This is what the YouTube description says:
This video was only uploaded for the benefit of a couple of friends, we had no intention for it to gather the interest it has. We are not claiming this to be anything other than a strange encounter based on some of the reasons below:

1) We were able to view the subject much better than what the video portrays as it was just a simple point-and-shoot camera. Contrast was excellent due to the snow behind the subject.

2) The subject was clearly bipedal and was without snowshoes or a backpack and wearing all one coloured clothing. Movement over this kind of terrain in soft snow without snowshoes would have been very difficult and the distance traveled over the given time period would have been very fast for a human without proper snow travel gear.

3) There was a very steep drop off below where the video was shot, easily a 300m sheer face. We were not equipped with climbing gear and descent around would have been impossible before nightfall to be able to try to pursue the subject.

4) We have encountered bears on the approach to this summit in the past, this video is most definitely not showing a bear or any other wild animal.

5) Perhaps the most reasonable explanation for this video is a very ill-prepared hiker, hiking up a difficult section of snowline as opposed to a much easier route, one who is very physically fit and able to cover ground in unusually quick fashion and must have had very large feet as we were breaking through snow crust in just our boots.

With the release of Capturing Bigfoot, directed by Marq Evans, scheduled for 20 October 2026, this thread is intended to serve as a central forum for discussion, critical examination and public reaction to one of the most anticipated documentaries concerning the Patterson–Gimlin film in recent years.

Nearly six decades after Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin recorded their now-famous footage at Bluff Creek, California, on 20 October 1967, the film remains one of the most extensively debated pieces of visual evidence associated with the alleged existence of Bigfoot.

Its authenticity has been questioned, defended, scrutinised and reinterpreted by researchers, scientists, filmmakers, sceptics and enthusiasts across generations. Despite decades of investigation, fundamental disagreements concerning the nature of the figure depicted in the footage have persisted.

Capturing Bigfoot revisits this enduring controversy, incorporating previously unseen archival material, personal testimony and historical perspectives from individuals connected to the original events.

Of particular interest is the documentary's presentation of newly surfaced 16mm footage and its potential implications for established interpretations of the Patterson–Gimlin film.

The significance of this material, however, must ultimately be assessed through careful examination of its provenance, authenticity, historical context and evidential value.

The documentary has already received attention following its festival premiere and advance screenings. Its wider release now provides an opportunity for audiences to evaluate the film's arguments, evidence and conclusions for themselves.

The purpose of this megathread is neither to endorse nor to dismiss the documentary's central claims, but to encourage a substantive, informed and respectful examination of its contents.

Regardless of whether you consider the Patterson–Gimlin film authentic, believe it depicts an elaborate hoax, or remain undecided, your perspective is welcome.

To encourage a comprehensive and constructive exchange of views, participants are invited to consider the following questions:

1. Overall Impressions

What is your assessment of Capturing Bigfoot as a documentary?

Did it meet your expectations in terms of investigative depth, historical accuracy, presentation and intellectual rigour?

Which aspects of the production did you find particularly compelling, and which, if any, warranted further examination?

1. The Newly Presented Evidence

How persuasive is the previously unseen archival material featured in the documentary?

Does it provide meaningful new information about the circumstances surrounding the Patterson–Gimlin film?

What questions remain regarding the material's origins, dating, chain of custody and interpretation?

1. The Authenticity of the Patterson–Gimlin Film

Has the documentary strengthened, weakened or otherwise altered your assessment of the original footage?

Does the evidence presented support a particular interpretation, or does it leave substantial room for reasonable disagreement?

Importantly, which specific findings have influenced your conclusions?

1. Testimony, Historical Records and Credibility

How should the documentary's interviews and personal accounts be evaluated alongside existing historical documentation?

To what extent should recollections offered decades after the original events influence our understanding of what occurred in 1967?

Are the testimonies presented adequately contextualised and independently corroborated?

1. Scientific and Technical Analysis

Does the documentary offer sufficient technical examination of the relevant footage?

How convincing are its arguments concerning the figure's anatomy, movement, apparent physical characteristics and the possibility of costume fabrication?

Are alternative explanations addressed with appropriate methodological scrutiny?

What additional forensic, photographic or historical analysis would help establish a more reliable evidential foundation?

1. Objectivity and Documentary Methodology

Does Capturing Bigfoot provide a balanced examination of competing interpretations?

Are the arguments and perspectives of those who disagree with its apparent conclusions represented fairly?

