdelaideMidnightDad Mar 30, 2026 +1
Thanks for that summary. I have often thought "how are people seeing muscle definition & footprints?" on such old footage...that explains that; they aren't seeing it at all!
1
TooManyDraculas Mar 30, 2026 +1
You could absolutely see that on older footage. With better film stock, in a higher res format, in a better camera, shot closer, in better controlled conditions, and shot from a tripod. That's why so much of film history can come out on 4k, and why so much TV was able to be released in HD. Well shot 35mm on professional film stocks is higher res than 4k. Well shot 16mm on professional stocks, is almost exactly equivalent to 1080p. And it was used in TV extensively. Absolutely nothing about how this footage was shot, based on info on I've managed to dig up on that and the state of the footage we have. Was conductive to that. And I dug. I went to the point of looking at markings in the margins of prints taken from the original footage before it disappeared, and trying to figure out what lab processed it based on the leaders on extent copies. There's *not* a lot of information about the actual photography involved. But from published info. It was low res stock, in a home movie camera, shot from the back of a horse. Back lit, *and* over exposed. *And* all extent footage is from copies of indeterminate provenance and number of generations. Literally, even if that were really Bigfoot. This footage *could not* be evidence. The medium used, and way it was used. Was simply not capable of capturing enough information to tell. There could be the biggest zipper in the world on that thing and you wouldn't be able to see it. It would be a shadow, and everyone would just say it was proof Patty got abs. I for one have always thought the Squatch's badonkadonk, looked like the edge of a pull over top half, bouncing and dangling over a separate lower half. But I also know that's in my head. Because the footage, even the original. Could not have recorded enough detail to show you that.
1
EddieDantes22 Mar 29, 2026 +40
The biggest issue with the PG film was the story behind it. You set off to make a Bigfoot documentary you planned to sell, and just so happened to be lucky enough to run into Bigfoot. And while everyone's BF stories are about them being lightning fast and always hidden in deep cover, yours is strolling in front of you right out in the open. The fighting about stride length and all this stuff when (even for BF stories) the story was so absurd always struck me as nonsensical. Freeman Footage>Patterson Gimlin. Iykyk.
40
VeryIntoCardboard Mar 29, 2026 +30
The freeman footage is literally no better
30
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +6
I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah, lol. At least the PGF has a discussion about thigh jiggles or whatnot. The Freeman footage is just someone running around in a suit behind foliage that is obscuring most of them.
6
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
That's what made it more believable. Real footage wouldn't be perfectly shot and choreographed. It would be a blurry video of something running through some bushes.
1
EddieDantes22 Mar 30, 2026 +1
The Freeman Footage has the sort of perfect background for a BF video. Park Ranger. Claimed to have encountered them for years. It's the opposite of the PG film.
1
thedellis Mar 29, 2026 +24
The time someone side-by-side spliced the Patterson footage with Trump walking to Marine One and the gait is the same...
24
SirReginaldPoshtwat Mar 30, 2026 +6
I'm 6'5" and tend to carry any extra weight around my belly/hips. I have to make an effort not to to do the swinging arms, long stride gait of the Patterson footage when walking from point A to point B. I'v noticed it in several of my fellow Sasquatch-Americans as well. Throw shoe lifts and badly fitted suits into the mix, I can see why Trump moves that way.
6
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +26
I mean there's also the guy who admitted to being in the suit. The guy who sold him the suit admitting it, and IRRC even still having the receipt/invoice. The fact that Patterson was literally looking to make and fund a fiction film about cowboys and Indians hunting Bigfoot at the time. Which was apparently meant to be a psuedo-documentary. The guy even filed for a trademark on Bigfoot before the PG film was shot. So it's not just being lucky enough to find bigfoot immediately. It's a guy who was working on a bigfoot film, who'd already bought a bigfoot suit, and hired a guy to wear it. Miraculously finding the actual bigfoot on his second ever trip to look for the actual bigfoot.
