Some interesting observations from someone else who has seen the Capturing Bigfoot documentary
These come from the comments section of a YouTube video in which the documentary was being discussed. The quotes below is from someone who saw the documentary twice. I haven't read through every comment, so if anyone wants to post others the link to the video is here:
https://youtu.be/dfrfGJlMu34?si=IH1MjHp4-t_Wdy67
Anyway, I found the comments below to be quite fascinating:
I am a programmer at the SXSW film festival and I have seen the documentary “Capturing Bigfoot” twice. I am not a member of the Bigfoot community, so I have no dog in this fight, and perhaps I can offer a neutral opinion that people will find helpful. First, it is inaccurate to say that every costume and effects expert agreed it would have been impossible to make such a convincing suit in 1967. Stan Winston, one of the greatest special effects makeup artists ever to to do the job (he did effects for Jurassic park, Terminator, Predator, Aliens, and he made gorilla suits for Congo), examined the film and said the Patterson film shows a man in a suit that could have been made for $1,000. Second, while Bill Munns has not yet seen the documentary, he is IN the documentary, and he has seen the newly found footage. He is shown the new film on camera and is allowed to examine it. He admits it is genuine 16mm Kodachrome II filmstock from that period and that it had not been tampered with in any way. He also states clearly that no AI was used. To my knowledge, Munns is the only person who has seen the new footage who claims that it is a reenactment. Everyone in the audience at the 2 screenings, myself included, and every other Bigfoot expert interviewed in the documentary (all of whom were allowed to examine the film) believe it to be the same costume in both films because it is blatantly obvious when you see the footage. It is EXTREMELY obvious. Experts do a side by side comparison of the famous Patterson footage against the new footage, pointing out minute details and there is just no denying it. Also, it is very clear that man seen in the beginning of the new footage is the real Bob Gimlin and not a lookalike. Gimlin is even sitting on the same horse he is seen on in famous photographs from that period. So the question of whether or not it is a reenactment makes no difference. It doesn’t matter which footage was shot first or second because both films show the exact same Bigfoot. I hope this helps.
Yes, most of the audience were Bigfoot enthusiasts. They were very engaged at the Q&A sessions afterwards and there was definitely an air of shock. Many of them were truly stunned to learn the Patterson film was a hoax after believing in it for so many years. But I should also add that Marq Evans, the director of the documentary, handled the questions very well and very respectfully. He wanted to make it clear to the audience that the documentary does not try to say that Bigfoot does not exist, it only disproves the Patterson Gimlin film. Marq Evans himself is from the Pacific Northwest and grew up hearing of countless sightings and he maintains the creature could very well be real.
As with most documentaries, they shot far more footage than they could squeeze into a 90 minute run time. So they left out the analysis and discussion about the tracks. But at the Q&A, Marq Evans said that all the additional footage would be released as bonus features after the documentary premeirs, including the section that deals with the tracks.
The face is the only part of the costume that looks like it was modified slightly between the 2 films. Dr. Jeff Meldrum, the famed Bigfoot researcher, is in the documentary and he is stunned when he sees the new footage. He says on camera: “this looks like a dry run for the Patterson film!” This quote is where the idea that the newly found footage was some sort of camera test or rehearsal comes from. Back in the day, film had to be developed in a lab before it could be watched, there was no way to watch it back immediately like we can now with video. So it appears that Roger Patterson shot the newly found footage, watched it, and made some changes to correct its shortcomings when he went to film it a second time. Namely, he went to a different location (Bluff Creek), he shot the creature from much further away, he shook the camera a lot more so the creature couldn’t be studied too closely, and he enhanced the face on the costume somewhat. To me it looked like the exact same suit with some more fur pieces added around the cheeks area.
Jeff Meldrum, may he rest in peace, was a brilliant scientist and far too smart to be "tricked" in such a way. And no, he was not told anything about the new film before he watched it, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. He was reacting solely to what he was watching. Also, two film experts have analyzed the new footage and determined the film stock was manufactured in '66 and used either in late '66 or early '67.
I should add that the documentary makes if very clear that Meldrum is not put on the spot. He is shown the new footage, which fascinates him. He is very amazed, then he settles down and watches it over and over, pausing it many times to analyze it. They record his initial reaction, and then they leave him for the day to let him sleep on it. The following day they go back and interview him all over again, for the exact purpose of giving him time to process what he has seen—this is far from a knee-jerk reaction. The exchanges between Jeff and Marq are very professional and cordial and never once does Meldrum seem uncomfortable on camera.
As I've said before, two film experts analyze the new footage. Raw film stock contains chemicals that deteriorates the celluloid over time. For the best image quality, it had to be used within a certain window. The new footage is absolutely pristine which allowed the two experts to determine that it was shot within a year of being manufactured, which puts it around mid '67 at the latest. Also, Theresa Brooks, daughter of Norm Johnson who's safe the new footage was found in, is interviewed in the documentary. She clearly states that her father told the family about the footage when she was 12 years old and that the film had been in his safe for almost 60 years, which puts it around '66'/'67. Also, it is clearly the real Bob Gimlin at the beginning of the new footage and he is youthful, looking the exact same age he does as from all the photos of that late 60s period. But also, IT IS THE SAME BIGFOOT IN BOTH FILMS. The list of proof goes on and on...
I am not sure where you are getting your information. Have you seen the documentary? As I stated in my original post, Stan Winston, one of the great special effects makeup artists said the suit in the Patterson film could have been made in 1967 for $1,000. And yes, the new footage DOES show musculature, just like the famous film. The new footage in no way looks like it was "made in the likeness of Patty", as you say. It IS Patty. It is blatantly obvious when you see two films side by side. How can you make such claims when you haven't seen the film? Also, it is important to keep in mind this new documentary took 4 years to research and produce and does a thorough deep dive into the complicated history of the PG film, including commentary, explanations, and recollections from people who have never been interviewed before. Family members, friends, and associates of all the main players are interviewed and the sheer accumulation of new facts tells a very different story from the one people know. The newly found “mystery footage” is by far not the only piece of new information. Everyone who knew Roger Patterson, including his wife and son, are on camera and describe at length how creative Roger was. He was very good with his hands and always building things. Many called him a craftsman or a self-taught artist. He had a workshop in his backyard full of tools and he was constantly out there working some project or another. All of his friends and family agree that Roger could absolutely have made an authentic looking suit, or more likely, heavily modified an existing gorilla suit. Dave Johnson, a good friend of Roger’s, told stories of trying on Bigfoot suits for Roger and even claimed to have almost been shot by a hunter in the woods while wearing one. There were many Bigfoot sightings reported in and around Yakima where Roger lived from 1967 until 1972, the year Roger died. After his death, the sightings stopped. Ida DeAtley, wife of Al DeAtley, tells a story of Al coming home with his body covered in glue and black makeup around his eyes, cursing Roger for talking him into wearing the suit. This story is why it is speculated that Al DeAtley is the one wearing the suit in the newly found footage.