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

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!

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

Daniel shares his thoughts on Capturing Bigfoot after seeing it in San Francisco.

🚨 SPECIAL BIGFOOT SOCIETY EPISODE 🚨

What happened at the Capturing Bigfoot premiere at New People Theater in San Francisco, California, on October 13?

Kai Wada Roath was there. He joins me to share his reaction to the documentary, the mystery footage, and the Q&A with Roger Patterson’s son, Clint Patterson.

He woke up at 5 a.m. still thinking about what he’d watched.

🎧 Hear his firsthand account in this special episode of Bigfoot Society, available now wherever you listen to podcasts.

Were you at the premiere? Share your thoughts below—and keep spoilers clearly marked!

At 14:45, Tamir Ardon (producer of Capturing Bigfoot) shares a crucial spoiler regarding Meldrum for the documentary that I had not heard until now. If you don’t want a spoiler, watch at your own risk.

Hey everyone! First time posting here, so I figured I’d introduce myself and share something I’ve been working on for a long time.

I’m Chris, an actor, writer, and filmmaker out of Los Angeles. About 10 years ago, I wrote a screenplay called CRYPTID that I always wanted to turn into a movie. Well, that never happened, but I always thought it needed to be read/told. So this year I decided to turn it into a novel.

CRYPTID officially came out October 6! It’s been getting some pretty great reviews too. Some mid ones as well, as is expected with anything.

It’s an adult creature (Bigfoot) horror story about four friends who head into the woods for a weekend camping trip and quickly realize they’re not alone. And what’s out there (Bigfoot) isn’t exactly friendly.

I grew up loving creature features and horror movies, so I wanted to write something that felt cinematic, fast paced, and genuinely disturbing. Fair warning, there’s some pretty graphic stuff, as I wouldn’t normally say this but a few early reviewers have already suggested checking the trigger warnings before reading, which I think tells you a little about what you’re getting into.

The cover was also hand painted by an artist named Olesea Vladimir, and I’m really happy with how it turned out.

Anyway, just wanted to introduce myself and share the book with fellow Bigfoot fans. It’s available on Amazon in paperback, hardcover, Kindle, and Kindle Unlimited.

Would love to hear what you think if you decide to check it out!

And here’s the link to the Goodreads page so you can read reviews and it’ll link to places it’s for sale. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/259252874-cryptid?ref=ru_lihp_up_rv_0_mclk-up19680541069#CommunityReviews

I’m in San Francisco for the screening of the new Capturing Bigfoot film screening and Q&A tonight. I’ve interviewed director Marq Evans and I think we did a great job of covering all the bases about the film from his perspective.

Do you have any questions that you would like me to ask Clint Patterson? What he thinks about his dad’s involvement in this film? What he’s had to say about his father and the PGF? What happened to the suit?

Drop your questions in the comments and I will try and get them into the Q&A tonight.

I’m filming the entire Q&A live and will have that up on the Sasquatch Odyssey Podcast YouTube channel this weekend. I’ll have the entire thing on the audio version of the podcast as well. It’s available on all podcast platforms.