26
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +7
To be fair, Bob Hieronimus has some inconsistencies like sating it was a suit made from horse hide by Patterson and then saying it was a professionally made suit bought from someone. He also claimed that Patterson was to pay him $1000 for just wearing the suit which would be $9000+ if adjusted for inflation
7
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +3
As I said in another comment, Hieronymus was involved with the film proposal for a long while and appears to have been involved with multiple attempts at shoots. Wasn't involved There's no real problem with there having more than one suit or more than one shoot he was involved with. Hieronymus's general involvement was corroborated, and the suit maker has been corroborated as well. Patterson was a bit of a huckster and spent the period chasing various get rich quick type things. Including attempting to sell various toy and novelty designs, and both producer (or "finding") bigfoot track castings and selling them. And he was attempting to get meetings about funding film or preselling it to notables like Roy Rogers. I don't have trouble believing he'd offered Hieronymus $1000. There's a very clear narrative here in attempting to get the film off the ground, failing to fund it. Presenting this shot as real as a promotional stunt. Then just leaning into it when that served to make money. We now apparently have Patterson's son corroborating that it was a hoax.
3
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
Well, his son was 7 years old at the time. And he was making a [pseudo-documentary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-documentary) about Bigfoot with an actor playing Bigfoot when the alleged real encounter happened. So it's difficult to trust his memory of it.
1
ifinallyreallyreddit Mar 29, 2026 -3
>there's also the guy who admitted to being in the suit, the guy who sold him the suit The custom gorilla suit or the horse hide suit, both of which Heironimus claimed to have worn on different occasions? The two should be mutually exclusive enough to render his testimony invalid.
-3
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +6
Not at all. Heironimous was involved with the proposed film project for quite a while. There's no reason he couldn't have worn more than one suit and been involved in more than one day of shooting. And Patterson was still seeking meetings to try an sell the film or get it funded right up to the "encounter" that resulted in the PG Film. It beggars belief that the guy coincidentally found the real bigfoot amidst all that.
6
ifinallyreallyreddit Mar 29, 2026 -4
> It beggars belief that the guy coincidentally found the real bigfoot amidst all that. I'm not saying he *did* but an argument from incredulity doesn't mean he *could not*. By all means make skeptical arguments, but not with fallacies. Anyway, it's not a coincidence if you go looking for something and find it.
-4
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +2
> And while everyone's BF stories are about them being lightning fast and always hidden in deep cover, yours is strolling in front of you right out in the open. There's a theory that they were recreatng the Roe Bigfoot encounter in the PGF.
2
EddieDantes22 Mar 30, 2026 +1
I never knew this but after looking at Roe's sketches it makes a ton of sense.
1
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
It's possible. They planned to film several encounter stories, like the 1924 [Ape Canyon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape_Canyon) incident.
1
scriptkiddie1337 Mar 29, 2026 +3
I suppose you could say that about Mothman, or even ball lightning
3
Tryknj99 Mar 29, 2026 +20
Ball lightning has been verified though, hasn’t it?
20
spiritualskywalker Mar 29, 2026 +13
I’ve SEEN ball lightning. It is real. My anthropology professor said he saw it chase a tourist during a storm at Chichen-Itzá. I had no idea that its existence was controversial.
13
sweetdawg99 Mar 29, 2026 +10
Any chance there was a wizard from Chicago in the area at the time?
10
spiritualskywalker Mar 29, 2026 +4
Always a possibility . . . .
4
Conscious-Airline60 Mar 30, 2026 +1
He was making a [pseudo-documentary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-documentary), a reenactment of cowboy bigfoot-hunters running into one. But still, very huge coincidence, and probably one reason many serious cryptozoologists had already dismissed it. If it was so easy to find and track one for a mile, it would have happened more often.
1
Stock-Ad2495 Mar 29, 2026 +122
The Big Feet population has been able to remain undiscovered due to their far advanced cloaking technology. They likely put out of this “documentary” to help obscure their presence in our solar system.