Does the documentary distinguish sufficiently between established facts, witness testimony, reasonable inference and speculation?

1. Broader Implications

What implications, if any, might the documentary have for the historical standing of the Patterson–Gimlin film?

Could its findings significantly influence future research and discussion, or are its conclusions likely to remain contested?

It is also worth considering an important distinction: the authenticity of the Patterson–Gimlin film and the broader question of whether an unidentified primate exists are separate propositions, each requiring its own evidential assessment.

1. Outstanding Questions and Further Investigation

What remains unresolved after viewing the documentary?

Are there particular claims, interviews, archival materials or technical findings that deserve independent verification?

What additional evidence would be necessary to change your present assessment of the Patterson–Gimlin film?

Given the historical significance of the Patterson–Gimlin film and the strongly held views surrounding it, this discussion will inevitably involve differing interpretations.

Such disagreements are both understandable and welcome.

However, the value of any serious discussion ultimately depends upon the quality of the arguments presented, the reliability of the evidence examined and a willingness to engage fairly with alternative perspectives.

Participants are therefore encouraged to distinguish between documented facts, firsthand observations, secondhand accounts, interpretations and personal convictions.

Where possible, please support factual assertions with identifiable sources, relevant documentation or specific references to material presented in the documentary.

Critical scrutiny should be applied consistently, irrespective of whether a particular claim supports or challenges one's existing position.

Personal attacks, unsupported allegations and attempts to discredit individuals solely on the basis of their beliefs contribute little to a meaningful examination of the subject.

Equally, scepticism should not be confused with automatic dismissal, nor should open-mindedness require the uncritical acceptance of extraordinary claims.

The objective is not to establish a consensus through the weight of opinion, but to examine the available evidence with intellectual honesty, methodological consistency and an appropriate recognition of uncertainty.

If you have attended an advance screening or watched Capturing Bigfoot following its general release, your firsthand impressions are particularly welcome.

Please feel free to share a detailed review, examine individual claims, challenge particular interpretations or highlight material that you believe deserves greater attention.

Both favourable and critical assessments are encouraged.

As this is a dedicated discussion megathread, substantive spoilers are permitted. Readers wishing to experience the documentary without prior knowledge of its principal revelations should bear this in mind before continuing through the comments.

After examining the evidence, testimony and arguments presented in Capturing Bigfoot, where do you now stand on the authenticity of the Patterson–Gimlin film and, more importantly, what specific evidence has led you to that position?

Whether the documentary ultimately proves persuasive, inconclusive or controversial, its release offers an opportunity to revisit a longstanding historical question through fresh material and renewed scrutiny.

The most valuable contributions will be those that advance our understanding of the evidence, acknowledge its limitations and engage seriously with competing explanations.

Looking forward to reading your reactions, analyses and perspectives.

Philip Morris was the man who said that he provided Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin with the costume they used in the Patterson Gimlin Film in 1967. Recently the documentary Capturing Bigfoot has created a lot of buzz by claiming they have new footage that shows a rehersal film that proves the Patterson Gimilin Film is a hoax. Despite previous claims by Greg Long and others that Philip Morris made the costume, the directors of Capturing Bigfoot have publically said they don't believe Philip Morris was involved. Now the grandson of Philip Morris is releasing his own film titled "The Man In The Suit" that he says will have a first look on halloween night and tour on the film festival circuit in 2027. More info here

I haven’t seen Capturing Bigfoot. I definitely will watch it. I’m a skeptic who was pretty convinced the PGF film could possibly be the real deal and seen all the “evidence” and cases for it. Why wouldn’t they have filmed closer. Not knowing the advances technology would make, and how great the costume was, why wouldn’t they have made a better hoax video. It’s shaky and far away. I just feel it is exactly the distance a real encounter would have happened at and then a shaky camera trying to get a better shot.

after the bigfoot flap in ohio i had to put him out for october. located in cleveland

I want to make a channel on cryptids like bedtime stories and beyond creepy.

I want to narrate encounters but don't know how I would illustrate it.

What do you think would make a good channel ?

Bob Heronimous claims that he wore the costume. The costume that Morris Costumes claims to have sold to Patterson. The costume that Morris Costumes has a order form for.

Yet an identical costume that Morris gave Nat Geo to use in a film test was a failure and Morris reneged on the film rights.

Heronimus also claimed that the sight he filmed at was close to the paved road yet the actual site was hours in.

