hiflier

Question Regarding Hoaxes

184 posts in this topic

I scratched the surface of this on another thread but I would like to get some additional opinions from a wider group of Forum members. I am also hoping the Mods and Admin will let this run for a while before moving it elsewhere.

The question revolves around the Patterson Gimlin Film shot in October of 1967 of what looks like a real Sasquatch. An apparent female from the looks of things but there has been much debated over the years about whether it's a hoax or not.

After the short film was finished Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went back to their camp to procure casting material in order to make casts of the footprints. Now understand this is on top of an already remarkable film- real or not. So the question is this:

With film footage of a supposed female Sasquatch already taken what would be the point of returning to camp, picking up casting material, and going back out to the creek bed to make footprint casts. Now granted they didn't know if the film actually recorded the creature we call "Patty" so was the footprint casting a back up measure? Or if they knew the filming was successful then why do the foot castings? After all if the film was for the purposes of hoaxing an it didn't turn out then they could have simply set up another attempt and filmed again and again until they got it right.

So. Since the filming was right it should have been enough in and of itself to pull off a hoax. Why go to the extra trouble of getting on horses, riding back to camp and then returning on horses to make molds? Now that that's said we see a lot of what are called CGI video hoaxing but rarely if ever does the film crew talk about or show that casts of footprints were also made or a follow up of a trackway recorded. Plenty of furry, blurry blobsquatches though. Some are even pretty clear and obviously hoaxed.

The PGF was reasonably clear as well but the effort was made to still get film footage of the trackway and footprint casts. Was that extra effort necessary to pull off what some say is a video of a Human in a suit? If it WAS a Human in a suit then I can't see where any effort to make footprint molds would have or should have even entered the minds of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Additional foot casts simply are not needed to pull off a hoax. Filming a guy in a suit yes; track casts no.

Has anyone thought about this aspect of the case for or against the reality what is or is not on the Patterson Gimlin Film? My opinion is that the extra effort at getting follow up footprint casts says a lot about it. In truth they didn't need them to have a hoax in that day and age be a success.

Thoughts? Opinions? This thread may not last in the General Forum so fire you shots over the bow while you can :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Showman: noun: A theatrical producer. A man who has a flair for dramatic or ostentatious behaviour.

 

Showmanship: noun: the ability to present something (especially theatrical shows) in an attractive manner.

 

[btw the ape canyon photo was staged in a neighbour's backyard]

post-18602-0-71487600-1463830074_thumb.j

post-18602-0-93309200-1463830390_thumb.j

post-18602-0-78378300-1463830405.jpg

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think RP looked at track casts as supporting evidence that they filmed a real Sasquatch. Roger and Bob G. could see that they themselves left little impression on the ground around the figure's tracks while the tracks left by the figure were much, much deeper. I think I've read the tracks were from 1 & 1/4 in. to 1& 1/2 inches in depth. 

One way to look at the casts; if the tracks were faked, would RP still cast them? I highly doubt Roger and Bob G. had the in depth knowledge of the characteristics of a Sasquatch footprint.

If Roger was making a hoax film, he could just as easily have gone to a location where the ground wouldn't show any tracks. That way he wouldn't have any casts that could potentially undermine the film.

 

To summarize; the casts were supporting evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. McSquatch? I really cannot see that you directly addressed the issue. You're all around it with some obvious effort involved but this is more of a pointed question so pointed answers would be expected. Besides this isn't going to turn in to an existence debate just so everyone knows. It's only for discussion the action of whether of not Roger and Bob needed to go through the trouble they took to get the follow up prints when video of a man in a good suit would have been more than adequate for a hoax.

And again I say this because I haven't seen any one else or another team go to this length to hoax the public where video of a guy/gal in a suit AND prints were used to try and fool the public. BTW, which Ape Canyon photo was staged and do you know that it's a strawman argument anyway right out of the gate? In other words I'm having difficulty relating it to the PGF.

(HINT: I'm probably not the only one)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OKF, supporting evidence I understand so that isn't the point either. The issue is I have a question about the whole idea of if this was hoaxed then set up the tripod, toss the guy in a suit, shoot the "creature", maybe even with several takes, and then go hoax the public. You don't need footprint casts for that. The film STILL is strongly debated on both sides with findings that have yet to win one side over to the other.

If it was a hoax the footprint casts and the efforts made to produce them was unnecessary in order to pull off the stunt. There could have been TEN films done but there wasn't. There was only ONE and a lot of work to produce it. I think many can agree that the film itself would have been more than sufficient to pull off a hoax. So then if that was the intent why go to the trouble of going to camp and returning to the site? Just get in the truck and go to the developer with ten reels and pick the most convincing one and call it good. IMO that's what a normal hoaxer would do and IS doing today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Track footage.....Not someone in a suit making them? This is regarding a video of a supposed female Sasquatch and why Patterson and Gimlin, even though thy hoaxed the whole thing, or even if they didn't, went to the trouble to do a round trip on horseback just to cast prints instead of just riding off into the sunset with a bunch of reels under their arms. This isn't a hard question to understand is it because it's sure looking like a hard one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you watched the film? Freeman finds tracks, follows them, casts them and then films a sasquatch. Same thing - reverse order. Why go to the trouble as you said.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the same thing. I contend that if he filmed the Sasquatch first as a hoax then casting any tracks or filming a trackway probably wouldn't be part of the hoax. The dynamic of having things in the reverse order is an important thing to consider here. If Freeman's intention was to hoax a video? Then do bunch of takes of a guy in a suit and move onto to developing.

