— Capturing Bigfoot: Does It Close the Case?

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Capturing Bigfoot is a new documentary that takes another look at the famous Patterson Gimlin film that presents newly found footage that many believe finally closes the case on Patty and the Patterson Ginlin film. Forever. But does it really? On this episode of Inquerium, we review the Capturing Bigfoot documentary, the footage, the claims surrounding it, what we found compelling, what raised questions, and whether really any of it changes our views on the Patterson Ginland film. This is Enquirum. And sitting across from me somewhere in the depths of West Texas is my good friend and co-host, Stephen Dudley. Steven, how are you doing this evening?

SPEAKER_01 1:15

Doing all right, man. Ready to uh talk about what we're gonna talk about.

— Our Initial Reaction to the Documentary

SPEAKER_00 1:20

Yeah. As we we promised you guys, uh, you know, uh, first of all, there's gonna be, this is spoiler alert, we're gonna talk about the capturing Bigfoot documentary. So if you haven't seen it, uh, you probably want to pause. But you can also check out our two-part series that we did recently. We break down all the expert testimony from costume makers to anthropologists to biologists to uh motion experts, all the way through the decades this film has been studied. And we we break that all down. So you probably want definitely going to watch that first, that series first before you watch this. But if you have and you're ready to go, I think we're ready too. Steven, I thought it'd be a good idea before we get into the new footage, much like the documentary, which doesn't show us till the very end, which I I guess I should have known going in that was the case. For some reason in my mind, I was thinking they're gonna show that first, but you know, they didn't, and for good reason. You know, uh uh let's talk about the documentary itself in general, without discussing the actual new footage. What did you think about the documentary as a whole?

— Clint Patterson, Roger’s Family, and the Human Story

SPEAKER_01 2:24

Well, I I thought that the the rumors of the family feud narrative was going to be uh a little more nasty and negative than it was, even though there were some points that were pretty negative. Patterson's son, I thought, was very sincere. It it just hit me a little different, differently than I thought it would. So overall, my my expectations, I felt that the documentary overall was not as negative as I thought it would be, I guess, if that's the way if I'm describing it properly. So I was kind of pleased in in that regard.

SPEAKER_00 2:58

Yeah, I I felt the same way. I thought that you know, I've come away feeling really a lot of empathy towards Clint, uh Patterson, you know. I mean, there's definitely some tear jerker moments in in this film that I wasn't expecting. Yeah. Um, and I you really feel bad for him, probably more than anybody. And honestly, before going into this, I didn't know much about him, you know, because he kind of made a point to not be in the spotlight and stuff. So, you know, he just comes across as a very likable person, and you can see a lot of his dad in him. And uh you really feel bad for him. Don't forget, he lost his dad when he was a little boy. You know, he's he says in the documentary that he was his hero. You know, he would take him on expeditions looking for Bigfoot. So you really feel for him, you know, especially losing his relationship with his mom on top of that. You know, he said it was eight years she wouldn't talk to him, and they finally reconciled at the end of this documentary, which I thought was nice, you know, nice. But overall, I th I was really impressed with the film. You know, it showed us a lot of new footage that I had never seen before, some uh pictures and film. That whole sequence when uh Clint is talking about how his dad gutted this VW bus and they put horses inside this and they would travel around with these signs that says Sasquatch or Bigfoot Expedition. I thought that was pretty cool.

SPEAKER_01 4:21

Yeah, that's that that that's the cowboy in him. Yeah, you know, it's like and also just to get it done at whatever means possible, you know. That's really thinking outside of the box, too. So I I was pretty surprised. I guess I shouldn't have been, but I did I just didn't know how much of a creative thinker Roger Patterson was. And also and also how artistic he was. And that's one of the things I was wondering because uh if if you're artistic and you think outside of the box and you're a perfectionist, which apparently he was, that several people made that point. Yeah, that's something that to me was like, okay, this is somebody who could pull something off. But I did admire him because he was they say, you know, like towards the end, uh, that he was a genius, and I I kind of have to agree with that. You know, he's a genius in in some regard uh from an artistic standpoint. But yeah, that that the whole horse thing in the in the Volkswagen van. I mean, that is just hilarious.

SPEAKER_00 5:21

I would have never thought of that. And I mean that thing. I mean, that thing, the springs or the shocks on this thing must have been compressed. Horses are not light, they're and a VW bus is not made to carry two horses.

SPEAKER_01 5:35

Well, it showed the back of it like there was a photo of it where they were going around a corner or whatever. It may have been parked, but it looked like it was in maybe it may have been in motion, and it didn't look like it the the back end was down too much, it was a little bit yeah. So I was surprised too.

SPEAKER_00 5:52

Two full grown horses in there. That's pretty impressive. Yeah, yeah. I you know, I knew he had done drawings of Bigfoot and stuff like that, but I didn't know the extent of it. And I was really impressed with his idea of the pony thing, the pony ride with the carriage, and it was like it made it look like the uh carriages were miniature because the you were using little ponies to pull them. Those look those look like something you'd see at Disneyland or something. That was really well done, well made. It definitely showed a stronger side to me, you know, because I haven't been to any of these conventions, gotten to know the deeper side of Patterson, and so to see this really creative side of him and perfectionist side of that's the other part I didn't really know is how much of a perfectionist he was. Yeah, I would I just thought it was a really warm opening about Plant talking about his short time he had with his dad, you know, as a kid, being able to do all these crazy things with him.

SPEAKER_01 6:47

Yeah, I I I definitely would have been all over that. Well, I well well, I think you and I could relate to it because even though he's a little older than we are, but we're kind of from that that that time period, you know. So I just remember, you know, I remember times like my my parents driving down the road in this old beat up RV that they were they half-owned, and we had I wasn't even awake yet, but me and my brothers in the back and we're like mooting, like we're just kind of waking up and I could hear my parents talking and Merle Haggard's playing on the radio. You know, it's just it's of that time period, you know.

