​

Found this archive on CBC from 1976

Swiss immigrant Rene Dahinden obsessively seeks the elusive giant man-ape of the North American wilderness. Aired Dec. 26, 1976 on CBC's The Fifth Estate.

I was agnostic about the PGF itself but the track evidence it generated was very persuasive to me. There was reportedly no sign of trickery or fakery when the site was visited by other people, both in the immediate days after the filming and during the following year. Researchers reported seeing exactly what the film alleged to show: a single line of large tracks going from left to right across the valley floor before disappearing into the woods.

The late Jeff Meldrum wrote about them extensively in his book, Sasquatch, Legend meets Science, and suggested that the PGF 'creature' also made the famous 'Blue Creek Mountain' tracks a month before the PGF was shot. He also wrote about the "midtarsal flexibility" that was allegedly visible in many cast sasquatch tracks, including both the PGF tracks and the foot shown in the footage itself: "In addition to a prominent elongated heel, a midtarsal flexibility is evident during the stance phase of the gait".

He went on to describe the tracks left in the "loamy sandbar at the film site" which he said demonstrated "very dynamic footprints with features such as distinctive pressure ridges and discs in the midtarsal region", etc. etc.

The midtarsal flexibility observed by Meldrum in the PGF tracks, and in many other tracks, has been used as a diagnostic feature to differentiate between 'real' sasquatch tracks and the sort of fake feet used by Ray Wallace, and others. But if the PGF is fake then doesn't it cast doubt on every other alleged bigfoot track that has ever been examined? And without the tracks, is there now any physical evidence at all in support for the existence of the creature?

I want to start off at saying I can empathize with the recent hit the community has taken with the recent release of ‘Capturing Bigfoot’ and I’m not here to defend or refute the points made in it. That’s a separate conversation. I wanted to instead present my own thoughts concerning Patty and why I still don’t think she’s a real Sasquatch, smoking gun mystery footage or not.

Despite not believing that she’s a genuine specimen, I have to give props to props to whoever built the costume, be it Patterson or someone else. It’s incredibly convincing and very high quality for what I’d expect a group of broke cowboys to be able to pull off in the late 60s. That, combined with the confident and consistent stride of whoever wore the suit, doesn’t really give off costumed hoax vibes. It feels smooth and natural.

However, my biggest hang-up with this footage and almost every other popular video of Bigfoot walking around is the very fact that she doesn’t move with the urgency of an animal that likes to remain hidden.

She strides, like a human being would. She looks over her shoulder as she walks in a way that feels rehearsed. I confidently believe that no man nor animal would walk away from a potential threat, glancing over their shoulder as they lumbered away. An animal may stop mid-stride or more likely get all the way out of danger before looking to see if they’re being pursued.

A lot of you may argue that Patty isn’t just any animal, but an intelligent and intentional being. I would be inclined to agree. To believe Sasquatch exists (and reflecting on many accounts of such beings) is to accept that it’s likely an incredibly smart and cautious creature who would do everything in its power to keep itself out of harm and out of view. I would expect a Sasquatch once confronted by two armed cowboys on horseback to drop down on all fours (assuming they could do that) or otherwise sprint to escape. I’m assuming you’ve seen clips of other primates such as gorillas or chimpanzees crashing through foliage just to get around, not even necessarily to escape danger. Even a human being, especially in an open area like that creek would BOOK to evade a potential threat.

Are we meant to believe that they got lucky enough to stumble across one of the only bumbling and careless specimens of an otherwise near-perfectly stealthy creature where almost every other sighting is much quicker and more discrete? In broad daylight, no less. I just don’t think so.

Trust, this conclusion hurts to make because I really WANT to believe as much as the rest of you. I’m not trolling, I’m not looking for an argument. I’m looking for the truth. I’m viewing this from a zoological perspective. If they were real primates with a serious survival instinct like we trust they MUST have to have avoided verification for this long, certainly this wouldn’t be how one would respond when confronted in broad daylight?

I’d love to hear your genuine thoughts!

Since there’s some clever editing, constructed narratives, shoehorning plot points without evidence, and perhaps some dishonesty afoot with Marq Evans’ “Capturing Bigfoot”, I wanted to see just what we could glean from the angry letter we are briefly shown a few times in the documentary.

We don’t really get to see what Patricia Patterson was really so angry about with her son, Clint. It’s stated that it was because Clint wanted to “come clean” about the Patterson-Gimlin film. We don’t have any evidence that’s the case beyond what the film tells and wants the audience to believe.

