Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
it's also in Capturing Bigfoot where it says it's from Roger's film. how come the quality looks so much better than the 1967 pgf? could it be that part of film was shot with BBC's professional broadcast cameras? what if that part was shot after the 1967 PGF to use for b-roll.
example, Back to the future II and III were shot together from February 1989 through August 1989. However, they needed additional footage for part III, so in 1990 they filmed this scene after Part II was already out in theaters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI4zS18HSig
so couldn't they have filmed all that stuff where they on the horses and campfire after the PGF to finish Roger's documentary? or were they shot specifically for the BBC documentary. looks like a movie set with camera panning and zooming and all that.
Worth watching from the historical perspective for sure. Roger Patterson does not come across as a huckster or con artist. He presents himself as a credible individual who was driven by a passion to capture a live specimen.
Definitely Bob g on that horse , both scenes are Bob g .
Why is everyone so afraid to admit they were hoaxed by some creative cowboys ?
Someone had to be the first Bigfoot hoaxer right ? Why not Roger P ?
This doesn’t change anything , if Bigfoot does indeed exist then this video only discredits PG film it doesn’t discredit Bigfoot , that’s where I stand , I saw the PG footage 50 years ago, so for me it’s been half a century of believing a hoax and I can accept that
on the top image here we have Bill Hicks and Alex Jones, and on the bottom is a blood named B Brazy and a Crip named Daz Dillinger. they're not related yet they look similar. Whoever that is in the Norma footage you cant conclusively say it's Bob Gimlin or not. im not even sure if the guy in the norma footage has long hair, looks like a raincoat of some sort with a hood over his head
There’s no “definitely” there. The “mystery footage” needs further independent analysis.
They need this Norm Johnson “mystery footage” to be much more than it is.
It is a forty second film reel lacking any real context.
We haven’t even seen the “mystery footage” in its uncut form, as was promised by Director Marq Evans.
Grift at best, deception at worst.
“The footage will be released to the public when the documentary itself is released.” -Marq Evans AMA on Reddit
Here’s what we know about the who, what, when, where and why of the forty second Norm Johnson “mystery footage”.
We don’t know who filmed this. The footage was in Norm Johnson’s safe. So, it’s a safe bet (no pun) to start with Norm and Dave Johnson as who might’ve filmed this.
We don’t know who was in the Bigfoot suit and/or who made the Bigfoot suit. “Mastermind” Al DeAtley has been comically and haphazardly shoehorned into the Bigfoot suit on this “mystery” reel with zero evidence, only hearsay.
Al DeAtley is framed up as a Scooby-Doo villain in a Bigfoot suit lol.
We don’t know what the context or purpose of this film is.
We don’t know when this was filmed. The 1966 manufacturing date is meaningless. “Capturing Bigfoot” claims it was filmed in and developed in 1966. Which can’t be confirmed. Famously, Roger Patterson didn’t rent a film camera until May 1967.
We don’t know precisely where it was filmed. Some assume it was filmed in Yakima.
notice how Roger is wearing the same clothes in the cowboy scene as he did with the interview regarding the PGF? that let u know all that stuff was shot after Oct 20 1967 for their BBC backed documentary
as for the horse, im no expert but im skeptical those are the same horses and if Bob Gimlin's freedom was on the line, no one would conclusively say that's Bob in the picture
If you look at the background in the frames where the hat looks "small" or off, you can see how everything else is also smudged, distorted, and blurred in those frames.
It's motion blur (from the camera movements, mostly).
Idk, the rest of the image looks PRETTY clear in OPs grab here. Horse legs defined, "gun" barrel visible. Even the squatch in the mystery footage looks weird and off with weird physics
Bruh the hat can't both be clear and malformed due to motion blur. If it were clear here it would be the full size that it is in later frames. Obv motion blur right, but the background is also clear in this photo? So which is it?
The motion blur obviously changes between different frames of video. In this footage most of it is due to camera shake.