SPEAKER_00 7:20

Well that's the time before seatbelts and when we used to lay in the back of the wind of the back seat, you know. We'd live I I don't know if you did this, but we'd lay in the top in the back windshield.

SPEAKER_01 7:30

I I've done that before, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 7:31

You know, or lay down in the floorboard, you know. Yeah. There was no seat belts, so you just plus if you had smoker parents like I did, the windows were up and cigarette smoke was filling the car, and you know, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 7:46

My dad, my dad was a smoker for a little while, but so yeah, that that whole period was you know, we I can definitely relate to that.

SPEAKER_00 7:54

And it's definitely different types. There was no not as much in the regard of safety.

SPEAKER_01 8:00

For sure, for sure. Yeah,

— The Locked Shed, Fur Coats, and Football Helmets

SPEAKER_01 8:02

yeah.

SPEAKER_00 8:02

So I thought it was interesting how he would say he said that they were taking him back to I was surprised these buildings were still up, but some of these storage sheds and stuff on the Patterson property. And the first one he goes to, he talks about there's a there's a metal part of it looks like a gate, like maybe the second half or part of half of a gate, metal gate. And he said that his dad carried tranquilizers darts on him, and the idea was they were gonna trank one and tie it to this metal, and then he even made a board with a cutout for a toilet so that so that the Bigfoot could uh re relieve himself. Yeah. But you know, that's details. I mean, I would I don't know. I don't know if I thought about the Bigfoot having to take a poop or anything.

SPEAKER_01 8:53

That's someone who thinks in the wild and is thinking in you know their feet are firmly on the ground of reality. Uh that they're outdoors all the time. They they think about those things. You know, they're around animals a lot, so you know that's true.

SPEAKER_00 9:06

Yeah, and the thought that he was gonna take it to San Diego Zoo, you know, uh that was pretty interesting. And then he he went to one shed. I guess Roger normally kept it locked and he didn't have access to it, but I guess one at one time it wasn't locked, and he went in to take a peek around and he saw mink coats and uh there were fur coats. Fur coats, sorry. Fur coats, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 9:30

And there was also uh some like a some football helmets in there.

SPEAKER_00 9:34

Oh, right, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 9:35

Very, very interesting.

— Was Al DeAtley’s Voice AI?

SPEAKER_00 9:37

Very interesting. You know, the plot thickens. Yes, the plot thickens. Um I was watching another YouTube reaction video to this capturing Bigfoot documentary, and they thought that D'Atley's voice was AI generated. Did that stand out to you at all? His voice?

SPEAKER_01 9:55

It did not, no.

SPEAKER_00 9:57

Okay. So I went back and watched it. Now we watched this two days ago, this video. So I went and rewatched it a little bit today before we uh got on here to see for myself. And there does seem to be a difference in his voice where you don't see his face and the voice when you do see his face. There's like subtle differences. Hey friends, uh-huh if you're enjoying the show, don't forget to hit that like and subscribe button. It really helps us grow the channel and keep bringing you more content just like this. Thanks for your support and back to the show. Now I don't they don't say this. I hope that you know maybe we could get an interview with the the makers of the documentary. But I would that would be one of the questions I asked them would be Is these words of the Atli that he wrote down somewhere and you just used AI to s try to mimic him? You know, I would it'd been nice for them to clarify that a little bit.

SPEAKER_01 10:50

Right.

SPEAKER_00 10:51

But maybe they didn't clarify it because it isn't AI voice.

SPEAKER_01 10:54

But yeah. Well, yeah, that that could be. If it was AI, they definitely should put a caption there because people are gonna eat that stuff up. I mean, they already noticed it.

SPEAKER_00 11:02

You don't want to so for something that's already a hot topic, you don't want to add fuel to the field.

SPEAKER_01 11:06

No, exactly. Why why would you want to do that? You know, now it's gonna, you know, people are gonna be talking about that for a while. Yeah. Yeah, that's interesting. I didn't I didn't notice that, so that that's very interesting.

SPEAKER_00 11:19

Yeah, I didn't notice it either. And then it was until they pointed it out that uh made me go back and rewatch it. Did you wind up renting it or buying it?

SPEAKER_01 11:28

I wound up buying

— The Glass Eye and Questions About the Costume

SPEAKER_01 11:29

it.

SPEAKER_00 11:29

Yeah, me too, because I want to make sure I go back and view it with more scrutiny. You know, it's gonna be something we just like the Patterson film, right? The original one, we're gonna be dissecting it and stuff. So I want to have that ability. And then he mentioned also he was asked to go clean out a shed or something. And he said he was a kid, but it wasn't clear if Patterson had already passed on by this point. The timeline wasn't clear. I wish I would like to know this information, but he said he was asked to go clean out a shed and he found some tubs or boxes or something, and he's digging through them and he found a glass eye.

SPEAKER_01 12:05

Oh, right, right, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 12:08

And he attributing it to being Bob Hieronymus's eye. And Bob in in the film, he says, I had a fake eye, which I didn't know that. Did you know he had a fake eye? Said to Patterson, glue or you know, attach this eye when I turn my head, you're not gonna be seeing my eye. Attach this face mask or whatever, so you could turn. But I guess my question is Hieronymus did say he had he had an extra one, and that's what they they used. Well, if he they used it for the costume, how how did he find it in the loose box somewhere? You know, and where's the rest of the costume?

SPEAKER_01 12:41

Yeah, there's there's no telling. I mean, it could be just a simple thing that it got misplaced, he meant to get it, and he never did. You know, I mean, I lose stuff a lot too, so it could just be something

— Roger Patterson’s Criminal Record Claims

SPEAKER_01 12:54

real simple.