What if the angry letter has nothing to do with the PGF? We are asked to just trust the narrative.

Every family has squabbles and feuds, especially amongst siblings.

My family has had our share of “feuds”that go on for years, and we don’t have any of the unique pressures the PGF would put on the Pattersons.

Here’s what we are shown. The film blurs the surrounding text but you can still read some of it. I’ve added time stamps for where the letters appear in the documentary. The bolded parts are what is not blurred by video effects.

Conveniently, we are shown that those letters/evidence are burned in the documentary.

1:09:12
“from me and Brad and Sabrena”

“there you Cowardley Little Prick,”

“make up lies about me so it will make”

“about what you have done-“

“your Lies but you - You evil”

1:09:14
“just like you did to me”

“continued doing to Brad”

“you are sicker and more evil”

“I had to deal with in”

“and Evil People. You are more”

1:09:20
“your father would have been”

“ashamed of you he would have”

“cowardly head right off your”

“Little Body. I also disown you, you cowardly”

“what you have done to Brad”

1:38:00
“your father would have been”

“ashamed of you he would”

“cowardly head right off your”

“I also disown you,”

“what you have done”

“I have ever”

I have heard so many accounts of Bigfoot encounters over the years as the phenomena is of huge interest to me.

The encounters range from...

'I saw one and then it was gone'

'one spoke to me in my mind and told me to leave the area'

' one of them appeared during my trip to commit suicide and it made me change my mind'

'one of them chased me and my child and almost got him'

'one threw a rock and seriously injured my friend' etc. etc.

To get to the point...

What is your consensus opinion on these beings? Forest people that vary in morality? High level entities that can see into our soul? Wild ape men?

I'd love to hear some perspectives on this topic.

My opinion is they could be some good ones and some evil ones, and both are far more spiritually connected to reality than us humans in modern society.

I don’t have a Sasquatch photo for this post so here is my creature before her groom 😂

On to the topic at hand! My late husband (KIA in Afghanistan in 09 when we were 19) LOVED Sasquatch. We watched Sasquatch hunters religiously, he would go to the mountains monster hunting, etc. he left this world far too soon and I miss him.

Now, I’m moving into what would’ve been our dream home had he come home all those years ago. I could fill it with boring mainstream art OR I could add whimsy into my life. I choose whimsy.

It has a fireplace and I NEED to find Sasquatch, laying on a fancy couch, in the “paint me like one of your French girls” pose from the titanic. It’s mine and our sons’ homage to him. He would’ve loved it and it needs to happen.

I figured who better to ask than the Bigfoot sub? If you paint, if you’ve seen this style somewhere, if you’re just a helpful internet person who comes across a link for it - please let me know 🙏🙏🙏🙏

Thank you in advance!

Has anyone revisited this series in light of the release of Capturing Bigfoot? If so, how does it hold up, particularly with regards to Heironimus’ claims? I’ll probably be relistening to it soon.

I am a bit of a skeptic, though I’d like to believe. I think my ultimate take from watching the footage, is thinking, okay obviously that‘s a person walking. However the way the bigfoot looks is really interesting. The body is very compact and not loose like a costume, and the major detail is how thick and dense the fur is.

Isn’t it fascinating that over all these decades, no enthusiast has ever actually put in the time and effort to try and make the suit right? Every example I’ve seen is a failure. Nobody gets the suit either compact, or with even close to the right fur. They don’t even try very hard.

Why hasn’t there ever been a team of people trying to tackle the problem like an episode of mythbusters? It seems like you’d only have to apply as much dedication as these people did in the 60’s. Do some damn research in comparing furs to match the closest, dense dark fur. Looks like it’s real fur honestly. Are people just too cheap to try that? Also the suit composition. Study what techniques get the closest to the compact body style of the footage’s subject.

It seems so simple and stupid but it’s a testament to the footage in a way that nobody has ever bothered to take the act of replicating the suit seriously, despite many half hearted attempts out there.

Freehanded the foot and the elusive squatch looming from behind cover

I understand that most people don't believe that Bigfoot exists.

I understand that since Bigfoot doesn't exist, it can't be in a filmstrip from 1967.

I understand the concept of viral marketing campaigns.

I understand that Marq Evans and crew made a movie for recognition and profit.

