Paranormal News This Week: Bigfoot Footage, Juárez Creature Claims and Nahual Reports
The KASE Weekly | 21 October 2026
Bigfoot has had a very bad week for keeping a low profile. A new scan puts the most famous Sasquatch footage back under scrutiny, while a documentary argues that the creature was a costume. In Mexico, a supposed chicken-stealing humanoid and a separate report of unexplained sheep deaths have people wondering what is getting into their livestock.
Three creature stories, then, but very different things to examine: a film we can look at, a claim being passed on by an investigator, and animals whose deaths need explaining.
Fur or fraud? Bigfoot footage gets a fresh examination
The familiar figure turning towards the camera at Bluff Creek is back, this time in a newly released 4K scan. The Patterson–Gimlin film was recorded in Northern California in 1967. The new scan offers another chance to examine a film that has divided viewers for nearly sixty years.
On 16 October, BroadwayWorld reported the release of the scan, made for Marq Evans's documentary Capturing Bigfoot. The filmmakers say the material came directly from the Patterson family collection and will replace the older VHS transfer used for licensing.
The team's own announcement says no AI or other enhancement has been applied. It also includes a detail worth reading before judging the creature's walk: the scan plays at 24 frames per second, while Patterson's camera speed was never confirmed and is usually estimated at 16 or 18.
That difference matters. If film recorded at 16 frames per second is played straight through at 24, the movement runs one-and-a-half times as fast. A viewer trying to decide whether the walk looks natural needs to know which speed they are watching.
The documentary's distributor lists its digital release as 20 October. Its case centres on another reel found in a safe, with testimony from people connected to the original film. The earlier footage and the filmmakers' hoax argument have been discussed since the documentary's festival premiere; they were not discovered this week.
The KASE take
A better scan is useful because it gives people a clearer source to inspect. It cannot, by itself, tell us who or what was in front of the camera. Nor does the word “official” mean that anyone has officially authenticated a Sasquatch.
The hoax argument deserves a fair hearing. So do questions about the other reel's date, history and relationship to the famous recording. Those are things that can be investigated, rather than settled by another round of “look at the way it walks”.
There is a commercial interest here: the scan accompanies a documentary release. That does not make it worthless, but we should distinguish the material being shared from the conclusions being sold with it. Bigfoot can withstand a closer look. Any proposed explanation should be able to as well.
A chicken thief with a very unusual description
Mexican UFO investigator Jaime Maussan says a small, hairless humanoid is taking chickens in the Juárez Valley. In a 12 October interview, he described an agile creature that walks on two legs. He did not claim to have established that it was extraterrestrial.
Daniel Borunda's 15 October report for the El Paso Times followed up the story with official checks. Maussan had relayed an account of a child seeing the creature take a chicken and climb a tree. The alleged witnesses and precise locations were not identified in the report.
Juárez Civil Protection said it had received no abnormal reports. Across the border, a spokesperson for the El Paso County Sheriff's Office told Borunda that the relevant patrol station had received no reports of strange creatures or unusual livestock deaths.
The KASE take
Those replies do not disprove an encounter in Mexico, particularly when one concerns a patrol district in Texas. They do leave a sizeable gap between the dramatic description and anything an outsider can check.
We would start with the people who lost the chickens. What did they see themselves, what did somebody else tell them, and were there tracks or injuries that might identify an ordinary predator? Several people repeating one account would still be one account.
There may be a worthwhile encounter to investigate. At present, we have Maussan's description of other people's experiences, rather than enough detail to identify a creature. The chickens deserve a suspect with a little more substance.
Sheep deaths prompt claims of a “nahual”
A separate case in Puebla has drawn a different supernatural explanation. Residents of San Mateo Tlacoxcalco have linked sheep found dead inside a corral to a nahual, a figure associated with transformation in Mexican folklore.
El Popular's Isaac Garrido reported on 15 October that a livestock owner heard a disturbance around 1am and sought help after her dogs began barking. Neighbours found dead sheep and called community guards. Witnesses described injuries around the animals' chests and said the enclosure was fenced.
Municipios Puebla's account, also published on 15 October, put the loss at roughly ten sheep and said the cause had not been publicly established. The two reports give different numbers for the animals lost. Neither local account supplies a veterinary finding identifying what killed them.
The KASE take
For the owners, this is a distressing loss, not simply an intriguing monster story. Establishing what happened matters because it could help protect the remaining animals.
A fence makes access harder; it does not make access impossible. We would want the enclosure examined for gaps, tracks and other signs of entry, alongside a veterinary examination of the animals. An attack by ordinary animals, disease or another cause needs proper consideration before a supernatural explanation can carry much weight.
The local reports describe residents' suspicions, not a sighting of a shape-shifting creature. We have also found no evidence connecting these deaths to the Juárez claims. Similar headlines do not make two distant cases one mystery.
What would change your mind?
The most useful development this week is something readers can actually inspect: a clearer version of a much-disputed film, with information about how it is being presented. The two Mexican cases need more basic groundwork, including direct witness accounts and examination of the animals and locations.
Being open to the paranormal should include being willing to find an ordinary answer. It should also include checking a confident debunking rather than accepting it because the headline sounds decisive.
When you look at the new Patterson–Gimlin scan, does it change your view of the footage, or is there something beyond the image itself that you would need to settle it?
The hero is an AI-assisted editorial illustration of the week's themes. It does not show the reported creatures, locations or evidence.
Sources and further reading
Patterson–Gimlin footage
Capturing Bigfoot: official scan announcement. The filmmakers' description of the source material, processing and playback speed.
Rachel Stone, BroadwayWorld, 16 October 2026. The scan release and embedded footage.
XYZ Films: Capturing Bigfoot. The distributor's synopsis and release information.
Johnny Dodd, People, March 2026. Earlier reporting of the director's hoax argument, included as background rather than this week's discovery.
Juárez creature claims
Daniel Borunda, El Paso Times, 15 October 2026, republished by AOL. Maussan's claims and responses from officials on both sides of the border.
Puebla sheep deaths
Isaac Garrido, El Popular, 15 October 2026. Local reporting on the discovery and residents' interpretation.
Municipios Puebla, 15 October 2026. A second local account; the cause of death remains unresolved in the published report.