It's a multi-part podcast, not video. I listened to it while driving, mowing the yard, taking walks, etc. I've listened to a number of paranormal related podcasts, and these guys are easily the most objective hosts I've heard.
Not that what I think either way makes any difference, but after listening to AL's fifteen hours and reading/reviewing a number of the sources cited in their copious show notes, I tend toward skepticism, but just slightly. I approach this the same way any trained investigator would....looking at motive, opportunity, and capacity (to fake the film.) The first two are gimmes, Patterson was a known con man, even Gimlin admits that. Opportunity is equally a given, they were the only two (besides Hieronimus, if you believe his story, and I have trouble doing so) there. It's the capability I have a problem with.
We know Hieronimus claims to have worn the suit, and a NC company (Morris) claims to have made the suit. I listened to/read interviews with costume designers and special effects legends who disagree on whether P&G filmed a man in a suit. Same with kinesiologists and actors who've worn gorilla/monster suits in movies on whether the movements in the film are those of a human. Seemingly equally qualified "experts" disagree, so who to believe?