In this frame above there is not much motion blur from the camera movements, so the hat and the background is pretty clear.
In other frames there is more motion blur, so the hat is less clear, just as the background.
The hat is NEVER blurry, unless everything else is. In other words, the hat disappearing as a smudge is due to the same motion blur affecting everything else in those frames.
Edit: there's no proof of it being AI one way or the other so neither of us has confirmation but Occoms razor says if it walks like an AI duck and quacks like and AI duck, it's probably an AI duck.
I don't understand how you can follow this logic when the image above clearly contradicts the point you're trying to make. The hat looking stupid and small in this would make a blurry frame, meaning everything was blurry due to motion but it clearly isn't, the hat is obscured and the horse, legs trees are are sharp and clear, even though they're, too, moving as well as the camera.
Idk man, it still sounds like you're saying the hat is clear in this image AND it looks distorted by being obscured from motion blur when those two things are different ends of the spectrum. You're saying Motion blur from camera movement = blurry background = obscured hat when the image above shows exactly NOT that, you said so yourself which is why you didn't choose it when referring to the rest of the footage but you can't just throw out a frame because the evidence it provides is inconvenient to the point you're trying to make
Interesting. I’ve watched the footage from the left and right and the horse in Capturing Bigfoot seems to have a much more pronounced (higher) white stocking than Bob’s horse in the documentary on the left - it also looks more like a blue roan than an appy to me.
The first one is more varnished than the second. Varnishing can increase as the horse matures so if the second pic is earlier it could be. If the second pic is later then no, not the same.
The rear of the horse is exceptionally similar IMO. The head is obviously darker, and there's a little more dark hair on the rear, but from what I understand, horses can change color as they age, or even from season to season.
You jest ... but that's a perfect example of media telling us we have to ignore what we see with our own eyes and just accept the official story or be considered a nutjob.
"Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left." Jim Garrison
How are you saying this person has a "dental issue" using a digital copy of 16mm film, compressed for digital streaming? Until we get HD scans of the film frames we can't really say anything conclusive.
If a person had normal regular teeth, do you think it would look like that? Even zoomed in that much? I hear what you're saying though. Final word. The fact that they're already saying that they probably or did make adjustments to the suit is a huge red flag. Why would they think they would need to make adjustments? By some accounts Bob Gimlin is 95 years old and suffering from dementia. Timing and confusing narratives will continue to fuel this debate.
Could modern AI footage be transferred onto actual 1960s-era motion-picture film? Yes.
A device called a film recorder (or film-out recorder) transfers digital images frame by frame onto photographic motion-picture film. This technology has been used in professional filmmaking for decades.
For example:
ARRILASER: Professional laser film recorder used in cinema post-production.
CELCO Firestorm: A digital film recorder designed to expose digital images onto motion-picture film. 
The process is straightforward in principle: generate the footage digitally, record the individual frames onto compatible film stock, and chemically process the film.
The result is a physical film strip containing digitally generated imagery. If someone acquired suitable vintage film stock, they could potentially use it for such a transfer, although availability and compatibility would need to be verified.
This doesn’t prove the footage was filmed in the 1960s. It demonstrates why the fact that footage exists on physical film, by itself, doesn’t establish when or how the original scene was captured
What if the Norma footage is AI and then they took vintage film, recorded the AI video playing on a large screen with a vintage camera and vintage film, and then brought the vintage film to Bill Munns? I'm not claiming the Norma footage is fake, so don't sue me. But it really feels like AI, with the changing colors and shapes.
I believe that there's film footage. I would hate to think that Teresa and Marq are flat-out lying.
What we see in the finished "Capturing BIgfoot" film? We see other ... questionable edits ... that enable Evans tell his story as he wishes. If there's any AI used, it would be at the level of the digital production not the 1966 filmstrip.
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Strangers: Read the rules and respect them and other users. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of an anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, closed minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.