I don't understand why suddenly deniers are apparently absolutely obsessed with coming to tell Bigfoot enthusiasts, some of whom believe that the PGF is a film of a Bigfoot ... that they just have to "get over it" and if we don't we're displaying signs of mental illness.

I don't understand the willingness of so many "skeptical" people to abandon the very tenets they themselves have fostered (or in some cases, paid lip-service to) for years: denial of anecdotal evidence as the lowest form of evidence, condemning leaps of faith regarding the provenance of a chain of evidence, and the most basic level of rational thought - differentiating between beliefs and facts.

I don't understand the unmitigated rancor and utter vileness of many of these posts in support of the film "Capturing Bigfoot."

I don't understand the logic of an absolute reverseal of years of PGF criticism (e.g. there's not enough information in an old, shaky 16 mm film to determine fine details; your mind is filling in details that arent there, etc. etc.)

WTF??? Whose heads are exploding again?

Right behind the horse rider in the the brush I'm seeing something dark moving around. Has anyone else noticed this? What do you think it is? A shadow? A person? Slowed down and added an arrow so you can see it.

I've been following the discussion surrounding the new Capturing Bigfoot documentary, and I've noticed quite a few people questioning whether Sasquatch exists at all. Some skeptics seem ready to throw dirt on the grave of the entire phenomenon. I wanted to share something that happened to me years ago, because regardless of what happens with the Patterson-Gimlin film, I still have to reconcile something I saw with my own eyes.

I was attending college in Fairbanks, Alaska in 2000. It was springtime, the leaves had returned to the trees and the grass was green again. One evening, between studying, I decided to head down the hill from the university to get something to eat. I can't remember what I ate, but I'm sure it was delicious because just about anything tasted good going into a starving college student's stomach back then. It was around midnight when I started walking back uphill toward the university. I had my headphones on and was following the sidewalk when I became aware of something off to my side. There was a steep hillside with a stairway zigzagging up the incline, and something was standing beside the stairs, partway up the slope.

At first, and this is the absolute truth, I thought I was looking at a Black man in a big, puffy fur jacket. It was tall and broad, but I'm a big man myself, 6'5" and about 250 pounds at the time, so I wasn't particularly alarmed. I just kept walking. But after a few steps, I started thinking about how absurd what I'd just seen actually was. Why would someone be standing on that steep incline, away from the stairway, in the middle of the night? So I stopped, removed my headphones, turned around and took a really good look.

Whatever it was, it was standing on two feet. Clearly bipedal. It had remarkably broad shoulders and a thick, wide neck that narrowed toward the head. The head itself was shaped more like an ape's than a human's. Its body narrowed considerably at the hips, and its legs were long. The fur appeared to have a ginger colour to it, although I've always acknowledged that the amber streetlighting could have influenced what I was seeing. There wasn't enough light for me to make out its facial features clearly. And strangely enough, I still wasn't particularly frightened. Not until it turned and looked at me.

I don't know how to adequately describe what happened inside me at that moment. Something took over. It was a kind of primal, overwhelming fight-or-flight response that I'd never experienced before and haven't experienced since. I ran as hard as I could up that hill. I didn't look back. The entire way, I had this terrible feeling that whatever I'd seen was right behind me, even though rationally I knew that probably wasn't the case. For some perspective, I spent nearly 30 years living in Alaska. I've been charged by an angry bull moose. I've been in close proximity to grizzly bears and cougars. I've had experiences with large, dangerous animals that most people will never have. None of those experiences produced anything remotely resembling the fear I felt when that thing turned and looked at me. It was almost a cleansing fear. Something so absolute and overwhelming that everything else ceased to exist except the need to get away.

I returned to the location later with a couple of friends. I wanted to see exactly where it had been standing and whether there was anything that might help explain what I'd seen. I didn't find footprints, but the ground was dry, so that wasn't particularly surprising. What did surprise me was the scale. I went to the spot where I believed it had been standing and reached toward a branch that had been near its head. Even at 6'5", I couldn't reach it with my fingertips.

I've spent years going back over that night in my head. I've questioned what I saw, considered the lighting, the circumstances, the possibility that I misidentified something. I don't bring it up very often because, frankly, most people aren't particularly receptive to stories like this. But with the Patterson-Gimlin film being challenged so forcefully right now, I wanted to offer a different perspective. I don't know whether Roger Patterson filmed a real animal in 1967. I don't know whether somebody made an extraordinarily convincing costume. I don't know what the newly discovered footage ultimately proves, and I'm perfectly willing to consider the possibility that the original film was a hoax. But none of that changes what happened to me on that hillside in Fairbanks.

