Bugs Finds Bigfoot 👣🪶

BIGFOOT: GUARDIAN OF THE WILD! I explore Bigfoot with a no-kill ethos—treating them with respect as sacred entities tied to UFOs & cryptids like Mothman. What’s their cosmic role? Share your thoughts! Follow for mystical insights & vibes. #Bigfoot #UFO #Cryptids Who’s in? 🙌

@wired4wonder Very cool! Funny, clever, and just look at that attitude 😀

@Bugimus Missed this yesterday. Here is mine:

Happy Thunderfoot Thursday—Whoop whoop!!!🦶🎨 Today I want to thank Roger , Bob, and Patty for making the PGF possible!!! Drop your favorite Bigfoot art below 👇 Sketches, AI generated, painted…you name it, we want to see it! 👣😃🪶 #Bigfoot #Thunderfoot #Sasquatch

@Ashum_defi @TheZignal

@Bugimus @TheZignal Shes real. Read bill munns book.

Anyone else following this saga?? I want to see the footage before judging, but I can’t help but wonder: what would happen in ufo world if something this fundamental was proven fake?

@TalosDreams Yeah, okay 😂 😃

@Bugimus I captured this photo a long time ago. Contrary to popular believe, Bigfoot is only about 4 ft tall but has huge feet.

Hmm 😒 🤔?¿

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I genuinely appreciate it and understand it. I also think there is some truth to it because we do have that part of us that loves mystery and possibilities. In the case of Bigfoot, however, they are a real flesh & blood species and then some. I don’t tell you this as a proof or something you must accept. I am only stating it as something I know to be true based on experience. BTW, I’ve been meaning to reply to you on those other posts. I will,have time in the morning. Cheers.

@Bugimus My take:

@OrwellRabbit @SasquatchWhsper Yes, keep us in the loop.

@SasquatchWhsper @Bugimus let me know when he speaks

Munns’ Take: Why the ‘Capturing Bigfoot’ ‘Rehearsal’ Clip Had to Be Shot AFTER the Famous PGF Episode 7 “Bigfoot: Costume or Creature” of the “Dave Wants to Know” podcast with David Wylie dropped right after the Capturing Bigfoot SXSW premiere. In it, Hollywood special-effects veteran Bill Munns (author of When Roger Met Patty and the detailed Munns Report on the Patterson-Gimlin Film) directly addresses the new “rehearsal/test” footage that the documentary presents as proof the PGF was a premeditated 1967 hoax. It’s a fantastic interview if you’re unfamiliar with Munns’ contributions to the Bigfoot community over the years because it covers his expertise in costume special effects and camera technology in the late 60s, and his decades long analyses of the PGF. The latter portion focuses on his direct reaction to the Capturing Bigfoot documentary, but it’s crucial to understand that he maintains—with 100% certainty—that the actual PGF (“Patty”) is 100% biological and impossible to fake with 1967 costume technology, i.e. smooth neck rotation, muscle rippling, breast motion, arm/leg ratios, gait, etc. He rejects the documentary’s framing entirely. He argues the ~40-second 16mm clip, which shows a slimmer Bigfoot-suited figure walking into woods, raising a foot to display the sole, with a horseback rider carrying a rifle mimicking Bob Gimlin, is not a pre-PGF “dress rehearsal” staged by Roger Patterson. Instead, it is a post-PGF replication created by Al DeAtley, Patterson’s brother-in-law who was closely involved in handling and promoting the original film. Key quotes/points: “I’m pretty sure Al did this. And the way it turned up is really bizarre. Um, it turned up in the hands of someone whose father worked at Boeing Aircraft in Washington.” He describes the clip as someone “made an effort to replicate it [the PGF] as perfectly as possible” after the fact — including Patty’s exact gait, foot details, and scene elements — “so he could look at that film and see for himself. If I fake it, can I look at it and tell it’s a fake?” Munns allows that Roger might have filmed a separate, earlier ape-suit test involving Bob Heironimus and suit-maker Philip Morris (“It isn’t the PGF”), but insists the footage in Capturing Bigfoot is a later verification copy, not planning material. “He’s going to go around the country with Roger showing this film telling people it’s real. If it then proves to be a fake, he’s committed fraud. And I think Al wanted to protect himself. So he found somebody to make a costume similar to Patty… and shot a perfect replica… so he could look at that film and see for himself. If I fake it, can I look at it and tell it’s a fake? … And after seeing it, which obviously it is a fake, then you can look at Roger’s footage and say, ‘Yeah, Roger’s is real. This is fake and Roger’s is real.’” Director Marq Evans and his sources say the Kodak reel dates to 1966 via edge markings/codes and expert analysis. It was supposedly shot ~1 year before Bluff Creek as a “trial run” by Patterson filming his brother-in-law in a prototype suit at a similar wooded location. Munns says this is a logical impossibility since the test clip replicates exact PGF elements (specific walk, foot sole display, rider positioning) that only existed after the October 20, 1967 filming and development. You can’t perfectly copy something that hasn’t been shot yet. This makes the “rehearsal” timeline circular and untenable. Munns’ theory is a coherent, expert-driven rebuttal that directly undercuts the documentary’s timeline by emphasizing that perfect replication requires the original to already exist. Film stock dating alone is not conclusive (old stock was common), and the gait/foot details he highlights provide strong circumstantial support for “after.” We need independent forensic re-analysis of the actual reel. The key debate is now: “Does the content prove it’s a copy (Munns) or does the stock prove it’s prep (Evans)?”