122
Thoraxe474 Mar 29, 2026 +42
It's not cloaking technology. They retreat into a different dimension that we can't perceive. They're multi-dimensional beings
42
Starrr_Pirate Mar 30, 2026 +8
It's not *that* complicated, it's just their native habitat is out-of-focus areas.
8
LebowskiVoodoo Mar 30, 2026 +7
It's the same dimension with the Fruit of the Loom cornucopia and the Sinbad Shazaam movie.
7
UnTides Mar 29, 2026 +11
If they are that advanced than maybe they didn't cloak themselves, maybe they cloaked us?
11
jimbobdonut Mar 29, 2026 +18
There are people in r/bigfoot that believe that Bigfoot is inter dimensional being and that’s why they are so elusive.
18
Bill-Maxwell Mar 29, 2026 +3
I’d really like to know if they found Wildboy as well https://youtu.be/RMGXF5e7530?si=NeS-9XeeqvOLMZT4
3
Mildly_Irritated_Max Mar 29, 2026 +16
Since this isn't a shit posting sub I really can't tell if this is a joke or someone drawn here from the conspiracy subs due to the title, because there are legit people who believe that kinda c***
16
sharrrper Mar 29, 2026 +17
I call these sort of theories the "Bigfoot IS blurry hypothetisis" in honor of [Mitch](https://youtube.com/shorts/KMFtD1kM6yw?si=mW7UvjeAG9rwXJen) These sort of wild guesses aren't exclusive to Bigfoot, but that's the name I like.
17
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +11
While Mitch very much popularized this as a joke. It's actually rooted in actual Bigfoot claims that predate him by a lot. There's a whole transdimensional Bigfoot angle, that argues the images are so bad because he's literally out of phase with our reality or capable of transitioning between dimensions.
11
sculltt Mar 29, 2026 +9
Or that he's an energy being, or a para-psychological phenomenon, etc, that makes it hard to impossible to capture in images, especially digitally.
9
pashdown Mar 29, 2026 +6
This is supported by the Steve Austin footage.
6
LyleTheAdonis Mar 29, 2026 +2
“We reached out to Bigfoot’s representatives. They declined to appear in our documentary. … The truth is out there.”
2
BakedChocolateOctopi Mar 29, 2026 +54
I’m looking forward to seeing it I love the idea of cryptids and their lore and pretending that I believe they exist, even though they’re all just fun legends
54
giant_sloth Mar 29, 2026 +26
I do love a good cryptid story but most of them have rational explanations. It gets weird where they try and tie too many mysteries together, like explaining that Big Foot can hide by using dimensional portals or UFOs explain Dogmen or whatever.
26
BakedChocolateOctopi Mar 29, 2026 +15
Or how with everyone having a 4K camera in their pockets all the videos of cryptids look like they’re shot with a 2002 flip phone
15
giant_sloth Mar 29, 2026 +5
Yeah, and when they do capture something it’s pareidolia or a misidentified animal. I do think AI might take the fun out of things as hoaxers use it to make clearer fake footage.
5
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +5
> It gets weird where they try and tie too many mysteries together, You mean it gets sad. They do it out of desperation when they know Bigfoot is not likely real
5
Mildly_Irritated_Max Mar 29, 2026 +17
Same. Conspiracy theories as well, back in the 90's when they were just fun fringe things. Before they got turned into nearly mainstream alt right beliefs.
17
mango_boom Mar 29, 2026 +5
Yeah, I mean, can you imagine a Cabal of elite pedophile cannibals? crazy talk!
5
Renax127 Mar 29, 2026 +2
I use to love really getting into the weeds on some of the other crazy conspiracy stuff in the 90's era internet. But that one always seem so crazy and just not fun that I never really even tried dealing with it.
2
BevansDesign Mar 30, 2026 +1
Yeah, I used to love all that X-Files stuff. Then it all spoiled like fruit in the sun. I highly recommend that people check out the comic series "Department of Truth". It's like a modern-day X-Files, except every conspiracy can be real, even the ones that contradict each other. The story does an incredible job of weaving all these disparate conspiracies together into a very interesting narrative. There's a big reveal at the end of the first issue that will instantly hook you if you're into it.
