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

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.

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.

Yes. The documentary claims to literally have found new footage of them testing out the suit from the PGF.

Yep, pretty much!

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.

I think his son does but he was a little kid when it all happened and wasn't involved himself.

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.

The freeman footage is literally no better

The time someone side-by-side spliced the Patterson footage with Trump walking to Marine One and the gait is the same...

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.

> 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.

I suppose you could say that about Mothman, or even ball lightning

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.

It's not *that* complicated, it's just their native habitat is out-of-focus areas.

It's the same dimension with the Fruit of the Loom cornucopia and the Sinbad Shazaam movie.

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.

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

> 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

Yeah, I mean, can you imagine a Cabal of elite pedophile cannibals? crazy talk!

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.

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.

Yeah it adds a bit of wonder and mystery to the wilderness that it’s missing 

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?"