Recently, I wrote an essay on the cumulative reasons why I’ve come to believe that Bigfoot is not a real animal and that mere skepticism of its actuality wasn’t strong enough to describe my position on the question anymore. I wanted to be honest about this transition from open-mindedness to reluctant certitude that the big galoot was a man in a suit. If someone turned up a corpse of one of these allegedly elusive creatures and it could be scientifically proven to be a real animal, that would force me to change my position, right?
That’s what intellectual honesty demands isn’t it? When you have a position and disconfirmatory evidence comes along you must reevaluate your stance. For me this is a hypothetical I suspect I will never face as regards Bigfoot. But for those believers out there who have relied on the Patterson-Gimlin Film as the greatest evidence that there is a mysterious if elusive hominid living in the wilds of North America, it seems they’re about to have to face this exact situation.
If you’re at all interested in the Bigfoot question, then you’re already familiar with the Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF). But for those of you who woke up this morning from a coma and your last memory was watching an episode of “In Search Of…” about Bigfoot, let me catch you up on the cumulative scientific evidence supporting the existence of these mystery apes that has been accrued in the intervening decades since 1967.
…
Now that we’re all caught up with the new and convincing evidence, let’s return to the PGF.
Since it first was announced in 1967, the shaky, blurry footage of a furry humanoid figure with pendulous breasts walking across the open foreground of an autumn forest has become a literally iconic image of Bigfoot. Thousands of hours of consideration, speculation and attestation have coalesced around this 40 seconds of color film. It has become the nucleation point of an industry. The silhouette of frame 352 has adorned bumper stickers, air fresheners, beer, coffee, and beef jerky. I’m not saying all this to mock the commercialism, but to marvel at the conceptual penetration, its scope and sprawl. I could argue this is all “Bigfoot”, but it is more specifically the figure depicted in that film, a creature affectionately called “Patty” by Bigfoot enthusiasts.
Now this almost sacred image is going to be facing some shocking scrutiny in the face of a new documentary film from director Marq Evans that could potentially undermine the claims of authenticity that have buoyed the PGF for 60 years. The documentary debuted at the SxSW festival in Austin, Texas in March, and while the wider public may not yet be aware of what is coming, the Bigfoot enthusiast community is already fracturing into factions around the claims made in a film almost none of us have had an opportunity to see.
What we know about the documentary comes mostly from the promotional material the filmmakers have released to the public, and from the reports of people who got to see it at SxSW. In particular, Eric from “Hairy Man Road” was able to see the new documentary and he created a 30-minute reaction video where he describes what he saw and speculates that the evidence in “Capturing Bigfoot” is going to be the end of serious belief in the PGF.
Long time Bigfoot researchers will be familiar with the research of Greg Long whose book “The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story” laid out the well documented case that Roger Patterson was not some amateur nature photographer who got lucky and happened to catch the best footage of the creature by accident. Long’s assertion was that Patterson was a tricky grifter and unreliable character who crafted the bigfoot suit, rented a camera to film the hoax, hired a local named Bob Heironymous to “be the guy in the suit” – and then never paid him a promised $1,000 for that work.
During the course of the new documentary, much of Long’s claims sound as if they’re confirmed. I’m being tentative with my wording here because I (and nearly all of the people vociferously commenting about this) have not had a chance to see the new documentary yet. Many of the original people involved with the PGF appear in the film, as do many Bigfoot experts, and from what I’ve seen and read, the heart of the film is the story of Rogers’ son, Clint Patterson.
In the documentary, Clint reveals that he learned a few years back that the PGF was a hoax, and when he confronted his mother about the deception and wanted to reveal the truth it fractured their relationship. The movie generated a lot of revenue when it was originally toured around the Pacific NorthWest and has continued to bring in royalties to Clint’s mom, Patricia. Facing the loss of that revenue created strains in their relationship – but according to Eric’s video, Clint and his mother reconcile. Clint also apparently gets Bob Heironymous the $1,000 his father had promised to the old Yakima resident for his work in the suit.
Notable Bigfoot personages like Jeff Meldrum (who passed away in September 2025) appear in the film and react to the shocking evidence that is the core of the documentary.
Over the course of the documentary’s story, director Marq Evans was contacted by a person who had a piece of film in a safe that her father had told her was important and part of the PGF story. When Marq assisted in getting the film developed, it turned out to be – apparently – another effort of Patterson trying to show Bigfoot on film, only in this clip the footage clearly shows a man in a suit – a suit which bears an undeniable similarity to the “creature” in the PGF. The authenticity of what’s on that piece of film will likely be vociferously debated, but Evans has at least confirmed the film’s stock is historically appropriate.
Having not yet seen the film, this is all tantalising to a life-long Bigfoot enthusiast. Everything sounds like it confirms the story that Greg Long put together for his deep dive into the PGF. So many stories have been told about this film and so many people have obsessed over every frame and detail, that I’ve often described it as a Rorschach test of Bigfoot Belief. Researchers like M. K. Davis – a believer in Bigfoot – painstakingly stabilised the shaky footage and to skeptics his version is much more clearly a man in a suit. Believers see an uncanny animal like no other.
What we’ll see when we can finally obsess over this new footage in “Capturing Bigfoot” is exciting to speculate about, and I am genuinely excited to get a chance to see (and hopefully own a copy) for myself. I’m also hoping to interview Marq on MonsterTalk when he works out his distribution plan and goes into promotion mode.
A few weeks ago, my co-host Dr Karen Stollznow and I had a discussion about what is likely to happen next. We talked about how the revelations about the hoaxed “surgeon’s photo” impacted Nessie, and how dating and research on the shroud of Turin revealed that it was a medieval forgery. I was immediately contacted by listeners who wanted me to know that the shroud has not been disproven.
While the revelation – if confirmed – that the PGF was hoaxed is a big deal, Bigfoot is now an entrenched part of American mythology and no film or confession will dissuade the faith of people who believe they have had experiences or interactions with Bigfoot. For skeptics, Bigfoot is a fascinating bit of monster culture perpetuated by hoaxes and pious frauds. For believers bigfoot is what religious studies professor Dr Joe Laycock would call “phenomenologically actual”. Whether it’s a natural animal or a paranormal entity, for experiencers the PGF is not a load bearing structure in the house of Bigfoot, but “Capturing Bigfoot” may end up being just as scrutinised as its more famous predecessor.
