By Thomas Marcum | TCC Research

Yesterday, I shared some of my thoughts about the new documentary Capturing Bigfoot and the allegedly discovered test footage that supposedly proves the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film was a hoax.

Since then, I've spent a little more time looking at the images and watching some of the footage being circulated.

And guess what?

Now, before someone jumps on me, let me make something clear. I have not watched the entire documentary. I'm simply looking at the footage and images that have been made available and giving my opinion based on what I see.

I've been researching Bigfoot for nearly 30 years, and I've seen plenty of supposed evidence, hoax claims, confessions, and everything in between.

I have five questions.

1. Where Did This Footage Come From?

This is probably my biggest question.

We're being told that this footage was filmed before the famous Patterson-Gimlin encounter in October 1967.

But how do we know that?

Who originally owned the film? Where was it stored? Who discovered it? Is there documentation showing when it was filmed?

Has the original film stock been examined by independent experts?

And perhaps most importantly, is there a documented chain of custody?

According to claims, the original suit was burned, but they kept the test footage that could bust the hoax?

Just because footage looks old doesn't necessarily mean it is old. As someone who works with video editing, film restoration, and visual effects, I know firsthand that footage can be altered to give it an aged appearance.

I'm not saying that's what happened here.

I'm saying that if you're going to claim you've uncovered footage that exposes one of the most famous films in Bigfoot history as a hoax, you need to establish exactly what that footage is and where it came from.

Until then, it's just another claim that needs to be investigated.

2. Why Doesn't the Creature Look the Same?

This is something that stood out to me almost immediately.

Yes, the figures in the alleged test footage resemble Bigfoot. They have dark bodies, long arms, and generally ape-like appearances.

But that doesn't mean they are the same figure seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film.

In some of the newly released footage, the creature appears extremely bulky through the shoulders and upper back.

To me, it almost looks as though someone has stuffed a considerable amount of padding underneath a costume.

The back seems rounded and oversized, and the upper body looks unusually heavy compared with the legs.

Then there's the rump.

In the original Patterson-Gimlin footage, Patty has a fairly distinctive lower-body structure. The buttocks, thighs, and overall body proportions have been discussed and analyzed for decades.

In this alleged test footage, the rump looks different to me. It appears less defined, and the transition from the lower back into the legs doesn't seem to match what we see in the original film.

The head and shoulder proportions also appear different in some frames.

Now, I understand that camera angles, lighting, movement, and poor image quality can affect how something looks.

But if we're supposed to believe this is the same costume, shouldn't there be some convincing anatomical similarities?

I'm just not seeing enough of them in these images.

3. What's the Story With the Horse and Rider?

Here's something else I noticed.

The alleged test footage includes a horse and rider, much like the circumstances surrounding the original Patterson-Gimlin film.

I watched that portion several times and stopped the video to examine it.

Something about the clothing worn by the rider caught my attention.

To me, it looked more modern than what I would expect from the mid-1960s, but I could be wrong.

Now, I'm not a clothing historian, and I certainly wouldn't claim that the clothing proves anything based on the brief footage I've seen.

But I think it's worth examining.

What kind of clothing is the rider wearing? What about the pants and boots? Can any of the clothing or riding equipment be identified and dated?

I realize that some western clothing styles have changed very little over the years.

Still, if someone could positively identify an item that wasn't manufactured until after 1967, that would raise some serious questions about the claimed age of the footage.

On the other hand, if everything checks out as period-correct, that's useful information too.

Either way, it's something that deserves a closer look.

4. If This Was a Test, Where Is the Connection to the Original Film?

If the claim is that this was an early prototype, then where is the evidence showing how that prototype became the figure we see in the 1967 film?

Those are important questions.

A general resemblance isn't enough for me.

There needs to be a direct, verifiable connection between the alleged test footage and the original film.

Without that connection, I don't see how anyone can reasonably call it definitive proof of a hoax.

5. Is This Really New Evidence, or Just Another Attempt to Cash In?

And yet, here we are again.

Another documentary. Another supposed revelation. Another claim that the mystery has finally been solved.

And this time, the HD rental is listed at $19.99 on Amazon.

Now, that's my opinion. I'm not claiming to know the filmmakers' intentions. They may genuinely believe they've uncovered something important.

I also understand that documentaries cost money to produce. I've made plenty of them myself. I know the time, effort, and expense involved.

There's nothing wrong with filmmakers trying to earn money from their work.

But when you're marketing a film around the idea that you've finally exposed the Patterson-Gimlin footage as a hoax, the evidence needs to live up to that claim. Maybe it will and does. 

And from what I've seen publicly so far, I'm just not convinced, yet.

My Opinion Remains the Same

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

It's an important piece of Bigfoot history, and I personally believe there is something significant about that footage.

But even if someone eventually proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the 1967 film was a hoax, it wouldn't change what I've experienced in the field.

I've spent nearly three decades researching this subject.

I've examined tracks, investigated reports, spent countless hours in the mountains, and had sightings of my own.

I know what I've seen with my own eyes.

No documentary is going to change that.

I'm always willing to examine new evidence, even when it challenges something I believe. That's part of being a researcher.

But evidence needs to stand on its own.

I haven't watched the complete Capturing Bigfoot documentary, and perhaps it contains additional information that answers some of these questions.

If it does, I'll be interested in examining it.

But until then, I'm not ready to accept that a few pieces of allegedly rediscovered footage have finally solved a mystery that has been debated for nearly 60 years.

Ho hum. More debate.

Show me the evidence. Show me where it came from. Show me how it connects to the original film.

Then maybe we'll have something worth talking about.

Capturing Bigfoot is available on Amazon:

https://amzn.to/4yssXYN

Note: These observations are based on publicly circulated footage and still images. I have not watched the complete documentary. My comments are opinions and questions about the evidence presented publicly, not conclusions about the filmmakers' intentions.