For nearly sixty years the Patterson–Gimlin film has remained the most debated piece of wildlife footage ever captured. Since that October day in 1967, the short reel of 16-millimeter film has been examined, stabilized, enlarged, measured, reconstructed, and argued over by skeptics, believers, and professional investigators alike.
Now a new documentary, Capturing Bigfoot, claims to have surfaced another piece of film connected to Roger Patterson.
Within hours of the story appearing in the press, arguments erupted across podcasts, forums, and social media. Conclusions were issued, reputations defended, and positions hardened.
There is only one small difficulty with the entire debate: Almost none of the people arguing about the footage have actually seen it.
Yet despite that simple fact, the community has already divided itself into three camps.
Two of those camps are reacting emotionally.
The third is behaving scientifically.
Camp One: The Irrational Skeptics
The first camp declared victory almost immediately.
To them, the existence of a newly surfaced reel connected to Roger Patterson proves that the famous Patterson–Gimlin footage must have been staged all along. The documentary, they argue, has finally exposed the hoax.
The logical problem is obvious.
The skeptics celebrating this outcome have not examined the footage either.
They are declaring the conclusion of an investigation that has not yet occurred.
These are not skeptics in the proper scientific sense. They are Irrational Skeptics—individuals whose worldview prevents them from accepting evidence that contradicts their prior beliefs. For them, the existence of an unknown primate in North America is already impossible, and therefore any evidence associated with the subject must automatically be fraudulent.
This position is not scientific skepticism.
It is disbelief masquerading as skepticism.
Camp Two: The Mystery Grifters
The second reaction appeared just as quickly, though in the opposite direction.
For clarity, I will refer to this group as the Mystery Grifters, and there are fewer better examples of this category than Matt Moneymaker, founder of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization and longtime team leader on the Animal Planet series Finding Bigfoot. Moneymaker issued a public statement attacking the documentary almost immediately after hearing of it. The tone of the response is revealing.
He opened his commentary by dismissing the film as
“this clickbait crock”
and later referred to the filmmakers themselves as
“sleazy producers.”
These are classic ad hominem attacks—criticisms directed at the people involved rather than the evidence itself.
Beyond the insults, Moneymaker’s central claim is that the reel simply shows a dramatization costume used during Patterson’s documentary work:
“The ‘long lost reel’… is just story recreation footage using this hokey dramatization costume which Bigfoot researchers have known about for years.”
Whether that claim ultimately proves correct or incorrect is beside the point. The problem is methodological. The conclusion was issued before the footage in question had even been examined.
In this respect, the Mystery Grifters and the Irrational Skeptics share the same intellectual flaw: Both have already decided what the evidence must mean.
(Moneymaker’s entire comment is included below, because I believe in offering you all the evidence for you to judge, instead of insisting “I can save you the time and frustration from watching this clickbait crock.” )
Camp Three: The Investigators
The third camp is considerably quieter. These are the researchers who have refused to pass judgment. They have not declared the documentary proof. They have not declared it a hoax. They have simply acknowledged the obvious fact that the evidence itself has not yet been examined.
This is not indecision.
It is the correct scientific posture.
Evidence must be observed before it can be evaluated. Until that happens, every argument—whether enthusiastic or dismissive—is speculation. The proper position is not to stand between the two noisy camps. It is to step to the side and wait for the evidence.
The Real Cost of a Hoax
Hoaxes in fringe research carry an unusually high cost. Every fake footprint, staged photograph, or fabricated piece of footage forces legitimate researchers to spend years untangling deception instead of pursuing genuine evidence. The classic example remains Piltdown Man, the early twentieth-century fossil hoax that misled scientists for decades. The damage was not merely embarrassment. It diverted serious research away from the real work of understanding human evolution.
The same dynamic occurs in cryptozoology. When fabricated evidence enters the conversation, the field must spend years cleaning up the damage. A hoax is not merely a prank. It is intellectual vandalism.
