Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Kerchak

All Done In One Take?

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

One thing that rarely gets mentioned with the Bob Heironimus hoax scenario is the fact that Bob H claims there was only one walk through in the suit. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous claims ever.

Going with the hoax scenario to play Devil's Advocate, would Roger Patterson, building up to his masterpiece hoax, talking the time and effort to make a brilliant suit and then go all the way to Northern California to do it.......just film one walk through with Bob H?

I find this incredible to accept. Anybody who had taken so much time and effort for such a 'hoax' would have undoubtedly filmed a multitude of different shots, distances, angles and scenarios and picked the one that looked best. It's absurd beyond belief that he just filmed Bob H just that one time and one time only. In Northern California he never could have known how good or how bad Bob H in 'the suit' looked on screen until he saw the developed film for himself.

It is mind boggling to accept that Roger only filmed Bob H playing bigfoot in just one take and just one walk through. Yet bizarrely...that is what Bob Heironimus claimed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

Especially in the days when no review of the footage was possible untill developement and with his last minute of film..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Not to mention all the excitement began before they even reviewed the film, they where making calls when it was all happening, thats some good confidence in their single take hoax. Is that how a hoaxer thinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
COGrizzly

Very good point Kerchak!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Particle Noun

Yeah, this is good thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I've been thinking about that a lot. Patterson would've had to be a perfect, lucky, and extremely talented videographer (and person for that matter) to get this all done in one take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Very excellent point, Kerchak. Many younger folks these days don't really comprehend the delay getting the results of a photo shoot or taking a roll of film. If you were shooting Kodachrome (as PGF was) then you had to send it to Kodak, it couldn't be processed by a local lab. Usual time was about 5-7 days to get your photos back (at great cost). If you were shooting stills, then in a roll of 36 you might get 1 or 2 decent shots, at a total cost of about $17-20.

Professional photographers in a studio usually would take a Polaroid with their set up to see if they had the shot framed correctly and the lighting correct before they started shooting the expensive film.

Today with digital photography you can instantly see your results.

It would be unthinkable if you were going to all the expense of going on an expedition to then try only one take. If the shot didn't work out then you would have to go back to location for more shots. That's why professional outdoor photographers would famously take hundreds and hundreds of still shots, and that is why cinematographers would often make dozens of takes just to make sure they could edit out shots that weren't exposed properly, or had "photo bombs" in the background, etc. Remember, that was WAY before anything like Photoshop existed. If a professional photographer had an outdoor shoot with models, that represented thousands of dollars per day in expenses, and you did not want to have to go back and do it all over again if your client ultimately decided that none of your shots were usable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Particle Noun

Especially to go about excitedly telling everyone about it before you'd seen the film. With a one take hoax, the risk that there would be something obvious to give it away, or something completely unusable is pretty high.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
indiefoot

It's not credible that a hoax could have been done in one take. On this point alone, Occam's razor says it is a short clip of film of a surprised critter that already new how to walk in a fur suit without falling down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

BH must have forgotten to mention the other takes. Perhaps we'll hear about it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

It's not just a matter of it being one take. How would Patterson know that this take would fit perfectly on the ass end of a used roll of film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

...would Roger Patterson, building up to his masterpiece hoax, talking the time and effort to make a brilliant suit and then go all the way to Northern California to do it.......just film one walk through with Bob H?

The way you summarized that scenario in the OP made me realize more than ever how unlikely it is that that ever happened. Even if one cherry picks the "best" of BH's various stories, the odds that he was even at Bluff Creek that day are slim to none at best.

:popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Glad to see that you all share my disbelief that Roger Patterson would go to all that trouble and effort just to shoot one walk through in one take with Bob H.

Bob H claimed Roger said "that's perfect"........yet how would Roger even know that it was "perfect"? He couldn't even see the actual footage down at Bluff Creek..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Especially to go about excitedly telling everyone about it before you'd seen the film. With a one take hoax, the risk that there would be something obvious to give it away, or something completely unusable is pretty high.

JohnC

Not to mention all the excitement began before they even reviewed the film, they where making calls when it was all happening, thats some good confidence in their single take hoax. Is that how a hoaxer thinks?

Well the skeptic/cynic would probably try and counter that by claiming the film was actually shot much earlier and that Patterson had already had it developed and had viewed it long before he contacted the media about it.

But that still doesn't explain the completely illogical and bizarre concept that Patterson only filmed one walk through in one take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...