Capturing Bigfoot: Does the Alleged Test Footage Really Expose the Patterson-Gimlin Film as a Hoax?

By Thomas Marcum | TCC Research

Some images from the new documentary Capturing Bigfoot are finally coming out. Supposedly, the film exposes the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film as a hoax through some recently discovered footage.

I've been looking at some of the still frames being circulated, including comparisons between the original Patterson-Gimlin footage and the allegedly discovered "test" footage.

I'm not convinced.

I have not seen the movie, but just looking at these still frames, I do not find them convincing. While the figures are similar, there are some noticeable differences that I think deserve attention.

Differences Between Patty and the Alleged Test Footage

Head and Facial Structure

One of the first things I noticed was the difference in the head and facial structure. In some of the alleged test footage, the creature appears to have a more rounded, almost gorilla-like head. The facial features also appear different from those of Patty in the original 1967 film.

Patty has a distinctive head shape and facial profile that do not appear to be clearly duplicated in these newly released images.

Shoulders and Upper Body

There also appear to be differences in the shoulder structure and upper body.

The figures in the alleged test footage seem to have a somewhat different shoulder-to-head ratio. In some frames, the shoulders look more squared off, while Patty's upper body has a more distinctive contour.

Of course, camera angles, lighting, and image quality can affect how these features appear. Still, the differences are noticeable.

Legs, Thighs, and Body Proportions

This is one of the more interesting differences to me.

In the original Patterson-Gimlin film, Patty has a heavy lower body, with pronounced thighs and gluteal contours. These are features that have been discussed and debated for decades.

The figures shown in the alleged test footage do not appear to reproduce those same proportions convincingly. Some look straighter through the lower torso, while others have a different overall body shape.

Hair, Fur, and Surface Detail

Another difference is the apparent texture and detail.

The original Patterson-Gimlin footage shows anatomical contours and a relatively close-fitting hair or fur appearance.

The alleged test footage appears less detailed, and some of the figures look considerably shaggier or bulkier in certain areas.

Granted, the quality of the images makes a definitive comparison difficult. But that works both ways. If the images are too poor to establish the differences conclusively, they are also too poor to establish that the figures are identical.

Next image.

In another frame from the alleged test footage, the figure appears unusually bulky through the shoulders and upper back, almost as if heavy padding has been added beneath the outer covering. The rump also appears noticeably different from Patty's in the original Patterson-Gimlin film. Patty has a more defined gluteal structure and heavier lower-body proportions, while this figure looks comparatively top-heavy. Although image quality and camera angles must be considered, these differences raise questions about whether we are looking at the same costume.

Where Did This Test Footage Come From?

This brings me to another important question.

How do we know when this alleged test footage was actually filmed?

There is really no way for someone looking at these released still frames to know whether the footage was created in the 1960s, more recently, or even specifically for the new documentary.

I'm not saying that is what happened. I'm saying the age, origin, and authenticity of the footage need to be independently verified.

If the filmmakers are going to claim that this footage exposes one of the most famous and controversial films in Bigfoot history as a hoax, then the evidence needs to be strong enough to support that conclusion.

Simply showing footage of someone in a Bigfoot costume is not enough.

There needs to be a verifiable connection between that footage and what Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed in October 1967.

The Same Old Claims?

Another thing that stands out to me is that we seem to be hearing many of the same old claims we've heard for years, often involving some of the same people.

The Patterson-Gimlin film has been debated for nearly six decades. There have been numerous claims of hoaxes, confessions, costumes, and supposed explanations.

Yet the controversy continues.

I'm certainly open to examining new evidence, but repeating old allegations alongside newly presented footage doesn't automatically make those allegations true.

New evidence should be evaluated on its own merits, regardless of which side of the debate it supports.

My Opinion Has Not Changed

Ho hum. From what I've seen so far, this is not a smoking gun.

It does not change my opinion of the Patterson-Gimlin film or the Bigfoot subject at all.

I've spent nearly 30 years researching Bigfoot. I've investigated sightings, examined tracks, conducted field research, and had experiences of my own.

I know what I have seen with my own eyes.

Even if someone eventually proved beyond doubt that the Patterson-Gimlin film was a hoax, it would not erase my personal experiences or the many other reports and investigations that have nothing to do with that particular film.

The Bigfoot subject is much bigger than one piece of footage.

Will I Watch Capturing Bigfoot?

I have not watched Capturing Bigfoot, but I probably will at some point.

However, I will not pay $20 to watch it. That is for sure.

The film is available on Amazon, and the HD rental price is currently listed at $19.99.

For anyone interested in watching it and forming their own opinion, here is the link:

Watch Capturing Bigfoot on Amazon

For now, I'm simply not convinced by the images that have been released.

If the documentary presents additional compelling evidence, I'm willing to examine it. But based on these still frames, I don't see anything that conclusively proves the Patterson-Gimlin film was a hoax.

Similar is not the same, and allegations are not proof.

Thanks
~Thomas~

Thomas Marcum

TCC Research | Bigfoot Researcher and Independent Filmmaker

Rate it!

This post is sponsored in part by

---

Have you had a close encounter or witnessed something unusual?Send us an Email
We Accept Guest Posts - Send Them To Us! (All Submissions Are Subject to Approval)
Send us an Email
Help us!

Help Support The Crypto Crew

---

Ads
Available on Tubi TV - Watch for Free