What Happens Next
If the documentary truly contains a newly surfaced 16-millimeter film connected to the Patterson–Gimlin story, the next phase is predictable. The footage will be subjected to the same scrutiny that the original film has endured for more than sixty years: frame analysis, motion study, anatomical comparison, and attempts to reproduce the creature using costume technology. But there is now an additional complication that investigators in 1967 never had to consider.
Because this film has emerged in the age of artificial intelligence, critics will almost certainly argue that the footage itself was created with AI rather than being genuine archival film from the 1960s. In other words, the debate is about to gain an entirely new front. Sixty years ago the argument was whether the Patterson–Gimlin figure was a man in a suit. Today the argument may become whether the footage itself is a digital fabrication.
The Position of the Enigma Research Unit
The National Explorers Society recently established the Enigma Research Unit to investigate controversial evidence using disciplined research methodology rather than speculation.
Our position regarding the current controversy is simple. We will wait for the evidence. We will examine the film. We will analyze the claims surrounding it. And only after that process is complete will conclusions be drawn.
Mysteries deserve curiosity. But curiosity without discipline quickly collapses into argument. At the moment, the debate surrounding Capturing Bigfoot contains plenty of argument. What it still lacks is the one thing that actually matters:
Evidence.
By Anthony Sakovich
Director, Enigma Research Unit
National Explorers Society
Watch our balanced discussion of the subject here:
Matthew John Moneymaker
AdminMarch 13 11:53AM
There is a film festival entry at the 2026 South by Southwest (Austin TX) called “Capturing Bigfoot”. I can save you the time and frustration from watching this clickbait crock.I was going to ignore this story, but the clickbait potency of the keyword “Bigfoot” has helped the story get into the Hollywood Reporter newspaper (very influential), so I am forced to comment on something that I would prefer to not even dignify.It was known at the time, and since that time in the late 1960’s, that real life cowboy Roger Patterson was trying to make a documentary about the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mystery when he and Bob Gimlin obtained their famous footage in 1967. He shot a lot of footage, but mostly B-roll. They were from Washington State. The famous 1967 footage was shot in northern California. Most of the other stock footage was shot in Washington State, where this old reel was found.As with EVERY OTHER big documentary and TV series about the Bigfoot subject, Roger wanted to dramatize a few bigfoot encounters, which required using a man in cheap costume. ALL big documentaries and TV series on the Bigfoot subject (until CGI & AI) have had a Bigfoot costume on hand for various re-creation shots — shots which are not presented as actual footage of the creature. It was a necessary part of the visual storytelling for the Bigfoot subject.Patterson’s wife Patricia recalls the use of a cheap costume for this purpose, though she only saw it one time when it was not being worn. It may have been discarded after 1967.A man named Bob Hieronimus claims he wore a costume for Roger at one point, but he has made three contradictory claims over the years about the costume, big enough contradictions that he is demonstrably not credible. What can be believed from him: He adamantly states that he was not in the costume that is shown in this documentary.The “long lost reel” that is being touted at South by Southwest is just a tacky replica of the 1967 Patterson creature made by a man named Al DeAtley, who even the documentarians conclude is the guy in this costume in the lost reel.The lost reel was shown to Bill Munns. He’s still alive. He says the figure in the reel is an obvious man in a janky attempt at Patty. The costume wearer almost perfectly matches the movements and head turn of the creature walking away in the 1967 footgage, as if he studied the 1967 Patterson footage closely.Why would Al DeAtley make this tacky costume replica of the Patterson creature if he was already making money from actual footage?The Patterson film is not very long. All you can do is show it over and over, and maybe slow it down and show it frame by frame. It’s hard create an hour long cinema piece with the PGF alone. DeAtley might have been planning his own bigger documentary …. just like Roger Patterson was aiming to do