SPEAKER_00 12:54

Yeah, I just wish I knew the timeline of it. Like you just said he was a kid. Well, he was he was a kid when his dad died, so was he a kid? Was it after his dad passed or before, like before maybe the Patterson Gimlin film was shot? Or, you know, I just would like to know that time little detail, that timeline, just to kind of put it in my head. Right. Right. Now, one thing that came out of this film that I didn't know about that apparently Patterson had a little bit of a mischievous criminal past, and Greg Long, the the guy who wrote the that uh book, debunking The Making of Bigfoot, I believe it was.

SPEAKER_01 13:33

The making of Bigfoot, yeah.

SPEAKER_00 13:34

Yep. He says that Patterson was a a criminal, but as it turns out, digging on this, he was never arrested for anything. He he doesn't he didn't have he doesn't have a criminal record at all. That case was dismissed, and uh apparently he had a arson charged with arson along with a couple police officers because supposedly there was some question where he was burning some plywood that had been stolen and he didn't know that it was stolen, and the police officers were let go because of that. He was also dismissed. So there was a couple of questionable things, and then he had he had uh not paid paid back the rental company for the rental of the of the camera, right? And stuff like that. But he was never charged with anything.

SPEAKER_01 14:19

So well, I thought I thought the camera thing got him put in jail.

SPEAKER_00 14:23

Not from what I what I found.

SPEAKER_01 14:25

Oh, from what you researched, yeah, okay, because the film says he he got arrested for the camera thing. Right. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 14:32

But no, that was all thrown out, so he doesn't have a record. Uh nothing's on his record. So I just wanted to put that out there because he Patterson already has enough going against his his name, you know. I don't want that also a wrong idea. Uh, you know, and I s I see him more than ever after watching this documentary, and I think the documentary did a great job of making this more personalized, is his desperation to find ways to you know feed his family.

SPEAKER_01 15:05

Yeah, that that I got the same thing from that. And uh you know, he he kind of did, you know, at least at least his wife, and a lot of it was super complicated. Right. Uh, but eventually uh Diatli released the rights and she profited from that for a while. So in a sense, it was even though he unfortunately passed away so so early, uh he still took care of his family, you know.

— Patterson’s Hodgkin’s Disease Timeline

SPEAKER_00 15:32

Yeah. So there's some debate on you know when he was diagnosed with uh Hodgkin's disease. Green is is noted, uh John Green has noted that he got it in 1964, but then there's some people who say no, he had he got it. He was diagnosed after the Patterson Gimlin film. But you know, so there's a little bit of speculation there, but he clearly was trying to find ways other than have to work for the man to you know provide for his family.

SPEAKER_01 16:05

Um I I can see justifying, you know, that I mean who who knows what you would do, you know, when you're in those shoes.

— Al DeAtley, Money, and Motive

SPEAKER_00 16:13

But you you mentioned Datley, and I I always kind of knew him to be kind of uh unscrupulous or just kind of uh untrustworthy fellow, but man, this documentary really hammered home that he was not a good dude. I mean, uh it sounded like he screwed everyone over, even his own nephews. Well, you know, in a lot of ways he sounds like he screwed over Patterson too. I mean, he screwed over Gimlin, he screwed over his two nephews to help him promote the film and who ran the cameras and the different theaters. What do you what do you what are your general thoughts on D'Atli?

SPEAKER_01 16:49

Well that that's exactly the pattern that a lot of people like that who wind up in mansions. That's what they do. Yeah, they and I've heard this from other other sources and other stories, so I'm not just making this up. That's the perfect pattern for someone like him. So he you know, he he could be border borderline mob, who knows? You know, not that he was would be in the mob, but had had that kind of mentality, you know.

SPEAKER_00 17:12

Sure. Well, that's what sound like what kept Bob Haranus from coming forward. He was even said in his new documentary that he was afraid he was gonna get taken out.

SPEAKER_01 17:22

Yeah. Yeah, who knows? Pat Patterson said uh she was afraid of D'Autley, uh, that he, you know, he was such a big man and uh he would like he I forget who it was she said uh she saw was it was it Pat that said that she saw him beat somebody else up that they know?

SPEAKER_00 17:41

Uh Patterson's uh sister.

SPEAKER_01 17:44

Oh, right, right.

SPEAKER_00 17:45

His uh wife. His wife.

SPEAKER_01 17:47

Ooh. Not good.

SPEAKER_00 17:49

Yeah, and it's funny, these old black and white films, you know, you never see him standing up, I don't think. It it's hard to gauge his size, but I guess, you know, they they saw him in in real life, so they said he was a big guy, a big dude. But he definitely sounded from the recordings they played to be a no-sense guy that he cameras really rough, even though he was a lived in a $30 million mansion and uh wore three-piece suits, and but it the way he talked, it was like you know, you don't want to mess with this guy, you know. Right. I mean in charge of a construction or you know, an asphalt company, you know.

SPEAKER_01 18:28

So well, yeah, you could be uh under some asphalt pretty quick, I guess.

SPEAKER_00 18:34

Yeah, you could be uh yeah, with one of those roller machines, uh steamrolled. Uh yeah, so that you know, he sounded like he he said in in this film that he was underwater. You know, a lot of times he'd take jobs for less than he'd bid you know, under bid the job and take a loss just to keep you know business coming in. So, you know, there's definitely some motivation there, some motive. And you know, according to everyone in this film who had any association with him, he wasn't afraid to screw you over and not pay you. In fact, one of the nephews even said he said that to him, that you know, this is how you make it, this is how you get ahead in life. You screw over everyone below you, or you know. Right. I guess he would you he's probably a narcissist. He was probably had no empathy, you know, or a psychopath or both. Some kind of psychopath or s tendencies, you know, that usually people like that don't have empathy for other people, so they don't care. It doesn't even bother them that you're I mean, Patterson's wife and has has a wife and three kids, and he doesn't even care enough to uh I'm sure that after he died and when she eventually turned over the rights to that film to Pat, I'm guessing that maybe Patterson's sister probably pressured him to well, he already milked it for a lot of I mean I forget what they said with the uh equivalency of today's money, but it was like tens of millions of dollars. In that one concert hall in Utah on a Sunday, you know, they thought nobody was gonna come because you know there's lots of Mormons and they're going to church. They then one day they said they outsold, they sold more tickets than Simon and Garfunkel did the entire time they were there. So they were probably taking money by the bucket loads.