I don't believe in Sasquatch because of television shows, documentaries, internet communities, or some romantic attachment to the idea that there's still a mysterious creature wandering around the wilderness. I believe I encountered something that people have called Sasquatch, Bigfoot, Hairyman, and a dozen other names. I believe it because I saw it, and whatever that thing was, I will never forget the moment it turned and looked at me. So, for those of you who are feeling discouraged by the recent documentary, or who think that proving the Patterson-Gimlin film fraudulent would somehow settle the entire question, I just wanted to share my experience. I can't prove to you what I saw. I know that. But I'm positive there's something out there, and it scared the absolute shit out of me.

Let's set aside the Norma video for a moment. There could be a larger issue taking place with capturing Bigfoot. It's starting to look like the filmmakers and XYZ are using a marketing campaign called GUERRILLA MARKETING

  Here's how it works. After Al Deatley passed, then we had covid restrictions. After that Marq and the girl started hatching their plan on what to do with that film. Nothing fell in his lap. There's a very good chance they started a Guerrilla Campaign.

  Right after 2020 & Al’s death, there seem to be an explosion of Bigfoot channels popping up on YouTube. They send out plants into the public. Who start generating a buzz about the project way before it ever drops. 

  That would be people pretending to be Bigfoot researchers, creating their channels winning the public's trust and creating awareness about the subject matter! So what's the project does drop it's going to make more money! 

  Then all of a sudden all of these Bigfoot researchers have seen the light and overnight flip their positions & fully embrace marq and his team from rescuing everyone from a 60-year hoax 

  Did you all see a Bigfoot researcher crying on camera because he saw a Bigfoot video!?? Do you believe he's a Bigfoot researcher or he's a theater kid and an actor? 

  Everyone interested in this field needs to start researching all these Bigfoot channels that popped up after 2020. There's a very good chance that they are all plants participating in the marketing of the original film through social media. 

  Or in layman's terms, they have been making an absolute fool out of you for 3 or 4 years. Lying to you about their true intentions. They were spending the entire time setting you up to get your money to go see the film and blow the hell out of the Bigfoot community. 

  Are you all sick of paid protesters, people being paid to attend rallies, actors in rockstars being paid to support politicians, paid podcasters to repeat political talking points every day. That's how these people roll

  It's curious marq worked for Hillary Clinton. After she deleted her emails she wore a hat that said “but her emails” literally rubbing salt in the wound to half the country 

  Marq has been making the Bigfoot rounds trashing Roger and Bob wearing his hat with the Bigfoot community logo on it. Marq and Hillary are two peas in a pod. Arrogant SOB

  He surrounded by West Coast liberals with his XYZ agency rooted in San Francisco. Who else would have so much fun and enjoyment killing Santa Claus. Than a bunch of woke punks, playing you for a fool through social media for 3 to 4 years to steal your money and kill Santa Claus. Now all your favorite Bigfoot researchers are worshiping marQ with a Q,,, how bout that. They didn't just go after Roger and Bob,, they set all of you up with a Guerrilla marketing campaign

  Would you like to let these podcasters know how you feel lying to you since covid. You need to figure out which ones they were. Then we can get back to Norma after we get rid of the parasites

I’m a big fan of Max Brooks’ devolution and I was curious if there were other fictional novels of good quality like it about Bigfoot?

Just an observation. What do you think?

Its hard to imagine angle or quality of image would create such an odd artifact. Not claiming it's fake but we should approach this with total scrutiny.

The Mystery Film

I'm gonna preface this by addressing the claim that "it can't be a hoax because it was filmed on Kodachrome".

The only "evidence", provided in the film by Charles Pickel, is that the label on the margin says "Kodachrome II" with the symbol for the year.

You can easily film it on Ektachrome (or any 16mm film for that matter), remove the original labels by overexposing them before developing the film, and then you can use several, if not many, techniques to apply "Kodachrome II" and the year on the margin.

In any case, forging a label on a film is far from impossible in 2026 and easier than hoaxing the PGF.

Whether it's actually Kodachrome can be determined by forensic examination but they made no such attempt in the film, so that's not an indisputable argument at this point.

Norm Johnson and the Boeing Kodachrome lab

According to Teresa Brooks, the finder of the "Mystery Film":

"Her father Norm Johnson, the employee and later chief of Boeing's film and photo department, has developed the 'Mystery Film' in Boeing's Kodachrome lab."