before he sold the rights of the PGF to DeAtley because he needed the moneyIt was Al DeAtley who ran with the PGF to rented community halls across the country and made all the money from the 1967 PGF, leaving Bob Gimlin out of the loop and receiving no money from the beginning, and then eventually left Roger out of the loop too. Roger didn’t know everything DeAtley was doing after a while with the 1967 footage.A man like DeAtley engaged in that type of business would naturally have thought about making a bigger documentary for a bigger cinema run, using the 1967 PGF as the core part but perhaps needing more footage for dramatizations. Who knows. DeAtley might have had practical creative business reasons for recreating the footage from Bluff Creek. The bottom line: DeAtley’s replica attempt doesn’t mean the footage from Bluff Creek is not real.The makers of this documentary are trying to spin this replica reel as a “trial run” for the eventual 1967 costume. Their argument rests precariously on the false assertion that two small plus marks on the film footage mean that it must have been shot in 1966, rather than in 1967, or 1968. More about that later …The simple fact that no one has ever been able to duplicate the 1967 “costume”, with all its anatomical peculiarites and massive musculature, has shown sensible people for more than 50 years that it is not a costume. There have been several well-funded and well-staffed attempts to similate what you see in the footage. All of those efforts failed.National Geographic at one time touted the bogus Hieronimous costume story (he claims he was the man in the costume at Bluff Creek), then years later aired an episode of a different series where the footage was examined with the most modern techniques and computer enhancement and measurement analysis. That subsequent Nat Geo program revealed a foot anatomy on the Patterson creature that is impossible to fake with a man in a costume, so it was determined that the Patterson creature could NOT have been a man in a costume.This recent film festival entry “Capturing Bigfoot” is just one in long parade of sleazy deceptive productions since the 1990’s that have regurgitated and repackaged long-debunked claims because the ploy will still get some cultural traction, riding on the enduring popularity of the bigfoot mystery. It is just a cinematic form of clickbait, as are the news stories about the film, some of which have a subscription paywall in front of the article … for all you Bigfoot diehards who they assume will pay to read about this film …Roger’s son Clint was flown down to the film festival to give interviews. His mother Patricia knows that the 1967 Patterson film is legitimate and there was no hoax. She has said that very firmly her entire life since that time. She does not say otherwise in this documentary, nor does Bob Gimlin, contrary to false rumors on social media.Clint waited til his mother was around 100 years old before he decided to sell his deceased father down the river. He claims his only motivation was to “get it off his chest”. Even though he has no direct knowledge, and the far more credible guy who DOES have direct knowledge has always said, and still does, that he and Roger were the only two humans present that day.Clint was very young when the 1967 footage was obtained, and not much older when his father died from cancer. He has no direct knowledge about his father’s accomplishment except what he knows from his estranged mother, and what he has heard from his new pal Bob Hieronimus.Patricia Patterson has always said that Roger did not fake the PGF. She would know much better than Clint.What does Bill Munns say now after the finished documentary has been shown to film critics at a film festival? He says the “lost reel” was just a replica of the 1967 PGF, not a trial run for it.The director was able to obtain a stunned reaction from the late Jeff Meldrum by assuring him the lost reel was filmed BEFORE the 1967 footage. Whereas the “lost reel” is basically irrelevant to the question of whether the 1967 footage is authentic if it was a recreation of it after the fact.Meldrum was a trusting guy. Scammers take advantage of guys like Meldrim. Meldrum had no reason to suspect the high stakes sleaziness that was going on around this documentary.Munns explains the ‘Capturing Bigfoot’ ‘Rehearsal’ clip had to be shot AFTER the Patterson footage of 1967 was obtained in Northern California.In the documentary there is a paid “expert” explaining that certain symbolic markings on the film stock indicate that it was shot no later than 1966. Anyone who works at a court can tell you that a lawyer can find and pay a so-called “expert witness” to say essentially anything you want him to say.