Maybe the film is a hoax, but these facts must be reinstated into the conversation.

Experiments have shown that sincere eyewitness memories in a variety of contexts are often imperfect and can be distorted by many and varied factors, including what questions witnesses are asked and how long witnesses confer with one another before they describe their perceptions.

Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Biases

In particular, when two witnesses discuss whatever they saw, they frequently adopt each other's dimensional estimates. If one says an object, weapon, or person was larger or smaller than it actually was, the listening witness may include this distortion in their own subsequent recall.

This experimental finding is amply and extensively supported in the scientific literature. Outside this literature, however, people tend to be quite naïve about imperfections and influence in eyewitness memories.

As a result, people forming opinions about whether sasquatch lore might refer to a real North American primate species generally presume that adults of the species, unless unreal, routinely grow to gigantic mass and height. After all, many eyewitnesses have sincerely reported observing very large individuals.

Bigfoot skeptics often rely on such mass and height estimates in evaluating: how much food is needed to sustain a breeding population … how difficult it might be for individuals to evade detection … whether humans would recognize sasquatch bones as noteworthy upon finding them in a wilderness … and so forth. Rarely do skeptics (or believers) acknowledge that mass and height are among the least reliable elements of the sasquatch species description, even if the species is real, due to the vagaries of human eyewitness memory.

Sasquatch encounters are often relatively brief … often occur at an unknown distance from the witness in terrain that may be full of trees, boulders, shadows, and other visual complications … often trigger intimidation or alarm … and often involve questioning or discussion prior to the release of any report. All of these are factors known to distort size estimates in even the most sincere eyewitness testimony.

I suggest that skeptics ought to reconsider their rejection of sasquatch lore, to the extent that this rejection relies on sasquatch normally being massive or tall.

Might be a popular take, might be an unpopular one, may be common or uncommon, but do you guys think that, if we tried, we could sequester the woo long enough to actually build more respect in the eyes of the scientific community or at least the public?

Now I will say, I'm not entirely against "woo", but it clearly doesn't help our position in simply trying to get the existence of sasquatch to be recognized.

People already find it hard to believe that another hominid or prehistoric ape could "silently" live amongst us in forests (despite such creatures existing in the past as well as existing whilst we looked like we do now (the hobbit man, for example, was only 50k years ago, and I read it looked far more ape than we do)), but then you want to toss in stuff like legitimate predator like cloaking, portal summoning, and legitimate telepathy?

Like come on. The very least you could do if you want to bring that stuff up in an audible form is to link it to more natural and grounded possibilities. Things like simple camouflage that our brains can't read, perhaps portals being more of a fundamental feature of reality as opposed to something they they make, or our brains being able to translate infrasound as a vestigial feature of our primal early-human to past cenozoic days when we lived amongst a plethora of other megafauna.

Overall, I'm only not fully against woo because I try to keep an open mind and I personally believe we don't understand a vast majority of the forces of the universe that we cannot see, so in my mind there is chance (of varying degree) that these creatures could be the only example we have of something that has all these fantastical abilities, simply because anything is possible, but along with that is the far greater chance that much of it is far more natural than many people believe it to be.

And while I'm not fully against it, I also believe that it is of the utmost importance that efforts be focused on proving simple existence before diving into all of the rest of the strangeness, and ESPECIALLY before trying to claim said strangeness is an attribute of the creature itself and not its surroundings.

Idk, sometimes I just feel like woo is a major weak point for us, sort of like a reputable individual who hunts and eats "odd" meats. Like say there's a decent lawyer that is known to occasionally go hunting and he was raised hunting and eating things like raccoons and squirrels. Fundamentally there's nothing wrong with that, but the rest of society will point at him and say "you don't want that guy representing you, he eats raccoons". That lawyer will forever struggle with ridicule until raccoon becomes a more common game for at least the average hunter (this represents sasquatch becoming commonly accepted by the public), and then would face no ridicule if raccoon were to become a common restaurant meat nationwide (this represents full acceptance as recognition of sasquatch as a real creature). Raccoon being accepted would then open the door to many more game options, and would have the effect of making squirrel (sasquatch woo) to not be so drastically unacceptable.

Anyways, let me know what you guys think.

The primary posed question is at the start with asking if you guys think we could sequester it for long enough.