SPEAKER_01 20:30

Yeah, they were. Yeah, they said that they had like piles of cash, like they take it to the whole hotel room, dump it on the bed.

SPEAKER_00 20:36

Oh man. Wouldn't that be nice? You could just you have so much money you just swim in it like like uh Scrooge McDuck.

SPEAKER_01 20:44

Yeah, that's crazy to even think about that.

SPEAKER_00 20:47

But you know, you gotta be that type of person though to take around take advantage and screw people over, you know, and I I just don't have that.

SPEAKER_01 20:54

It it is an interesting the the documentary's an interesting kind of a story of greed, you know, human nature, and it's sad in a lot of ways, but the fact that there was so much emotion involved that it still shows that there's still a lot of love there, you know. And good thing though that you know that there's some healing going on, some negative things that happened, but some healing happening and some wound wounds being healed.

SPEAKER_00 21:22

I definitely felt for Clint for sure.

SPEAKER_01 21:24

You know like seemed like he had a pretty big heart and a pretty honest, earnest dude, and he just got just a kid caught in the metal, you know, and then he grew up still caught in the metal.

— Evidence That Stood Out Before the New Footage

SPEAKER_00 21:37

Yeah. Is there anything other than the the new footage itself, anything that stood out to you or you know you wanted to discuss a little?

SPEAKER_01 21:44

Well, yeah, as far as like connecting some things, the the you've already mentioned one of them, the lock shed with the fur coats in it and the the football helmets that that Clint found. And that was I that was one thing I was like, chiching You know.

SPEAKER_00 22:00

Check.

SPEAKER_01 22:01

Check. Yeah. And there's there's some things at the end, but uh some dead giveaways. But it was more for me, it was more like this collage of all this other side evidence and and testimony and people just kind of coming forward that really was building it was building the case that it was a hoax pretty well for me. And it it was doing so in a way that I wasn't expecting. Like uh on one of our episodes, I said, uh I'm expecting to be disappointed. And I was I wasn't. Now I was a little disappointed about the film itself because it's just annoying to me when they show snippets. It just seemed like that they were just showing snippets. It's like, look, man, play the whole thing, at least play the whole thing from start to end at the end or something, so we can see

— The Newly Discovered Footage

SPEAKER_01 22:54

it.

SPEAKER_00 22:54

I hear that they're gonna to do a special release or extra footage. They're gonna show the complete footage from that roll of film from start to finish. Which I was I thought going in, that's what we were gonna see. So yeah, that part of it I was disappointed in. So let's get into it. What are your thoughts on the new footage?

SPEAKER_01 23:17

So the new footage by itself actually was a little more impressive than I thought because it did appear to be a rehearsal with a shake at the beginning, shaking of the camera, and then the still stable image at the end, and then the Bigfoot goes walking, just like it does in the actual film. Although that was De Atlee, apparently in in that costume.

SPEAKER_00 23:38

Well, that's that's what two people suspect, but we don't know.

SPEAKER_01 23:41

Well, Hieronymus said he wasn't. He says, Oh that wasn't me. So that was and then they're they were saying that it was D'Atley, so it's like, okay, so this is the first dry run. Because it does look a little different the way the Bigfoot walks, you know, and the way the way it's built. Yeah, but when you see Hieronymus walking, I'm just like, man, that's Patty. You know, he's just got the he's just got it, you know. Uh the fact also that there was a the I want to see the whole the whole snippet, but the fact that there's somebody on a horse, was it Patterson? Was it Gimlin?

SPEAKER_00 24:16

It was I'm pretty sure it was Gimblin.

SPEAKER_01 24:18

Yeah, we're pretty sure it was Gimlin.

SPEAKER_00 24:19

People who know them and knew them back in that time, and as soon as they showed that footage, like, oh, that's Gimlin. Or is that Gimlin? That's the horse. That's the right.

SPEAKER_01 24:28

So, yeah, exactly. Like Hieronymus, I think, pointed out, yeah, that's such and such horse. Uh, the one that that he used on the that Gimli used on the expedition

— Bob Heironimus Says It Wasn’t Him

SPEAKER_01 24:37

or whatever.

SPEAKER_00 24:37

But so, yeah, so let's let's top pause right here because I wanted to ask you, like, were you surprised when Bob Hieronymus said that that wasn't him?

SPEAKER_01 24:45

I I was very surprised when he said that. And I was like, 'cause because when he said that, I was like, hmm, maybe this is something that happened after the Patterson Gimlin film, you know, like like a theory that you had. But then uh I was like, no, this was if they had not have talked to Hieronymus yet, they're probably trying to use Dialy because he was so tall. But the fact that the horses are in there and the costume is is something when you look at it, even in that that video, it's like this is someone who who's a perfectionist, who's creative, and who, as uh as Clint said, the way he does things is to make people believe. And that I'm paraphrasing there, but that to me takes it out of the context of this is something that happened after the Patterson Gimlin and put it to where it was something that was

— Who Was Wearing the Suit?

SPEAKER_01 25:38

a dry run.

SPEAKER_00 25:38

So now I will I will I'll push back a little bit. We don't know for a fact that was the at least, that's just speculation, you know, and it very well could be. So if you recall from part two of our Patterson Gimlin breakdown, there was a second person implicated as wearing the patty suit, and that was Jerry Romney, and he was implicated by Clyde Ranke, who worked for A E. So it could be D'Atley in that costume, but maybe it's this Jerry Romney too. You know, this guy from AE seemed to be really convinced that that that was him. It seems a weird thing to make up, and he says that Jerry told them several occasions that he was the one. So maybe he's in that.