“Bigfoot: Costume or Creature” episode of the “Dave Wants to Know” podcast with David Wylie dropped right after the Capturing Bigfoot SXSW premiere. In it, Hollywood special-effects veteran Bill Munns (author of When Roger Met Patty and the detailed Munns Report on the Patterson-Gimlin Film) directly addresses the new “rehearsal/test” footage that the documentary presents as proof the PGF was a premeditated 1967 hoax.It’s a fantastic interview if you’re unfamiliar with Munns’ contributions to the Bigfoot community over the years because it covers his expertise in costume special effects and camera technology in the late 60s, and his decades long analyses of the PGF. The latter portion focuses on his direct reaction to the Capturing Bigfoot documentary, but it’s crucial to understand that he maintains—with 100% certainty—that the actual PGF (“Patty”) is 100% biological and impossible to fake with 1967 costume technology, i.e. smooth neck rotation, muscle rippling, breast motion, arm/leg ratios, gait, etc.He rejects the documentary’s framing entirely. He argues the ~40-second 16mm clip, which shows a slimmer Bigfoot-suited figure walking into woods, raising a foot to display the sole, with a horseback rider carrying a rifle mimicking Bob Gimlin, is not a pre-PGF “dress rehearsal” staged by Roger Patterson. Instead, it is a post-PGF replication created by Al DeAtley, Patterson’s brother-in-law who was closely involved in handling and promoting the original film.Key quotes/points:“I’m pretty sure Al DeAtley did this. And the way it turned up is really bizarre. Um, it turned up in the hands of someone whose father worked at Boeing Aircraft in Washington.”Munns describes the clip as someone “made an effort to replicate it [the PGF] as perfectly as possible” after the fact — including Patty’s exact gait, foot details, and scene elements — “so he could look at that film and see for himself. If I fake it, can I look at it and tell it’s a fake?”DeAtley could have had various reasons for making a replica reel but we can’t ask him now.Munns allows that Roger might have filmed a separate, earlier ape-suit test involving Bob Heironimus and suit-maker Philip Morris (“It isn’t the PGF”), but insists the footage in Capturing Bigfoot is a later verification copy, not planning material.Director Marq Evans and his sources say the Kodak reel dates to 1966 via edge markings/codes and expert analysis. It was supposedly shot ~1 year before Bluff Creek as a “trial run” by Patterson filming his brother-in-law in a prototype suit at a similar wooded location. Munns says this is a logical impossibility since the test clip replicates exact PGF elements (specific walk, foot sole display, rider positioning) that only existed after the October 20, 1967 filming and development. You can’t perfectly copy something that hasn’t been shot yet. This makes the “rehearsal” timeline circular and untenable.Munns’ theory is a coherent, expert-driven rebuttal that directly undercuts the documentary’s timeline by emphasizing that perfect replication requires the original to already exist. Film stock dating alone is not conclusive (old stock was common), and the gait/foot details he highlights provide strong circumstantial support for “after.” We need independent forensic re-analysis of the actual reel.The key debate is now: “Does the content prove it’s a copy (Munns) or does the stock prove it’s prep (Evans)?”The main premise of this documentary relies on the assertion that the lost reel was “made” in 1966 and therefore prior to the 1967 footage from Northern California. The assertion is substantiated by two little plus marks on the film stock. These are Kodachrome marks from the MANUFACTURING of the film stock, but only become visible when the film is developed later. These marks do not come from the developing process, after the film has been exposed and used. So the film stock could have been manufactured in 1966 but not actually used until 1968.But an “expert witness” could get away with saying the “the film must have been made in 1966”. Yes, that’s when the blank film stock was made by Kodak, but not necessarily when it was used by a cameraman. A cameraman could have used the film stock two years later in 1968. This is the slight-of-hand in this documentary which underlies their whole argument. Anyone can debunk this documentary by verifying that these these little plus marks are Kodachrome manufacturing marks rather than marks created when the film was developed. You dont have to take my word for it.