I understand what you are saying but this is all about hoaxing by putting a guy in a suit and filming him. If hoaxing was the intent behind the PGF then only that film would be all that would have been needed. That's what this thread is about. So are you suggesting that Freeman filmed a trackway, cast the prints, and then said "Hey, I've got a great idea, let's put a guy in a suit and film him too. But first lets ride our horses back to camp and then ride back out again to do it. That way it will seem more authentic to the gullible public"?

That's the scenario for the PGF. Of course there are no timestamps on the videos like today so both parties may have fudged the order of things. In which case we take them at their word or not. No one has suggested that Roger and Bob did anything in an order other than what Roger and Bob said regarding the order in which the films were made. So I'm saying if you've got the video of the guy in the suit...uh...even though it was a female suit LOL...then casting prints was moot and to even think of doing it after the fact for the sake of a hoax, knowing the effort involved, they would've just run with what they had staged and called it good.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only point was that the PGF is not unique as far as a filmmaker supplying corroborating evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again I understand your point and thank you for it. So may I respectfully ask you a hypothetical question as a fellow member? If you were seriously going to get on a couple of horses for a couple of weeks, took a rifle, a man with a camcorder, and a person in a suit that you had custom made just for the "project" for the express purpose of pulling a fast one on the public would you then say after the fact, "Danged, we forgot the casting material"? Or would even think it was necessary ride back to camp and then back out to the site just to make casts of faked prints. Especially since the film and maybe several retakes was already in the can.

After two or three weeks on horseback just to do this would casting prints be deemed not worth the trouble for the hoax to be successful- in 1967? Everyone is different of course and some may say yes but in all honesty for sake of a hoax would anyone put themselves through all that? Do you think after watching the film that the film itself need no additional "facts" to make the "creature" convincing to the public? I realize this goes to the heart of the events in October of 1967, hoax or not, and is a fine point not easy to determine so it simply comes down to weighing personal opinion on what one would think is adequate material for staging a hoax. I'm saying the film without the follow up effort of casting prints would be all most folks would manufacture after such a lengthy "expedition".

Just trying to use a little common sense in what a hoaxer would see as practical and enough to succeed in the ruse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been said that the tracks at the scene were deep. Deeper than what Bob and Roger could manage to duplicate which is something that would've been obvious at the time.Might that have been a good enough reason for them to risk the turnaround to camp and back for the purpose of casting them? I say no if it was a hoax. Faking the "suit" in the video by going deep into the habitat and setting up the shot(s) in and of itself would take a lot of time, planning and effort to create the suit, rent the camera, get on the horses, get out to the location, choreograph the action, shoot the film, and then just leave to develop the footage.

It's the whole turnaround to camp to for the express purpose of casting prints that raises the flag. One would think that all the work and planning would have included having the items for making casts packed on the horses. If one is going to be that thorough in pulling off a hoax then details are important. All the other details were planned, created, and worked out so why fall down on the casting end of things? What? Someone forgot to load the casting materials? Make the deep footprints and then say, "Oops!"? Surely someone has brought out this odd situation before? If not then folks you have it to mull over now thanks to.....well you know ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite frankly casting for me is an afterthought.     I lost my first footprint 30 minutes after I found it because I did not have the casting materials with me.    They were 1/2 mile away in my truck.    A group of 4 humans and two large dogs came along after I had taken a video of the footprint and wandered up trail looking for a better print in the mud.     I had no idea humans would be coming down off the mountain that early and the footprints were about to be obliterated.  That experience for me just showed how temporary footprints can be, and documentation better be thorough and quick.    I did not even get a still picture of the footprint.   In their case they had just had a close encounter filming of an 8 foot BF.    It  would take them a while to get their wits together and think about casting.   In their mind it was probably just supporting evidence for their film.  

 

In your OP I thought you were going to get into if Patty looks like BF other people have seen.    There seems to be some differences, especially regionally, as to what BF look like.   Certainly a mature possibly overweight female might look somewhat different than a younger fit male.   The problem being that now Pattys appearance is so ingrained into our idea of what a BF looks like that something that looks different probably looks suspicious or strange.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casting tracks was a natural thing to do hoax or not.  They brought plaster which implies the intent to cast if needed.  Having the casts has worked in favor of the film all these years it's the perfect show and tell.  Patterson took his bent stirrup around too, another show and tell.  

 

I've said many times already that the PGF is a dead end in that it didn't lead to future possibly real films or capture.  The vacuum of credible bigfoot evidence along with the preponderance of hoaxing is about as damning to the PGF as it could be.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good post SWWA. Yes, Patty has become the sort of iconic image of what folks think a typical Sasquatch looks like. For All I know it is more typical of a look that not. As far as the casting of prints I gather there was a risk of rain and possible flooding of the creek itself at the time. But in a hoax that to me wouldn't be an issue. Simply wait out the rain and go make fresh tracks to cast and film....or not bother and just go with the film and all the logistics and expense it took to create it.

I know this may not seem to be a large sticking point but it really is a large sticking point or the thought would have never entered my mind and so I wouldn't have bothered with it. Details matter and this is one of them. Why cast imprints when you already have the beast on film. Much less go to all the trouble to retrieve casting material- on horseback- after all the trouble one has gone to even create the film in the first place. It doesn't make much sense if all the PRE-casting efforts had already been worked out and implemented to the point of having a guy filmed in a suit in out in the wild faking a female Sasquatch. And that's the rub....construct and fake the creature, film it, then split and get rich.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites