Jump to content

One Curious Element Of The Pgf


Recommended Posts

One Curious Element of the PGF

In Chris Murphy's book, "Bigfoot Film Journal", pages 89-91, there is a description of the statement offered by one Mr. Harry Kemball, in which he described being associated with a company called Canawest Films, in Canada, in 1967, and describes seeing footage attributed to Roger Patterson, using a man ( an "extra tall buddy") wearing a rented gorilla costume. This statement by Mr. Kemball was made in the early 1990's, almost 20 years ago. It is explained well in Murphy's book, including the exact text of the man's remarks.

I first read this letter about a year and a half ago, and like Murphy and all other researchers who considered it, I dismissed the letter as either a false claim by a guy who actually knew nothing about film and was pretending he did, or someone who knew about film, but was deliberately fabricating the statement.

But recently I reconsidered the statement, because in the subsequent time, I have studied Roger's other filming activity far more, and thus was familiar with material no one had considered.

Simply put, while Mr. Kemball is most emphatically NOT describing the PGF, he is actually describing some of Roger's other footage with remarkable accuracy. A good investigation must explore ideas and be open to the possibilities, and based on this material, I think it's about time that we give consideration to a possibility which has been mentioned before often here in the forum, but the idea never took hold as a serious prospect to research further.

Simply put, current debate divides into two opposite extremes. One position is the PGF is true and real, and all the claims of Bob Heironimous and friends are false. The opposing position is that the PGF is a hoax and the claims of Bob Heironimous and friends are true.

Could there be a third alternative, that the claims of Bob Heironimous are mostly true, and he did wear some kind of suit and perform for Roger's camera, but his filmed segment is not the PGF we see?

The description of the footage Mr. Kemball said he saw was that the film stock was Ektachrome, (High Speed, specifically), that the film had been force processed (called "pushed" and referred to in Mr. Kemball's remarks as being developed in "hot soup", another term for over-developing to compensate for under-exposure while filming) and that this forced processing had made the film very grainy (which the process does cause), that the camera lens zooms in while filming, and that it goes out of focus sometimes, to give a spontaneous filming look. Finally, in subsequent correspondence with researchers, Mr. Kemball apparently made some reference to the camera used as being an Arriflex, possibly an Arriflex 16s model, which takes a 100' daylight load, like the K-100 camera.

So basically, Mr. Kemball got everything wrong, as compared to the PGF, and on that basis, his remarks were dismissed as inaccurate and false. But no one who evaluated those remarks had information about Roger's other documentary filming activity. I was the first to scan that footage in May, 2009, and study it more comprehensively since. And Roger's other footage includes film rolls shot on Ektachrome B film stock, the grain is horribly enlarged (very grainy, we would say), the cameras used did have zoom lenses on them, and Roger did use a camera other than a K-100 camera, so it may have been an Arriflex. We don't see evidence of the filmed segments going out of focus in the other documentary footage, but this would not be unreasonable for zooming shots, because the depth of field (the near-far range of acceptable focus on a lens) changes significantly when using a zoom lens, where the zoomed out position (wide angle) has a large depth of field, so any focus setting close to the subject distance will produce a fairly good focus, but when the lens is zoomed in (to it's most telephoto setting), the depth of field is the narrowest and focusing must be precisely on the subject distance, with little tolerance for error.

So if you "eyeball" your focus setting in the wide angle lens position, and then zoom in, it is quite common to get the zoomed in segment out of focus and you have to then "eyeball" re-focus the image. If you were filming while zooming, the film may go out of focus and the correction made while filming, as happens in some documentary filmings where they keep the camera running as much as possible to get any sudden events or actions. So what Mr. Kemball describes as seeing is, in fact, a common occurrence when filming with a zoom lens.

The following compares the PGF and other examples of Roger's filming against the claims by Mr. Kemball:

HarryKemballremarksstudy.jpg

So if we reconsider Mr. Kemball's statement of the film he saw, and factor in what we now know about Roger's other documentary filming activity, it gives a whole new level of credibility to Mr. Kemball's testimony about seeing footage with a guy in a gorilla suit.

This leads us to the intriguing prospect that Roger may have indeed put Bob Heironimous into a gorilla suit of some type, and filmed him, since Bob H was indeed much taller than Roger. But if so, it also eliminates Bob Heironimous entirely from being what we see in the PGF, if Bob H. only did one filming with Roger. If this curious matter does hold up to further investigation and some kind of verification, it has the intriguing consequences of validating most of the testimony of Bob Heironimous and those acquainted with him (as described in Long's book, "Making of Bigfoot") while still completely taking Bob Heironimous out of the actual PGF picture. He may not be in the PGF footage, if he's in other footage, shot at a different time, with Ektachrome film, a non K-100 camera with a zoom lens on it, and the film pushed in the lab to result in a very grainy image (just like Roger's other documentary footage, but absolutely unlike the PGF footage in any way).