@AdamKolkowski Nice 👍

@Bugimus Left: Bigfoot Emerging from forest (notice deer head on the guitar. Right: DJ Biggie at a Festival

@TheUfoJoe If I thought people like that had even an ounce of the courage of just one of these whistleblowers, then I*might* give them a pass.

We've been told by multiple witnesses (Dylan, Matt, Grusch, etc.) that various people in various agencies are totally fucking over UAP whistleblowers who have come forward publicly, and behind the scenes. And crimes have allegedly been committed against said whistleblowers. And yet, Astral chooses to go after Dylan, who's the only one who came forward w/o going through DOPSR first. Think about that. Whatever evidence these guys do or don't release, classified or not, is up to them. But if you're thinking any of them have a piece of a craft or amazing video they snuck out, you should lower your expectations.

@TheLimpingMerc @RedChr1stopher Haha! So if I'm ever in the mood for hoaxing a Bigfoot encounter I should look you up 😜😂

@Bugimus @RedChr1stopher Sh says the full face/head one with the black background reminds her of me🤣 But it really captures ‘life’ in it very well.

@johnturley7 Precious!

@Bugimus My granddaughter drew me this 11 years ago. It is above my computer at work

@Senompatch @IBPIR24 Oh definitely 😁

@Bugimus @IBPIR24 clearly a dogman

So this is the latest sighting of Bigfoot, however, I am not convinced. Thoughts?

@mattbarberio It's very likely a factor. How much is hard to say though because it's hard to truly know someone's motivations.

@Bugimus His son being estranged should call his entire testimony into question. If you're estranged from someone, there's bad blood. Bad blood often causes people to lie about who they're mad at, especially when it could do something like we see here.

Science vs. Story: Why Capturing Bigfoot May Not Close the PGF Case Hairy Man Road’s “I Saw the Footage…It’s A Hoax” was the first review I watched after the documentary “Capturing Bigfoot” premiered at SXSW. I had read summaries from other reviews that clearly stated the suit in the new footage did NOT match the PGF suit, but came close. So I was surprised by the Hairy Man Road review claiming it was a 100% match. After watching the full review, it became clear that Eric bought the documentary’s narrative hook, line, and sinker. But if the suit/gait/staging was a 100% match, then why didn’t any other reviews—or the director himself—mention it? I have yet to see the footage and will certainly reserve full judgment until I do, but in the meantime I must point out that Bill Munns has done more detailed analysis on “Patty” than anyone else. He adamantly maintains that the new footage is clearly a fake and that the PGF footage shows 100% a real biological creature. I acknowledge that Capturing Bigfoot brings strong corroborative evidence to support the PGF hoax theory, but in a lot of ways, we’re left with the same old debate. We’re faced with two competing theories bolstered by two separate paths of evidence—hoax supporters lean on people/lives/context-based arguments, and Patty supporters lean on science/forensic arguments. One of these categories is “good” evidence and the other is “not as good.” I’ll leave it to you to decide which is which. People/lives/context: Testimonies, motives, confessions, family drama, financials, and the 1966 clip (as proof of practice) are circumstantial and subjective. They rely on human reliability—witnesses can lie, misremember, have agendas, or be influenced by money/family pressure. The 1966 footage shows premeditation but (per most reviews) a cheaper/skinnier figure—not resolving how it evolves into Patty’s alleged realism. Science/forensics: Munns’ costume and camera expertise and Meldrum’s anatomical analysis are frame-by-frame, measurable, replicable in principle—focusing on what the 1967 footage objectively shows (muscle flow, gait biomechanics, proportions, lack of suit artifacts, mid-foot flexibility, etc.). These stand independently from who Patterson was, what his life story was, or what people later said. No replication using only 1967 tech has matched it, and the doc doesn’t attempt one or counter Munns point-by-point. Clearly, Eric prioritizes the people/lives/context category—once you have strong proof of hoax planning + direct admissions, the “how did they make it look that good?” becomes a secondary puzzle, not a deal-breaker. But the documentary doesn’t bridge the gap technically—it leans on narrative/emotion (Clint’s estrangement, Patricia’s “nest egg,” Al DeAtley’s villainous portrayal, Gimlin’s blocked confession attempt) to make the hoax feel inevitable. That’s why it converts viewers like Eric but leaves forensic-focused people unconvinced. The PGF’s scientific case hasn’t been falsified by this doc; it’s been contextualized around it. If more people (like Eric) accept the story over the science, it shows how powerful human drama can be—even when the core visual data remains unchallenged. At this point my stance remains unchanged: the PGF stands on its own merits until someone replicates Patty with period tech. Buckle up because we’re witnessing a new chapter in Bigfoot history, and it’s only going to get more contentious from here. #Bigfoot #CapturingBigfoot #PattersonGimlin

@TeaandCryptids @RedChr1stopher It's a beautiful arrangement for sure.

@Bugimus @RedChr1stopher This work by Daniel Eskridge is always a favorite for me. The shoe in the foreground reminds us of our structured society versus the mysterious possibilities of the natural world, represented by a large sasquatch... allowing for an intriguing contrast!

@HideSeekChamp4 Yep! It's one of my favs.

@Bugimus I have that exact art! 😎

@HideSeekChamp4 Totally on topic! My account is good with Bigfoot, UFOs, and all things cryptid 😃

@Bugimus A little off-topic, sorry, but, this movie was filmed in the area where I live! The opening scene of the pickup truck was on a road near my grandparents ranch! I have this poster, too.

@TheLimpingMerc @RedChr1stopher Those are cool!

@Bugimus @RedChr1stopher These are some of my favourites