PG Film Hoax? Bill Munns on Capturing Bigfoot

Comments · 1.6K

• OZ

  @OZIASstoryteller · 6 months ago

  Hey, I just wanted to drop in and say, the Thumbnail you made for this video is crazy good!  I hope to watch the video later. But I just had to respect this Thumbnail.  Very well designed.

  4

• BA

  @bassmike6216 · 6 months ago

  Very interesting interview.  So it comes down to establishing without a doubt the actual filming date of the newly found "rehearsal" film ?

• MY

  @MysteriousBlue7 · 3 weeks ago

  One of the things Bill claimed was that it has to be a recreation because in this new film the Bigfoot is doing the exact same movements, the look back etc.  Bill doesn’t even consider for a second that it’s the same, because the entire Patterson film was planned and staged. Roger had the whole storyboard worked out, the walk, the look back, the foot rising.  Bill can’t seem to grasp that a rehearsal means just that, they rehearsed something that was planned. In his backwards mind he thinks it means someone was copying the PGF.

  10

• CH

  @chrisgullett4332 · 5 months ago

  I think it is easily explained. I have heard more than once that Patterson had sold the rights to a magazine to show the pictures exclusively in the US for a certain period. Which is why he kept having to go to foreign companies like the BBC to play the video outside of the US. They said he went on a tour showing the video, but had to make a copy because he was not allowed to play the actual video for a certain period in the US. I am guessing the new video is the video Patterson toured the US with. He could show the video outside the US, but not in the US. This is actually common, and the biggest example of this is the Zaprider Film. They sold the rights to Time Magazine for a period of time, which is why the Film was not released till the late 70s. Nonetheless, I am guessing the video is the video Patterson made that he could tour with. Patterson would go around playing the video at theaters and give speeches, then he sold the rights to an old magazine company to publish the pictures first, and have exclusive rights to show it in the US for whatever period they agreed to. I have literally even seen Gimlin talk about this. How he never made any money, and Patterson sold the rights in the US, never gave him a cut, and made a reanactment to play on tour.

  1

• DY

  @DystopianBritain · 5 months ago

  Why can&apos;t people just see that it&apos;s a guy in a suit??!! <br>It&apos;s so obviously A HOAX!

  12

• LE

  @leilamcmichael5147 · 6 months ago

  Thank you Bill Munns, and thank you Brian King-Sharp for bringing this to us! Explains a lot and I&apos;m grateful for the level-headed discussion. God bless you both!

• DS

  @dsbmitchell · 6 months ago (edited)

  One of the most level headed discussions I’ve seen of the new documentary yet. Thank you both 🙏🏾

  72

• JA

  @JadeLanay · 6 months ago

  Why would he burn the so called patty suit, to make sure nobody can debunk it, yet leave a damning film that would destroy the credibility? That makes zero sense!!!

  125

• TS

  @tsmith3286 · 6 months ago

  I have a question. In the preview clip of Capturing Bigfoot there looks to be 2 frames that are not the original Patty film. Are these 2 frames from the 1966 film ?

  4

• CR

  @crd4243 · 6 months ago

  How do we know that the content of the film reel is what the documentary portrays it to be? Has the film been shown, for unbiased review, through a film projector ?

  2

• WI

  @williamkilber8853 · 6 months ago

  <b>I&apos;m intrigued.</b> 🤔

  7

• SA

  @sasysquatchgirl · 6 months ago

  Interesting show, thank you

  9