I have spoken with some principles in the PGf matter, informally, about this, but these conversations did not advance the idea further. So I felt that if other people look into it, there may be more hope of making progress toward a conclusion of whether this description by Mr. Kemball has merit, and if so, does it eliminate Bob Heironimous from the whole PGF discussion.

So I decided to offer this up as a curious situation I feel deserves more research effort and consideration.

Thoughts, opinions and ideas are welcomed.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Lord, I hate these PGF threads but you do bring up a good point. I'm trying to put myself in those guys shoes. If you saw and filmed something like Patty wouldn't you want to rule out a hoax even back then? You would do that by putting one of your friends in a suit and film it walking, just like we do today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

It certainly gives Bob H one leg to stand on by having been involved with Roger in Bigfoot filming. But it also could have given him leverage to his courage and creating a false additional story line that puts him in the PGF. But why hasn't Bob H ever added the other monkey suit story to his PGF claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crow:

"But why hasn't Bob H ever added the other monkey suit story to his PGF claim?"

Maybe because there's only one suit, and it's in the Ektachrome footage, and there's no suit in the PGF?

A thought.

:)

Jodie:

I'm with you on the PGF threads. to many arguing the same stuff, over and over. This issue is curious and never before discussed. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

Crow:

"But why hasn't Bob H ever added the other monkey suit story to his PGF claim?"

Maybe because there's only one suit, and it's in the Ektachrome footage, and there's no suit in the PGF?

A thought.

:)

Jodie:

I'm with you on the PGF threads. to many arguing the same stuff, over and over. This issue is curious and never before discussed. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

Bill

As I see it Bob H either erroneously calls his monkey suit film Roger's PGF and honestly believes that that's the monkey suit film he did for Roger. Or knowing that he did don a suit for Roger that he could insert himself into the PGF and grab a piece of the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

The notion that Patterson really did film Heironimus in a suit, but it's not the PGF has been around for years now.

Roger Knights was oddly one of the people who discussed it. Before I get into this, the first thing needed is some context...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BIGFOOT HOAX GIVING SANTILLI "ALIEN AUTOPSY" A GOOD RUN FOR THE "FILM HOAX

AWARD."

By Rob McConnell,

Publisher,

THE 'X' CHRONICLES.

St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

Wednesday, May 15, 1996.

The infamous BigFoot photograph/film by Roger Patterson which was allegedly

filmed in 1967 has been uncovered as a hoax.

Harry Kemball, Director and Screenwriter at Golden Eagle Productions told

THE 'X' CHRONICLES researchers that he was at the CanWest 16mm Film Editing

Room in 1967 when Roger Patterson and his friends put together his BigFoot

Hoax on 16mm film.

According to Kemball thay all laughed and joked about the rental of the

Gorilla Costume and the construction of the Big Feets.

One of Kemballs' extra tall buddies played the role of BigFoot.

Patterson and his crew carefully chose muddy ground so that the foot prints

would expand.

The film crew carefully shot it on 16mm Kodak EF High Speed Color Positive

film stock and when the film is force processed in "Hot Soup" - the film

grain is enlarged to add to the sense of mystery.

They added a shaky camera zoom with the right amount of "out of focus" to

complete the deception.

Kemball, who is a graduate in comparative anatomy studies states, "this

creature does not and never has existed."

The 'X' Chronicles is in possession of a signed statement by Kemball to the

statements contained in this release.

A pcx photo is available upon request.

THE END

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/foothoax.htm

The original letter would be helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit:

I acknowledged the claim had been around for many years. What wasn't around was the comparison to Roger's other documentary footage.

Kemball's letter looks like it's quoted in the press release you posted. Looks correct, in the technical description.

Intriguing fly in the ointment, this claim of his, when compared to Roger's other footage.

:)

Bill

Correction:

In Kemball's actual letter, which he writes in first person, he says " One of his extra tall buddies plays the bigfoot" So Kemball isn't referring to one of his own buddies (he would have said, "one of MY extra tall buddies.."), but the buddy of somebody else, presumably Roger. The press release got it wrong there.

Crow:

"As I see it Bob H either erroneously calls his monkey suit film Roger's PGF and honestly believes that that's the monkey suit film he did for Roger. Or knowing that he did don a suit for Roger that he could insert himself into the PGF and grab a piece of the film."

