Capturing Bigfoot’s ‘Rehearsal’ Footage: What the Director Claims—and What Remains Unverified

Featured image: editorial illustration of a general Bigfoot investigation. It is not a frame from either film discussed below.

A second reel of Bigfoot footage is giving an old argument a new focal point: was the famous Patterson–Gimlin film a staged performance? The documentary Capturing Bigfoot presents newly surfaced material as a challenge to the celebrated 1967 recording. The useful question is how firmly the new reel can be connected to the old one—not simply whether two walking figures look alike.

Paranormal Warehouse’s October 26 Facebook comparison introduced that debate. Here, we trace the filmmaker’s account to its source and separate his interpretation from what this review can independently establish.

Why the documentary is back in the conversation

Distributor XYZ Films lists an October 20 release on Amazon Prime, while the production’s screening page confirms availability in the United States and Canada. Its October 2026 release gives viewers a new opportunity to assess a film built around the people behind the original footage.

XYZ identifies Marq Evans as director and lists participants including Roger Patterson’s son Clint, Bob Gimlin, Bob Heironimus and film researcher Bill Munns. The distributor places the original recording on October 20, 1967, in Northern California. Those credits and release details establish the production’s identity; promotional claims about solving the mystery are not independent authentication.

Where the second reel came from

In an October 2 interview with Kitsap Smokestack, Evans said Teresa Brooks contacted him in June 2022 about a 16mm film kept in her father’s safe. She initially thought it might be the famous Patterson footage. Evans arranged a 4K scan and discovered that it was a different recording.

Evans described similarities in the figure’s movement, the camera becoming steadier, and the moment the subject looks toward it. He interprets the material as earlier footage linked to the famous film. He also offered a specific theory: the costume was modified and the performer changed.

That is a firsthand account of how Evans encountered and interpreted the reel. It is not independent confirmation that the same costume appears in both recordings, or that the second reel was a rehearsal. His own interview distinguishes what he observed from what he thinks happened.

What a comparison can—and cannot—settle

Visual resemblance can identify a question worth investigating. It cannot, on its own, establish the filming date, the identity of a performer, or a chain of custody. A convincing rehearsal argument needs those connections as well as a similar pose.

A useful comparison would preserve full sequences, disclose playback speeds and distinguish original frames from enlarged or stabilized versions. Cropping can remove surroundings needed to judge scale. Different camera positions can change apparent body proportions. A selected backward glance may look persuasive while leaving the surrounding movement unexplored.

The film’s physical history matters just as much. Who held the reel, when it changed hands, and what documentation accompanies it are separate questions from whether its subject looks convincing. Even a film-stock manufacturing date would need to be distinguished from the date the camera exposed that stock.

Where the evidence stands

We verified the release information and Evans’s published account. We have not independently inspected the physical reel, authenticated its filming date, or reviewed the complete documentary for this article. The strongest defensible conclusion here is that Capturing Bigfoot presents a specific staging allegation that deserves examination against the underlying material.

That leaves room to scrutinize a famous piece of alleged evidence without treating an edited comparison as a final verdict. And whatever the outcome for this particular film, its authenticity and the broader question of Bigfoot’s existence remain separate claims requiring their own evidence.

Keep investigating: Explore more footage, witness reports and disputed sightings in our Bigfoot & Cryptids archive.