The problem is, Boeing never had one. The "Boeing Kodachrome lab" speculation has been circulating since the 60s but it's understood since at least 2013 that no such thing existed.

The speculation emerged as a result of the mystery about where the PGF was developed but far more plausible explanations are that the film was either shot months before the alleged date if you're a skeptic or that DeAtley bribed somebody to develop it over the weekend, so they couldn't say it publicly. Patterson actually said exactly that (pic 2).

Boeing film department did occasionally use Kodachrome films but those had to be developed in a Kodak lab (Seattle or Palo Alto).

Kodachrome was a commercial product aimed at amateurs and the development cost was calculated into the retail price.

Marq Evans probably knew about the theory but wasn't aware it was debunked so he fumbled it.

So, why would Norm be given the film then, to take it to a Kodak commercial lab ? Patterson or DeAtley could take it themselves in any of the dozen labs in the US that developed Kodachrome. It just unnecessarily lets in another person, a complete stranger, on the hoax.

Furthermore, Norm never gave the developed film back to Patterson which makes no sense. Patterson did a test run and then fixed the suit by examining the footage he never saw. Bonkers.

Norm Johnson's name never came up in any investigation of the PGF before "Capturing Bigfoot".

Dave Johnson

Dave is Norm's brother. According to the documentary, he's the link between Patterson and Norm Johnson.

He was allegedly a close associate of Patterson, in the very inner circle of the "hoax", yet he was never mentioned in 60 years of the PGF saga until "Capturing Bigfoot".

All the other "hoaxers" knew Patterson well, Gimlin was a long time friend, DeAtley was the brother in law, even Bob Heironimus was a long time acquaintance and a friend of Gimlin.

So how did Dave come into the picture ?

Well, Dave allegedly worked at the print shop where Patterson printed his book.

According to Teresa:

"Dave mentioned that Roger came into the print shop in Yakima and he forgot his briefcase. And Dave opened the briefcase and saw the mold of the Bigfoot. When Roger came in, he told Dave about it. Dave told him he wanted to be part of it."

What did Roger tell Dave, unprompted ? "Hey, the guy I've never met before, I'm doing a hoax, how about that. Don't tell anyone."

If anything, he'd say he's looking for Bigfoot. Then Dave said "I want to be a part of it" and Patterson thought "Well, he's gonna be pissed when he finds out it's a hoax. Meh, I'll take him anyway".

So Patterson took another unnecessary risk and let yet another stranger in on the hoax. Good thing a cashier at the grocery store didn't ask him to join, he'd end up with a crew of 50.

The story is just ridiculous.

So this guy Dave, so keen to be a part of it, somehow never came forward to claim either a real encounter or a hoax, for 60 years. He wasn't even mentioned by the dedicated skeptic researcher Greg Long who interviewed dozens of people who knew the Patterson team. Not a word about Dave from anybody. He's not in the other Patterson's films with a bunch of other cowboys.

The bottom line

Norm and Dave Johnson are the central characters in this new narrative yet they were never mentioned before and their roles, especially Norm's, are pretty much impossible.

The entire story exists to explain the chain of custody of the new footage but every bit of it is a lie.

Why would they lie about everything if the footage is genuine ? Just say where it comes from.

So the footage is probably fake as well.

Just like with the PGF, I thought that the Norma film deserved to be analyzed and scrutinized frame by frame. What I found was rather odd.

If you look at the first frame there’s clearly no hat and just a hood.

Then the hat starts “forming” from nothing by the next frame but it’s clearly not a cowboy hat shape yet.

By the third frame his hat is now a cowboy hat but his gun vanishes from his hand.

I’m not going to claim to be an expert in AI videos or CGI and I’m not even saying that this has been created by a computer but I know that humans cannot grow hats. I don’t know where it came from but it’s not there and then it grows and then it’s fully formed.

I’d love to hear some thoughts and opinions.

Hello,

I am a BFRO Investigator & the Director of the North American Research Center Of Paraufology based out of Saint Louis, Mo.

I am looking for 1-2 individuals who would be interested in assisting with data collection and equipment operation.

This is strictly voluntary work at the moment but there are many perks to being a part of the team.

Further details will be shared once approval is granted. A NDA is required due to private property access and the sensitive nature of the data collected.

If anyone is interested please reach out to contact@narcop.org

Personally signed prints available in my shop!