SPEAKER_01 26:26

It could be, maybe it wasn't D'Atley. Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 26:29

I don't know if we'll ever know, but yeah.

SPEAKER_01 26:32

Uh uh kind of at this point, it's kind of like, does it really matter,

— Steven’s Verdict After Seeing the Documentary

SPEAKER_01 26:36

you know?

SPEAKER_00 26:36

With the the new footage and the you know, the full documentary that you watched, are you now convinced that the Patterson film is a fake?

SPEAKER_01 26:44

Yeah, I'm convinced it's a fake.

SPEAKER_00 26:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 26:47

Just for the record.

— Michael’s Remaining Questions

SPEAKER_00 26:48

Uh just for the record. So I still have some questions. I'm more convinced. I think more than ever, I believe Bob Hieronymus. Now that I've seen more of him on the camera, you know, he definitely seems to be more earnest, you know, seems to be an honest guy. You know, he did pass the lie detectors tests, but we know those could be faked or defeated. I just generally thought he was more believable to me than in the past. Like you said, I was disappointed that we didn't see the whole footage. And there actually one time they compared

— Patty vs. the New Footage: Side-by-Side

SPEAKER_00 27:20

Patty with, and that's what I want to review with you. So those of you are listening via podcast, you'll be able to go on YouTube and see this on our YouTube channel. Or if you've seen the Capturing Bigfoot documentary, then you already know what I'm talking about. There's one part where they do a side-by-side comparison of Patty and this new footage. So that's what Steve and I are going to review and talk about. Okay, so now we're looking at the side-by-side photos uh of steel photos of the original Patterson Ginlin film, Patty, uh, and the rehearsal, new rehearsal film. And when I'm looking at this, this does not pass my eye test. I I will give that the new footage, that costume looks way better than the Philip Morris costumes that we saw Bob Hieronymus wearing, which that's what I was expecting. I think that's probably what you were expecting, right? So I was surprised by that. Is that the case for you as well? That were you surprised that this was a totally different costume than the one that Philip Morris was presenting?

SPEAKER_01 28:23

I was a bit surprised, yeah. So that so that is a bit fishy.

SPEAKER_00 28:27

Um that's what I was expecting. So this is definitely more impressive than those Philip Morris images that we saw. But again, it doesn't quite pass my eye test. For example, you see his uh left leg is up, right, in the new footage, and see how his leg it goes back just like you described before, like a pant leg. It's it's perfectly horizontal. You know, the there's no definition in that leg whatsoever. And then you look at the patty and you see clearly there's definition there in the legs, and there's no definition. You look at the back, it there's no definition in the back. You look at patties and the arms, there's definition. Now the patty film has the advantage of maybe has different lighting. You know, it was taken, I think they they claim it was taken at one or two o'clock in the afternoon. So the lighting might have been different, but the head doesn't look the same at all. It just doesn't pass my eye test. I'm not saying that Patty, you know, we have that the Patty hasn't been proven to be fake. I'm just saying I have questions.

SPEAKER_01 29:41

I may be able to give you some ideas on that. Um what pops in my head. Well, for one, it's a rehearsal film. So they they they do the rehearsal and they decide, hmm, that doesn't look good enough. So not only did they change the person who's in the suit, but they probably modified the suit also. Because if Patterson is, he's artistic and he is a perfectionist, that's what I would do, you know. Because honestly, the legs and the patty legs are muscular. They look muscular, you know, the buttocks look bigger.

SPEAKER_00 30:13

Yeah, it's bigger, muscular.

SPEAKER_01 30:15

You see the arm definition. For all we know, he may have decided, oh, this this whole thing is too dark all over. We need to add some lighter, you know, colored hair to it or something. We don't know. But being it being a rehearsal means it's a test run. And it being a test run is to be modified.

— Was This Really a Rehearsal Film?

SPEAKER_00 30:33

We're assuming it's a rehearsal. I have some questions about that as well, because in that footage they show, it shows Gimlin. We we assume it's Gimlin, right? That it's on that horse, he's got his gun out and he's smiling. Well, he's in that same costume that he did in the documentary. He's got the same hat, the same horse. The only difference is he's wearing a poncho because it was probably raining or that day or something.

SPEAKER_01 30:56

Right.

SPEAKER_00 30:57

And he's had he's got a pistol. Well, my opinion, that looks more like this film that they showed, uh, the new footage that everyone's calling the rehearsal. To me, this looks like they're filming for the documentary. You know, Patterson's in here riding his horse. You know, we won't know until we see the entire reel, right? But why, if this is a rehearsal, why are they filming Patterson wearing the costume he was wearing in the documentary that they were making?

SPEAKER_01 31:25

That's a good question, but you know, you know, Hieronymus wasn't in the suit. So it definitely was not at the same time, maybe not the same day. So I still stand by that you know, modifications could have been made w even if it was filmed during the uh their little expedition and documentary, you know.

SPEAKER_00 31:45

Well, uh that's what I'm saying. I just still have questions. Right. Because again, this does not pass my eye test. And the one on the right looks like a costume. The one from the new film. The one on the left does not look like a costume to me, you know.

SPEAKER_01 32:02

So I mean it's quite quite possible he did do a lot of modifications because to me they don't look I think the grain, I don't I don't you maybe you know about this, but the the differences in the film, one of them just looks way more grainy, and it's probably because maybe Patty was further away.

SPEAKER_00 32:20

But well, I think uh it was out of focus, and it might have been on purpose. You know, if you're trying to fake it, maybe he that's one thing he learned. Oh, I need to be slightly out of focus. But also, according to uh experts who know about these things, that type of film that they used, you could have two different people develop the same film and the color would be slightly different or whatever. But oh, that was the other thing that really struck me how clear this film was.