There's actually some room for an honest mistake here. A guy in a suit actually doesn't know exactly what he looks like, unless he sees himself in a dressing mirror, and actually doesn't know what the camera sees and how the footage looks when he performs. So there's some room for Bob H. to actually wonder if the PGF is him or not, and over time, he could just settle in to a presumption it's him, as his memory of the real filming fades.

Bill

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that Patterson really did film Heironimus in a suit, but it's not the PGF has been around for years now.

Roger Knights was oddly one of the people who discussed it.

I think John Green was one of the first to suggest the idea Roger filmed a reenactment if not the first, but Bill is the first, as far as I know, to come up with what he's come up with. The technical information is what's important here, not who said what when or even whether Kemball was an ace shy of a full deck (he thought hoaxing causes crime so he came forward because of that).

Look and learn.

Edited by LAL
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Bill, any questions, technical or otherwise, you have for Kemball, feel free to post them here. I will be contacting Kemball tonight or tomorrow.

My question for you is which PGF principals did you discuss the idea with and what were their reactions? Patricia Patterson lived with Bob Heironimus' brother Howard and her brother Bruce Mondor before marrying Roger. The house she and Roger moved into when they were married belonged to Bob Heironimus' grandfather. They have known each other since childhood and their relation is far closer than most PGF students know. Bob was very specific about Patty Patterson being present when Heironimus had his first fitting of the suit at Roger's home.

Conversely, it was Roger who first approached Howard Heironimus about his brother Bob being in the hoax. Howard told Roger to ask Bob himself and Roger had Gimlin do it who was close friends with Bob. The Heironimus brothers knew Gimlin before Patterson did. Bob was very specific that it was Gimlin who approached him with the hoax and detailed how it would work. There was no confusion that they were doing a hoax for money.

Your scenario involves accepting Heironimus' being filmed for a hoax, but it's not the PGF. Your scenario involves asking people to accept the PGF as a film of a real Bigfoot from Bigfoot hoaxers who hid the hoax film. This is going to be a very interesting discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lu:

You are correct in noting that it's the technical info that is really important. Everybody before just compared the technical remarks with the PGF, and the comparison is zero correct, so that's why Kemball was dismissed by everybody. But the technical comparison to Roger's other documentary work is what's fascinating, and adds new credibility to the man's claim, while pushing poor Bob H. out the door in the process.

Who would have guessed that Roger's other footage was potentially so important.

:)

Bill

Kit:

A. If I talk to people off the record, I cannot say what they told me, and I don't disclose who they were.

B. Filming a guy in a suit for a bigfoot documentary isn't automatically "hoaxing". It's called a staged re-enactment, and all documentary people do such, from time to time. So if Kemball saw the footage, that doesn't mean it actaully was intended as a hoax. You can spin it that way, but its a stock and reputable tool in documentary work, and so it doesn't prove "hoax".

C. It's not my senario. It's Mr. Kenball's. Feel free to explain his remarks another way if you like. I'm just saying his technical description matches Roger's other filming material.

D. Yes, it should provoke some interesting discussion.

:)

Bill

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

My official purely personal stance on the footage is "Cowboy got lucky".

Most of the "old timey" cowboys I've know have been "schemers and dreamers" so Bob H. may be just saying what he thinks he knows. If he knew "something", then that's "everything there is to know about this or that subject".

They tend to bluster a bit and have been known to embellish.

Which is what it is, and may or may not include being there on that day.

I tend to think not, but that's just my opinion cause I wasn't there.

I just know a bit about old school cowboys of the same general era.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

D. Yes, it should provoke some interesting discussion.

:)

Bill

This is very interesting, Bill! I really like the way you have approached this mystery in such an honest and smart way. What is definitely new about your research is that you continue to be closer than anyone to the most likely solution. Kudos my friend!

There is way more to this story than many people think or that anyone will ever know. The hearsay stuff is tiresome, endless, boring and fruit-less (even if it is fun sometimes to argue :) ) lol This kind of thread, with real facts and intelligent observation, is awesome! Thanks again.

Edited by xspider1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, any questions, technical or otherwise, you have for Kemball, feel free to post them here. I will be contacting Kemball tonight or tomorrow.

Please try not to lead the witness.

Edited by LAL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kit:

Sorry I missed this part (until seeing it in LAL's note above)

"Bill, any questions, technical or otherwise, you have for Kemball, feel free to post them here. I will be contacting Kemball tonight or tomorrow."

I would just be curious if he stands by his letter, specifically the technical specifications of the film. Anything else he'd care to offer will certainly be fascinating to hear.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...