Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Kerchak

All Done In One Take?

Recommended Posts

Guest Transformer

Money was an issue and given the fact that film processing was expensive and time consuming and the location was not exactly isolated from people I could see why a quick run through would be good enough for a distant shakey shot of someone walking in a suit. If there were no obvious glitches seen ...Great!...and if it didn't work there were certainly other places closer by where they all lived that Patterson could try next. Who says it had to be filmed in Buff Creek only? If it was a hoax they could have filmed it wherever they wanted if the first try did not work. That is my opinion.

Edited by Transformer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LAL

Especially to go about excitedly telling everyone about it before you'd seen the film.

Along with Roger's other accomplishments we'd have to add acting ability worthy of an Oscar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Who says it had to be filmed in Buff Creek only? If it was a hoax they could have filmed it wherever they wanted if the first try did not work.

Bob H said he did one take and that one take was at Bluff Creek. That is the statement BH made.

If so, then why go to the cost and expense to go all the way to Bluff Creek to film in one take? Does that make sense for 3 guys from Yakima to go to Northern California (a 12-16 hour drive) with horses to film a hoax? Roger and Bob G went early to make documentary footage and BH comes down to make a cameo appearance on the last day?

Whatever BH is selling, I'm not buying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

If it was a hoax they could have filmed it wherever they wanted if the first try did not work. That is my opinion.

But that's the point. According to Bob Heironimus they DIDN'T film any other attempts either before or after. Just that one effort, and none of them could possibly have known if it looked good on not on film. They took all this time setting it up, film one take, pack up and go home and magically it fooled a lot of people for decades. Just that one effort with no alternate takes, angles, distances etc.

It just doesn't make sense.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

The one take story does not fly with me. However the film developing timeline is as much of a problem as Bob H's one take story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I think how it went down is pretty darn telling to. He see's a Bigfoot, he points the camera and shoots, he has shot film before so he is reasonably sure he got something there. But he cant be certain, yet he still starts calling people before its even processed. He is excited, film or not, he just saw a Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Bob H NEVER lies. Just ask Greg Long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OntarioSquatch

Ever notice how many bobs there are?

Bob Gimlin

Bob Heironimus

Bob Titmus

Bob Hammermeister

It`s a conspiracy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Bob H NEVER lies. Just ask Greg Long.

Before or after Greg started believing BH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Bob H said he did one take and that one take was at Bluff Creek. That is the statement BH made.

If so, then why go to the cost and expense to go all the way to Bluff Creek to film in one take? Does that make sense for 3 guys from Yakima to go to Northern California (a 12-16 hour drive) with horses to film a hoax? Roger and Bob G went early to make documentary footage and BH comes down to make a cameo appearance on the last day?

Think like a hoaxer. :rolleyes:

It makes perfect sense to travel hundreds of miles with horses and gear, taking off time from work, camping out for a long period of time even though nobody knows you're there, for a few seconds of film done in only one take.

Come on now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

It all makes perfect sense, if you just..."think like a toaster".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Yep, and then after the fact talk about sand as pure white as snow (cough cough) and staying at a motel (or not) and passing through a town with a paranormal rodeo.... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

^

After being given both the 'suit' and the film..........and told to go a place where there are lots of bars, after a hot time shooting.

That Patterson was just asking for Bob H to blab.

However the film developing timeline is as much of a problem as Bob H's one take story.

I don't see that at all. It was picked up Saturday 21st October and ready to be viewed by the following day.

It wasn't a feature film that needed to be developed. 2 rolls of film a couple minutes long each. That's it.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BFSleuth

Wasn't this Kodachrome film? Only a few Kodak labs developed Kodachrome. If it was Ektachrome then any lab could process it, but not KC. When I was actively shooting Kodachrome photos in the 70's and 80's the standard turn around time was 5-7 days. I never used any rush development because of cost, but I'm not sure if they would have the ability to receive and process same day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Transformer

^So how did he get the film processed so quickly that he could show it on the Sunday? I know that question has been asked a thousand times and there have been just as many answers for it. :) All I'm saying is to try and state positively that there was any sort of major set-up or numerous takes is just as subjective as saying there was only one take. We don't know do we? Doing one take because somebody could have easily come along and caught them is not a ridiculous assumption given the location was not as remote as all seemed to be led to believe when the film was first released. We are just guessing because the questions were never asked by those who should have been asking at the time. As far as why Bluff Creek? Why not? He got money that he never paid back to go down there and it was a great set-up (if it was a hoax) because of tracks being reported there. Again we are all just guessing and to make such positive statements about something that no-one really knows anything factual about (unless they were actually there) is pretty much like bluffing when you don't hold a winning hand. I think such negative posturing makes it look like we are trying a little too hard to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. That is just my opinion.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...