New Film Shown at South by South West "Capturing Bigfoot"

[Huntster]

11 hours ago, Backdoc said:

..........Some skeptics are hoping it is a smoking gun............

 

I'm confident it is and that those skeptics have another hole in their feet.

[Backdoc]

45 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I'm confident it is and that those skeptics have another hole in their feet.

 

 

 

 

The PGF could be a hoax.  I could accept that conclusion if I had enough proof.

 

I can imagine someone might do a trail run of a hoax.   They might film it and take a look at the results to make sure it is convincing or make corrective actions if it not.  Then later after such a tweaking they either film the hoax or film a few more attempts at prepping until they get it right.  Maybe they have one rehearsal.  Maybe they have 4 or 5.   Some or all might be filmed.   If filmed, the films would have to be developed somewhere.   

 

If I have followed this saga correctly, we are to think the trial run(s) was developed at Boeing aircraft.   <--- This makes little sense.  If we can come up with a reason why this might make sense, we still have to explain why it seems Boeing had no way to develop this.   <--- That is too much of a deal breaker to the buzz of this new film story.  If it could be shown Boeing could develop the film (and I doubt it) it somewhat helps Roger's cause by providing him help on the controversial PGF development timeline. 

 

Now there could be a trial run but they got the development part of the story wrong.  That is, you could have a film where Roger and Al made a pre-PGF hoax attempt(s), but it was developed somewhere other than Boeing.  Those with the Trail Run film assumed it was developed and Boeing. 

 

The PGF may be real or a hoax as far as I am concerned.  Yet, I seriously doubt 1) any film was able to be developed at Boeing.  2) The hoaxers would be so incompetent to film their effort to commit some fraud/ hoax and leave the major smoking gun evidence around to be discovered.  They would destroy any film like that.  They certainly are not going to film themselves planning on committing the crime and then suddenly forget to get rid of the evidence.  

 

I will await the see this film for myself to reserve any final judgment, but I want to see the entire work product- not some edited portions offered.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, Backdoc said:

The PGF could be a hoax.  I could accept that conclusion if I had enough proof............

 

(I did not downvote you.........)

 

We're over half a century into this game. The Full Monte. We've seen how desperately some want to make it a hoax (although I cannot understand the desperation). That written, after all this time, analysis, and opinion, I've come to the conclusion. that the film is of a sasquatch. Of course, that's an "opinion" or a "belief", so has no scientific credibility..........but, then, I've gone on the record for years now here and elsewhere with my "opinion" that Science has lost much of its credibility................and that isn't just this silly issue. It now runs a large gamut.

 

Quote

..........I can imagine someone might do a trail run of a hoax. 

 

There was no secret about the fact that Patterson was trying to create a Bigfoot documentary, of which today we have way, way, way, way too many available to watch. All a devoted skeptic has to do is to transform his silly documentary into a "trial run".

 

Sorry. I'm pretty cynical about just about everything now. I really need to die and move on. I don't belong on this planet.

 

[Backdoc]

( some people are touchy these days )

 

I mention having enough “proof of a hoax” but that’s specifically in relation to this Trial Run hyped film on this thread.  If this film somehow was Iron Clad ( and I mean iron clad) proof of a hoax then I would accept that.   I want to believe I will give the film a fair chance.   If I was honest though, I’m already very unlikely to be actually neutral about it.   I’ve predetermined this video will be a nothing burger. 

I agree with you the “Patterson documentary” is the most likely explanation of this hyped film.   

 

(I share your cynical feeling.  I imagine the planet is a better place with you). 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

( some people are touchy these days ).........

 

(I did upvote you, and yes, I might be a bit touchy...........it has been a horrible winter, and I'm still waiting for spring up here in the sub-arctic)

[idlehour30]

I'm already sick of this film, and I've never even seen it.  It's somewhat fascinating though. Just pops out of nowhere with zero context. Nobody saw the Norm Johnson angle coming.

 

If, as described, this newly discovered footage is taken in late '66 or early '67, at a completely different location, different season, different environmental conditions, different lighting, different subject, different actor, different camera angle, different subject behaviour, different filming style - then what the heck is he supposed to be testing, exactly - that he can successfully film someone walking in the woods?

 

1) We're told by Munns and others that there are specific Patty-esque movements on the found footage. That means they have the exact intricate movements planned many months before, then they wait, and wait - for many months. Given that he took a loan to finish his doc that was due for repayment in early June 67, they apparently had the suit and the camera and everything rehearsed down to the movements way before then - and they wait for something? Until late October, 500 miles away when they've already tested what it looks like, filmed relatively speaking on their doorstep, presumably in Bigfoot HQ in Washington, judging by what is described. 

 

2) I think the earliest we have a record of a K100 and Kodachrome II in Patterson's hands is May 13th 1967. That's not to say he couldn't have had another sometime earlier, just that there is no record or other footage known to have been filmed on a K100 prior to May, as far as I know.

 

3) If, as the Director asserts, it is Al DeAtley in the suit based on his movements, then they have the suit and the actor. It may have been made to measure for Al, as Bob H certainly does not mention being measured up. Why would you want to risk exposing your hoax by dragging some car crash like Bob Heironimus into the inner circle, if you already had someone? That makes no sense from a risk perspective. 

 

4) They have specific movements of the actor all planned and rehearsed in late 66/early 67, then in August they put Bob H in the suit and let him "walk up and down 3 times" in Patterson's back yard (from Long's interview). They never train him on specific movements or show him the film they shot. Then magically, the next time Bob H meets them in October, he dons the suit and out come all the specific moves again that he's never been coached how to do. Doesn't make sense.

 

5) Where are the other takes? They do one take for 40 seconds almost a year earlier, and then.....? 

 

6) They film a rehearsal of a hoax. They then either don't bother to take possession of the developed film, or they let Norm Johnson keep the original, while he palms them off with A COPY. A copy that could be a smoking gun for their hoax, because they can tell it's not the original from the copy markings? Also - zero sense. If Norm is pulling a fast one, then why keep the original? Just give the original back, as they have no way of knowing the original has been copied.

 

7) Norm Johnson's wife is so worried about him being implicated in a hoax, she requests that he 'put the film away' in a safe. If you are that worried, you would just destroy it.

 

To me, many of the above points don't make any sense if the footage was a rehearsal, but they make much more sense if it was a recreation.