SPEAKER_01 32:47

Very well preserved. It must have been like in darkness for a long time. Because I know you have to keep film dark.

SPEAKER_00 32:53

It almost, I mean, I don't think it's AI. There's a lot of people who think that it's AI, you know, but I don't think so. But I it does, it is interesting that it's so good, that it's so clear that it almost doesn't even look, you know, like a film.

SPEAKER_01 33:09

Well, the the the head, like you said, the the head initially stood out to me because I I it looks like I saw like like fuzzy hair. And I it just looked uh different. It didn't look fake, it just looked different than like like the Hollywood stuff, you know, and that was like interesting.

SPEAKER_00 33:29

I was like, wow, that's what about the the original Patterson film.

SPEAKER_01 33:33

Uh no, the uh uh the new one. The the rehearsal. Yeah, and it's the the head and the like the hair, the fur was like sticking out in places like fuzz. That's just what I remember, and I was like, that's that's interesting. It's like almost like Patterson took, you know, he was cutting off fur from these coats and just placing it carefully in places, kind of like a painter would on a canvas. Because that's the kind of if he's really wanting to pull this off, that that's the level of detail he's gonna go to. And honestly, like an artistic person, you know, you're looking at at the the comparison here between the two, and it doesn't pass your what'd you call it? My eye test. Your eye test. It doesn't pass your eye test. Well, it probably didn't pass his either.

SPEAKER_02 34:18

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 34:18

You know? He's like, oh no, that's not gonna do it. It looks like a pant leg. You know, maybe it's some of the same stuff you pointed out, you know. Yeah. Because he's really trying to pull this off, and he did, but he probably wouldn't have done it with that suit, you know.

SPEAKER_00 34:32

Well, and even if you look at the neck, you can see the line where the head and the back don't connect.

SPEAKER_01 34:38

You can see that maybe where the fuzzy the out of focus comes in. You know, it's like oh we can we can maybe we can blend that in with a little bit of a blur.

— Why the New Footage Still Raises Questions

SPEAKER_00 34:49

Yeah again, I'm not saying that this proves this proves that Patty is real. I'm just saying I have questions. And I don't think the filmmakers of this film answered all the questions. I've got more questions. Uh I made a list after re-watching it a few times. I realized that if Bob is telling the truth and he did wear the original Passion Given suit, that the body shape would be a little bit different. But the suit itself, like you said, when I when you look at those side-by-side comparisons, the one on the right of the new footage looks like a costume. The one on the left does not. So it's not passing my eye test, but I I I agree that he possibly could have done more modifications, right? But we've got to understand how those how those modifications are done because Bill Munns still thinks the original Patterson film, it still to him doesn't pass the test as being a fake. He still says a lot of things that are in the original film can be done back then. So we those questions still need to be answered. Like how did you know how did he get look like the muscle movement? How did he pull off the head movement? And you don't see a crease or you don't see folds. So those questions still need to be answered. You know, there's no mention of Philip Morris in this documentary at all. And he was a big part of this whole when when Bob came forward, Bob Haramas came forward, those all the images you saw was him wearing that crappy suit that we all do did not look like Patterson Gidman, original film Patty. So why wasn't that brought into the film? You know, why didn't we displore that more?

SPEAKER_01 36:32

You know, lack of credibility, maybe. They just thought so.

— Philip Morris and the Footage’s Provenance

SPEAKER_00 36:36

But that would be a reason to bring it, right? You're already trying to discredit. So why not? I mean, that was a big part of the whole patty, this whole 60 years, you know, is that those images. So the fact that they weren't addressed, I I I wish that that wouldn't have been addressed in some way. He doesn't his name isn't even mentioned, I don't think, in the entire film. So I have that gives me a question. I also have a question about the provenance of this new footage. Because the whole film, they're painting the athlete as this evil guy you just don't f with. He will jack you up, he will get you killed, no way goes against him. Yet he allows this footage to remain in somebody else's hands. Why? Why would you why does this guy have it in it in his safe?

SPEAKER_01 37:27

Yeah, that's a good point.

SPEAKER_00 37:29

If this if this is a if this is a rehearsal and you know it's fake, it's hard for me to swallow that the athlete who's been painted as this this devious guy who does nobody crosses, that he would allow this film to be just sitting in somebody else else's hands. Again, it doesn't prove or disprove, it just it's a question that should be answered. The other thing is, you know, throughout the documentary, the filmmakers rarely see them or hear them interacting or asking questions. All we hear is answers. So that to me lends to uh a way to manipulate the narrative because we don't hear the question. So for instance, when they're interviewing Bob at the end and he makes that comment that you know things should could be left under the bridge, we have no context why he's making that comment. You know, I would like to hear the question and then and hear the answer too. That's important. That is important. Without that context, yeah, it's just like a lawyer leading the witness, you know. Uh we don't have any.

— Bob Gimlin’s Appearance in the Documentary

SPEAKER_01 38:36

Well, that that would that would that was put there also with the the video of of Clint and Hieronymus approaching Gimlin there towards the end. And you know, you remember uh his Gimlin's wife's reaction to the whole thing. It's very like, okay, you got something to hide. So uh that that was put there kind of after that as kind of like a point, but I do agree with what you're saying because yes, they they need to not do that because they're probably maybe taking it out of context. Although what Gimlin said was very telling.

SPEAKER_00 39:11

Well, I want to talk about that that too, because I mean both Kim and I, you know, my wife Kim, we both watched this, she's a skeptic, you know, she's not on board as much with the Bigfoot as I am in general, not not necessarily the Patterson Gimlin film itself, but she's just a a good skeptic. She's a good bouncing board from for me, you know. To be fair, she hasn't done near the research that I've done, and she'll readily admit that. But even just saying that, her reaction was the same as mine. It didn't seem like Gimlin was in his right state of mind. It almost didn't either he just wasn't hearing the questions or he was just nodding his head and saying yes, and so there's some ambiguity there. I just don't know if I can trust that fully. And then later on, when they show him again, they're not they're not sh showing us the questions, they're not letting us hear their questions. All we're hearing is his response, so it's a little bit out of context.

SPEAKER_01 40:12

Yeah, so I can understand that. Uh but um Begimlin's wife's reaction when she stood up and walked around, stood in front of the camera and trying to block the the conversation. She was clearly not pleased with the situation. So that that that's all the information I need, but I still understand what you're saying.

SPEAKER_00 40:32

So yeah.

SPEAKER_01 40:34

Well, and we don't know the context of why she did that, so um well, she didn't like what she was hearing, and it it seemed to me it was like, okay, they're uh my husband's saying too much, I need to get up and block the camera. That's what it sounded like. Right.

SPEAKER_00 40:51

Those evil filmmakers, those sons of bitches.

SPEAKER_01 40:56

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 40:57

Um I'm just saying there's some ambiguity there, you know.

SPEAKER_01 41:00

Right. Right. Yeah, that's good. That's important to point out.

— Applying the Same Scrutiny to Capturing Bigfoot

SPEAKER_00 41:03

If we're gonna scrutinize the original Patch and Gimlin film for 60 years, we need to apply the same types of logic and scrutiny to this as well. Yeah, and this is not bulletproof. I was honestly hoping this would be, and I know a lot of people are gonna be hating me and they're gonna say I'm a you know, whatever. I don't care. I'm just seeing with my own eyes, you know, it there's still some questions here. It's not out of the park to me because also Pat herself never once in that film comes out and blatantly says this was a fake. Not once. And I if I'm a filmmaker and I'm trying to propose this narrative and that you know, this proves that the Patterson game in the film was a fake. Why wouldn't you just come out and ask, was this a fake? Do you know that it was a fake? Did Patterson tell you that Roger tell you that it was a fake? None of those questions was asked. It was just kind of left.

SPEAKER_01 41:59

So this is a good point because um I kind of have the same feeling about why don't you just play the whole clip? Yeah. Like just one time play the whole clip. Now I don't know how long the clip was, but come on, you know, so it's kind of like bits and pieces in in in ways that's a bit annoying. So that's kind of that's that's true. I mean, they really should have, even though maybe they felt like they provided enough, you know, of her reaction to the film, and then Clint saying that she admitted to him that Hieronymus was in the suit, but that's you know, that's not direct like you're saying, you know, like just come out and ask.

SPEAKER_00 42:36

I'm questioning his his mental capacity, you know. You know, when they show him that the film, the new footage, he's like, Who's that guy on the horse? He doesn't even recognize himself on the horse. Now, was he playing it up for the cameras? I don't know. He looked confused to me.

SPEAKER_01 42:54

Uh yeah, it could

— Questions We Wish They Asked Bob Heironimus

SPEAKER_01 42:56

be.

SPEAKER_00 42:56

And the other thing is, I wish they would have asked more direct questions to Bob Hieronymus about that day. More details. How did you put on the suit? Who helped you?

SPEAKER_01 43:06

Right.

SPEAKER_00 43:07

How was the helmet? You know, now he did say, because when I overlaid Bob, you know, there's like an image of him posing, you know, in the pose and overlaid it with Patty, his arms are like six inches too short, and you know, the top of his head is too short as well. Um, he doesn't quite fit. So Bob did say in that documentary that they put extensions in his arm to make them longer. So uh that does lend some credibility and would give reason why he doesn't when you superimpose his body on Patty, why they don't her arms are longer. So, yeah, that does lend some credibility to Bob and explain why his arms don't quite match up. They're shorter than the ones in Patty. So that does definitely lend some credibility to that as well. So, you know, again, I'm more convinced that that this could be a fake. Uh, but there's still questions to be answered. I'm really sad that Jeff Mildram died and we don't have Dr. Kranz either. Uh I would like some experts to diagnose this film like they did the Patty film. And but again, maybe we can't really make a direct comparison because it's not the same person, assuming Bob is telling the truth that he was in the original Patty suit and somebody else is in this other suit. So we can't really make any direct comparisons because it that person definitely did not walk like Patty. And if it's a different person, that would explain that. I will say this if like he faked this man he fooled scientists, he fooled anthropologists and costume makers and biologists and motion experts and I mean a whole lot of experts. And that's something to be proud of it sounded like Clint was proud of his dad. You know I don't know if you noticed that but he kept referring to him as Roger, not dad. And I'm guessing it's because he had all this built up animosity toward him. But I'm hoping that if nothing else comes out of this I'm glad that Clint seemed to got some closure out of this. You know this could be especially with his mom.

SPEAKER_01 45:20

Yeah because he like he like he said he lost his dad and then he lost you know loses his mom for eight years.

— If Patterson Faked It, How Did He Do It?

SPEAKER_00 45:26

It's like Yeah and you know his dad too it sounded like he had a lot of animosity toward him and and now at the very end it sounded like he was proud of him that he had pulled off ultimate hoax you know if the if it proves out to be that way and hats off to him and definitely fooled me you know fooled my eye. I still don't know how it how it looks like muscle movement. I still you know those are the questions I still would like to be answered how those things were faked you know and then the footprints you know how did the footprints fool so many experts who know the human foot so it's it's crazy. I mean I again hats off to Patterson if if he really pulled this off that was amazing. I mean no one's come close to coming up with a fake and do it in 1967. Maybe in some regards it was easier to do in 1967 in some ways because you didn't have this much technology so it's easier fool people you know we're I think we've come to the famous part of the episode where I'm gonna ask you Steven in part two we gave our assessment of the Patterson film as we knew it then what what our ranking was as far as did we believe the real creature in the Patterson Gimmon film was a real creature or was and you rated it a five six five and then uh a six so from a scale from zero to ten where do you rate it now as far as a believable creature in the original Patterson Gimmon film?