Secondary topic would be discussion on anything else I said

Edit: Just to clarify, I do not mean forcing those that embrace common woo theories to shut up, I meant all of this as in a majority of the community, woo followers and non-woo followers, to first, communally, work towards the goal of simple recognition, consensual focused goal

Leaving a lasting impression, one roof at a time. 🫈

Image taken as I drove by it in Oviedo, FL.

Hey everyone!

A while ago, I asked this community to share the questions you’d want to ask Marq Evans, the director of Capturing Bigfoot, about the Patterson–Gimlin film and the evidence surrounding it.

I’ve now had the opportunity to interview Marq, and I used questions collected from members of this subreddit to help shape the conversation. Thank you to everyone who contributed!

We discussed some of the biggest questions surrounding the documentary, including:

• The alleged costume test footage and its timeline
• The technical evidence behind the hoax theory
• Whether the original Patterson–Gimlin film has been properly examined by experts
• Bob Gimlin’s testimony and Clint Patterson’s claims
• What evidence could change Marq’s mind
• Evidence that didn’t make it into the final cut of the documentary

I tried to approach the interview fairly and give Marq the opportunity to explain his findings, even though my own views on the Patterson–Gimlin film have shifted over time.

Since many of these questions came directly from this community, I wanted to share the interview here first and give you all a chance to watch it.

I’d genuinely love to hear your thoughts. Did Marq adequately address the questions, and which of his answers did you find most convincing—or least convincing?

Thanks again to everyone who submitted questions!

We didn't even see anything until we got back home. My kid thinks it's a cryptid. It looks tall considering the distance away from us. What do you think?

The official capturing bigfoot channel just put this out. Quite crazy and way better than the altered bullshit we get from some researchers

In my interview with Marq Evans, director of Capturing Bigfoot, featuring questions submitted by members of this community, I asked an interesting question about Clint Patterson.

You can watch the full interview here:

https://youtu.be/Z-WrTxKv0js

Do you think financial gain may have been one of Clint's motivations behind his confession years later?

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

So, Capturing Bigfoot is based around a 40-second piece of film. Yes, I know that Clint Patterson has testified, and we should just ignore the questions of provenance, etc. Okay.

The claim is made daily on "skeptical" forums that the images at the level of detail CAPTURABLE on this kind of film in that kind of camera makes it impossible to state what is or isn't on the PGF.

... but the 40 second clip has a different resolution that DOES allow decisive claims to be made?

Like so many of you, my interest in Bigfoot was first sparked by seeing an image of the Patterson-Gimlin film. It was in a book in my elementary school library and it started a lifelong interest in all cryptids - so much so that last year, I wrote and directed a feature film about a group of childhood friends who reunite to search for their favorite 'monsters.' It was produced independently for very little money, which means it was a real labor of love for all of us - a sort of Wes Anderson meets 90s Nickelodeon take on the lore surrounding Bigfoot and the pains people go through while searching for the unknown. It has a lot of references to the PGL film and is available to stream free on Tubi. Thanks everyone!

https://tubitv.com/movies/100048971/the-bigfoot-club

Interview with Marq Evans released earlier today.

Also, as a request to the mods, can we have flair specifically for “Capturing Bigfoot” given its upcoming release in a few days?

Found this old family photo on Ancestry that was taken by my great-grandfather. From what I know, this was taken at or around his house.
I noticed this strange dark shape in the background near the trees/fence. To me it kind of looks like a head and shoulders, with somewhat broad shoulders, and it seems different from the vegetation around it.
I’m not saying it’s definitely Bigfoot. It could be brush, a shadow, part of the fence, or an artifact from the old photo/scan. But the shape genuinely looks unusual to me.
I included the original and a closer crop. What do you guys see? Does it look like a figure to anyone else, or is there an obvious explanation I’m missing?
I’d especially be interested in opinions from people familiar with old photos, wildlife, or background image analysis.

After watching Expedition Bigfoot and Finding Bigfoot, I think Bigfoot is most likely on federally protected land.

Nobody can go into Federally pritected land. I think the reason it's federally protected is because it's sasquatch territory. That makes more sense to me and sasquatch could thrive in such isolated locations away from us.

Anyway, just a theory I had. Id be curious what other people think.

anyone who was at any of the prerelease screenings of capturing Bigfoot, please post your thoughts here. were you convinced by the doc? what stood out to you? did you see anything that others have said yet?

Dave Wants to Know interviews Cliff Barackman. Just dropped about an hour ago.

Update: is this link instead of the one above to access the video: https://youtu.be/Dl5gxr2Augk?is=AJuULoNddlm3qCzy