1
book1245 Mar 29, 2026 +3
Same. I was one of those kids obsessed with high strangeness, then grew up into an adult with a healthy sense of skepticism, but never forgot how much I loved everything in that world. Even went to Willow Creek/the actual filming site last year for fun despite not believing the authenticity, and now I'm really excited to see this new footage which can finally close the book on such a big piece of cryptid lore.
3
Darmok47 Mar 29, 2026 +3
Yeah. I'm a bit like that too. Grew up watching the X-Files and checking out books on UFOs from the library. Much more skeptical now, but I want to believe, because its nice to still want to have magic in the world.
3
Top-Handle4786 Mar 29, 2026 +3
I assume the appeal of garbage like this is exactly the "pretend" part of it. It's like people who enjoy wrestling events like WWE or WWF, with all the nonsensical drama and fake fights - there's real skill involved by the actors, but the events portrayed are fake.
3
BakedChocolateOctopi Mar 29, 2026 +2
Yeah it adds a bit of wonder and mystery to the wilderness that it’s missing 
2
justatouch589 Mar 29, 2026 +1
My dad told me as a kid that WWE was fake and so I assumed the fans watching it didn't know. But now I realize it's like judging people who go and see plays in a theatre and thinking, "don't they know it's fake?"
1
Orkran Mar 29, 2026 +1
Me too! I particularly like the ones which have an obvious answer but are ignored because it makes the whitnesses feel silly. For example, [Owlman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owlman) (a f****** owl, lol) and [British Panthers ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_big_cats)(cats, lol). But then...... a f****** [Cougar](https://www.highlifehighland.com/attractions/inverness-museum-and-art-gallery/collections/collection-highlights/felicity) (Puma / Mountain Lion) was captured in 1980. In Scotland.
1
Snoo_censorspeech Mar 29, 2026 +28
I've actually camped in that forest and can I just say that regardless of belief in Bigfoot (and boy did I meet some WEIRD people who did on that trip) that forest (fish lake and bluff creek) was honestly the most unsettling place I've traveled to or camped. Even the local natives hoopa and klamath are big followers of the samsquanch lore.  Interesting place for sure. Met a guy with a pistol almost as long as a sawnoff who talked about big foot for an hour with my buddy. Claimed to have wrote a book or so on the subject but I don't remember the name. He'd be in his late 70s or 80s now I'm sure.  I don't recommend this part of Cali unless you know how to handle your shit because in many ways it is a place more isolated from outsiders than even states like Idaho have. Many hours from cops or hospitals or helicopters. No or almost no cellular too. The natives were cool with my group because we came to the shops and we talked to people , opened up about ourselves, and we shared some of what we had even though we were some poor ass road roadtrippers back the. A guy our age said it was good we did this because the people there aren't hateful but they can't tolate people who come through disrespectfully or with bigoted minds. He implied the other types don't find their way out of the area so easily. We stopped in something like 4 houses before we continued to the site. Just generous good people is all I felt but like how you know some streets are well protected by the residents? Felt like that in the whole area. People knew us before we met them when we came back through on our way out of the area. 
28
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +6
No pay wall: [https://archive.ph/zXdsa](https://archive.ph/zXdsa)
6
Any-Concentrate2280 Mar 29, 2026 +10
Super excited about this. I hope they have some photos of the Patty costume in it. Something a lot of people don’t credit nowadays with both how far special effects have advanced and how many times different parts of the PGF have been debunked is just how amazing Patty looks (from what we can see of it). The ‘fat’ parts of the costume jiggle when it takes a step, and I’ve always wanted to know how they did that, especially with how awful ape costumes looked at the time
10
TooManyDraculas Mar 29, 2026 +8
>I’ve always wanted to know how they did that, [Pareidolia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia). The original film stock, camera used, and general shooting conditions for the footage, simply put. Was not capable of recording that level of detail. And all that is left, is lower quality copies of the original film. Even earlier video transfers and conversions were done off copies. The original footage disappeared in the 80s, and all that remains in that regard are still prints made off of it the last time it was seen.