— Our Updated Patterson-Gimlin Scores

SPEAKER_01 46:55

Zero.

SPEAKER_00 46:56

Yeah I I don't I think it's a fake yeah well that's where I'm at I went from I was nine you know so I'm not quite at a zero yet because I have still some questions and I think they're fair questions like the provenance of this film why did would DeAtley and Patterson allow this film if it is a practice film to be just laid out there to somebody easily to thwart their efforts for all this money that they made you know and just how did Patterson fake the muscle movement and what looks like muscle movement to me and what experts think and how did he fake the footprints that fool so many scientists and experts I just there's some questions out there I would like to be answered first before I give it a fat zero but so I'm gonna say I'm I'm a one to a two okay so that's a big leap from nine yeah I would like to say something about the prints is I believe that that experts at prints are like the lip and Apache or someone like Tom Brown or someone who's at a level that can read tracks.

SPEAKER_01 47:58

These are people who look at tracks all the time. Even though you have experts on on the foot I don't necessarily believe they can read tracks like a tracker could even though they had trackers out there but I don't know who those people are. They may not be footprint trackers they're they're sign trackers a lot of them. So they're looking you know they're looking in a a different way. So it people who aren't really experts would look at fake prints and human you know or real creature prints and probably wouldn't see any difference. Maybe they would see some anomalies but if it was a lip and Apache that would go out there, the a lip and Apache tracker, they'd probably be like this is weird. They would be pointing out some things that probably would make it obvious to them I'm guessing that there's something uh fake about it or something just not natural.

— The Footprint Evidence Still Matters

SPEAKER_00 48:43

So I I I disagree. I I agree that the Apache def you know people Native Americans who do tracking surely they they're experts but I don't want to discount these guys these guys they discounted a lot of foot tracks. You know it's not like this blindly accept every foot track. They know how the foot goes in motion and how the toes spread and you know so we can't just say that they don't know know how to read a track. Uh I trust Meldrum I I trust Kranz I trust other experts other anthropologists who've waited it's clearly the either Patterson is amazing at uh creating tracks that are the fool scientists and it again it wasn't just those two there's lots of track experts who looked at these prints and and came to the same conclusions. So I mean hats off again to Patterson if I'm convinced to zero finally uh you know I I I think he did a great job. I mean even in that suit that he made let's assume he made that suit in the practice film way better than Philip Boris's costumes those look terrible compared to his that one in the practi in the what we're calling the rehearsal film. It might have been a rehearsal film but I think it was probably more geared towards the documentary like them making the documentary it was like a maybe a reactment but maybe that's where they got the idea maybe by the time they did that and maybe Patterson got his diagnosis he's like oh man I'm not gonna be around I can't just keep going out and looking for Bigfoot and looking for Bigfoot. Definitely the motivation is there. The motive is there for both him and Deatley I'm not sure about Gimlin. I'm still on the fence I don't know his involvement if it is a fake I think he probably did know because they he would have had to probably know and they would have had to plan this all together. And according to Hieronymus he did know that all three were there and shot together. Apparently they did it in one take because Bob was

— So… Is the Case Closed?

SPEAKER_00 50:45

afraid he was going to get shot or be attacked by a a male Bigfoot or being shot by some Hieronymus Bob Hieronymus. Yeah yeah that was pretty hilarious yeah when he said that so yeah I I admit I may have been fooled here you know along with a lot of people you know so again hats off to Patterson so well that wraps up our diagnosis uh breakdown of the new documentary capturing Bigfoot Steven is at a zero I still have some questions but I'm leaning towards it is a fake I admit I may have been fooled in this but I still think I have some legitimate questions that need to be answered before I can strongly give it a zero. And I think that's fair because we've scrutinized the original Patterson film so heavily that we need to apply that to this new film to some degree before we just blindly say oh this is a rehearsal this proves it was a fake so uh what I'm curious to what the uh listeners think.

— What Do You Think?

SPEAKER_01 51:47

What do you guys think?

SPEAKER_00 51:48

If you've watched a documentary and what are your thoughts? Where do you stand on the scale from zero to ten do you still feel the same way you did before you saw the documentary did it change in any way what evidence swayed you more one way or the other that we'd definitely be interested in hearing that maybe you have some more insights that we don't because there's a lot of people who have a lot of details a lot of who's been studying this for decades and decades and know all the intimate details so we'd love to hear from you. Be kind though be nice. Be kind and and we we have gotten some really good comments already we we do see them uh and we do appreciate it uh you get some really good ideas some of which we may mention in some future episodes so keep it going you you're really fueling us with ideas and we we appreciate it and definitely we've learned some stuff from some of you guys in the comments definitely I want to address those people calling us grifters there's no money being had at all zero we're many monies in the negative uh this is not a a profit bearing thing we're doing this because we're curious about the world the unknown the unexplained and we generally want to find the answers to these questions Yigfit, UFOs, ancient history, the Egyptians, the pyramids there's lots of really fantastical things in our world that we don't fully understand. And uh we're just here to try to get answers. Again we don't claim to have them all or learn this all together and uh what side the offense

— Next Episode: The Exorcist

SPEAKER_00 53:20

you're on we can still be friends you just be kind if you don't agree with us we can still be uh friends we can still have a a good conversation a positive instructive conversation so until next time stay curious and question the coming up next just in time for Halloween we're revisiting one of the most terrifying movies ever made The Exorcist you don't want to miss it. We'll review some of its most disturbing scenes explore the phenomenon that shocked audiences around the world and dig into something even more unsettling the real life exorcism that inspired the original story. Join us October 27th for this bonus Halloween episode of Inquerium wherever you get your podcast or watch us on YouTube. And if you enjoy what we're doing here don't forget to like and subscribe rate us all of that helps to help this channel grow and continue bringing more interesting stories from around the world thanks for watching and we'll see you next time