8
whodis_itsme Mar 29, 2026 +8
I saw this at SXSW! The new footage they presented is very compelling. New footage uncovered after 50+ years of sitting in a safe, and the scenes of high-profile believers being shown ‘the truth’ was really fun to watch! I met Patterson’s son after and he talked about a story spread online about what could have happened to the suit if it turned out his dad faked it all, and in that regard, the rumours are true lol
8
justatouch589 Mar 29, 2026 +6
Do you have a link to the story? I've always been interested in what could have happened to the suit. It would be worth a bit of money if it were found today.
6
Impressive-Potato Mar 29, 2026 +11
We are going to get Bigfoot and Aliens before the Epstein files are released
11
m_Pony Mar 29, 2026 +5
and the Epstein files exist
5
vincentblacklight Mar 30, 2026 +3
I saw a documentary years ago that claimed to have found the actual gorilla suit they used, and confirmed as much through various corroborating witnesses. Does anyone remember the title of that one? 
3
Typical_Intention996 Mar 30, 2026 +3
The last time I saw anything pertaining to Bigfoot stuff it was a bit on one of those shows like Unexplained On Camera or something that and was on in the background during dinner. And I guess I wasn't that surprised that the whole conspiracy group has gone off the deep end or like in UFO circles, has taken over by a load of gobbledygook spiritualism magic c*** the last decade. You know it used to be just Bigfoot. He's just some undiscovered ape creature in the forest. Cool. Like how UFOs use to be just UFOs. Now it's, he's really some trans-dimensional being that phases in and out of reality. Or he's connected to UFOs who are really drones piloted by future humans. Or he travels through pockets of folded spacetime in the forests. I mean when you've gone this cuckoo with it all. I imagine a doc proving your key evidence to this whole thing from sixty years ago is all bs must be earth shattering.
3
mwax321 Mar 29, 2026 +6
I love UFO, ghost, and cryptozoology stuff. I've been on some great tours with some serious nutjobs. I don't believe any of it , but always a great time. I also like watching the documentaries. The mental gymnastics taken are always fascinating. Also: In Sedona, the UFO tour is cheaper than the stargazing tour ;)
6
legless_chair Mar 29, 2026 +1
Can’t wait for this to hit the internet, I’m always down for more Bigfoot conspiracy content
1
mithridateseupator Mar 29, 2026 +1
Never heard anyone use the word "defray" before. Congrats to the author for teaching me a new word.
1
Justlooking_63 Mar 30, 2026 +1
🤣
1
i_am_tct Mar 29, 2026 -4
lol
-4
that1tech Mar 29, 2026 -8
Unless that evidence is provided by a live bigfoot giving commentary, I find myself very skeptical
-8
Mildly_Irritated_Max Mar 29, 2026 +33
...they aren't claiming evidence Bigfoot is real, they're claiming evidence that Petterson/Gimlin faked their movie
33
nowhereman136 Mar 29, 2026 -6
You know how I know they didn't find Bigfoot in the movie or on any of those reality shows? If they did find Bigfoot, that news wouldn't be contained long enough for the movie or show to premier. If they actually found Bigfoot, that news story would be bigger than the fall of the Berlin Wall and be on every news station in a matter of hours
-6
LTSpigot Mar 29, 2026 +6
This documentary is about debunking the bigfoot film because they found new footage of them testing out the suit.
6
KeremyJyles Mar 30, 2026 +1
You know how I know you didn't read the article?
1
GGarlicBreadd_ Mar 30, 2026 +1
This movie will never see the light of day. All seems like a huge grift. If anyone wants to watch A NEW BIGFOOT DOCUMENTARY watch - American Sasquatch Man, Myth or Monster.
1
← Back to Board