Jump to content

Why Fake It?


Recommended Posts

     I have been sitting here reading articles on line and posts in these forums, and a thought came to me.

 

     Isn't this technology amazing.  Information that would have taken us days at best to obtain, but more likely weeks or months, is now available in  just a few seconds, and from sources from around the world.  This availability has enabled some to make a lot of money and gain attention and notoriety almost over night.  I can understand why some would use it to hoax or spoof things for fame and profit in these times with many sites being paid per click for ads or paid outright to just post certain information.  What I find hard to understand is why someone would do that in 1967.

 

     In the 60's we had no home computers, no cell phones, no digital cameras, no photoshop, and information couldn't just be uploaded and let loose on the world.  If you were going to perpetrate a hoax in those days, it would take what would be considered a long con.  You had to produce an event, you had to document that event without any obvious flaws, you had to gather together the scenario with supporting evidence, you had to submit it to a news or magazine outlet and hope like hell it got picked up and they wanted to pay you for the stuff you had.  You couldn't just toss up some half arsed video on YouTube and then wait for the hits to come in.  If you wanted to show a film and do a lecture on what you had produced, it took a gigantic effort to try and get venues and audiences to see your stuff.  Today, you sit in front of your computer and click a link, and viola, there you are.  

 

     I think that there are a lot of people who don't take into consideration the logistics of what it would take to hoax a Bigfoot sighting back in 1967, let alone the suit.  They try to apply today technology to the events that are removed almost 50 years from present technology.  The things that we take for granted today simply didn't exist in 1967.

 

     So, giving that it took so much effort and skill for a non professional movie, makeup and special effects guy to create a hoax like this, with no guarantee of any payback at all, Why fake it?

 

 

edited for spelin.  LOL

Edited by Old Dog
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent OP.

 

I'd ike to add that shooting 16mm film, you have no idea what you captured and if it's what you want it to look like, until you process the film. There was no instant playback on set, for the amateur like Roger.(wasn't even for the pros, with a hand held camera).

 

So traveling hundreds of miles from home and just doing one take is absurd. Trying to do "take two", and have the horse/rider stuff on the first 75 feet, means you film horse and rider, then do a Patty take, to a run-out, then do the horse rider stuff on a second roll, then do Patty take two, etc. Utterly implausable.

 

We know scientifically there's no editing, so that option has been studied and discounted.

 

So why drive hunderds of miles, do one take which you don't know is any good, given the running and camera shaking, and then just pack it in and drive hundreds of miles home, before you see if what you took was any good. What if if it's no good, do you just scrap the hoax, or repeat the above?

 

Isn't as easy as denialists like to believe, when you understand the technology of 1967, in terms of filmmaking as well as costume issues.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

 

     So, giving that it took so much effort and skill for a non professional movie, makeup and special effects guy to create a hoax like this, with no guarantee of any payback at all, Why fake it?

 

 

Well, he was wanting to make a BF movie. Maybe that shot turned out much better than he anticipated and he decided to try to make a buck off of it.

 

Of course, that doesn't explain why he first took the film to the scientific community. It was only after they had dismissed it that he started trying to make money from it. I just wonder why if it was a hoax that he thought could be pawned off as real and he did it to make money, why he didn't go to some Hollywood studios with the footage. I know I would have hired him on the spot to do my sci-fi costumes if I were a movie studio head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

And then there is the back story.  They came out of the woods immediately after the shooting and announced to any and all who would listen not only the fact the event occurred, but also the precise location where it occurred. 

 

I have tried to interview Lyle Lafferty but have not been successful. I am told he and his crew found prints on the following Monday that were consistent with the claims made by Patterson and Gimlin. Titmus did the same maybe 10 days later.  

 

Does anyone know of any other instance that features 1) an immediately-reported encounter that 2) was witnessed by another person present and where 3) corroborative photographic images were made and 4) the location made known to the public such that several independent parties located prints consistent with the claimed encounter?

 

Reporting an encounter a month, a year, twenty years later just doesn't get it with me. The reporting behavior displayed by Patterson and Gimlin in this event stands heads above the stuff we are seeing today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a cow, it's walking on two feet.

 

 

LOL..no it's certainly not a cow. Well, aside from the fact there are odd *coincidences* here that relate a previous encounter by Roe in 1955 that Patterson was VERY familiar with (been discussed here), it's really impossible to answer *why* Patterson would fake this (if he indeed did so). I ask myself>>>HOW IS IT THAT NOW ALMOST 50 YEARS LATER, no images of this caliber have been caught on film (or obtained  physical biological evidence)  of either the SAME creature once again or, for that matter ANY BF like this one? That's a BIGGIE in my book. It makes this encounter SO UNIQUE, that it put's into question the validity of this encounter, actual film images notwithstanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wheellug

 I ask myself>>>HOW IS IT THAT NOW ALMOST 50 YEARS LATER, no images of this caliber have been caught on film (or obtained  physical biological evidence)  of either the SAME creature once again or, for that matter ANY BF like this one? That's a BIGGIE in my book. It makes this encounter SO UNIQUE, that it put's into question the validity of this encounter, actual film images notwithstanding.

.. and still to this day, 50 years later, no one can fabricate an image of this caliber.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

.. and still to this day, 50 years later, no one can fabricate an image of this caliber.  

Not sure about that, but assuming that's true, are you saying there's no question as to the validity of this film? Obviously there are many that will differ with you on this. It still doesn't address my point. 50 years have passed with absolutely ZERO  further substantiation. That's a monumental GAP that continues to this day....no further CLEARLY filmed sightings like this one and NO physical (not foot prints) BIOLOGICAL material obtained. This puts into QUESTION the truth of Patterson's claim. You may not agree, but it certainly defies reason doesn't it? One would certainly think if ONE BF could get *caught* on film....certainly over the LAST 50 YEARS another one would get caught on FILM..or at a minimum, they would leave behind some biological evidence?? This is something many Patterson backers simply refuse to understand. They counter with the exquisite images that can't be faked (read>>>no suit). My argument is not directed at the film itself, it simply asks a legitimate question that points to the validity of a film subject. If I may repeat>>>> NEVER TO BE DUPLICATED SINCE......NO OTHER SIMILAR CREATURES CAUGHT ON FILM OR OTHERWISE...NO BIOLOGICAL MATERAIL FOUND. So Patterson is the luckiest guy on the planet? Yes, we know he was LOOKING, but that isn't a legitimate answer and may even be used as to his MOTIVATION to fake. If this film had been captured by someone REMOVED from BF lore, maybe a logger, it would have been MUCH more *believable*.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The camera that filmed the footage is still available I think? I know it's an antique now, but it it was still functional it would be cool to take that camera and recreate the filming using only things available at the time, and the tech knowledge of the time as well. I wonder though what it would cost a professional movie studio to recreate it closely enough that a person couldn't tell the difference, without using computer generated images,

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Patterson and Gimlin had what I would call 'Suspicious Luck' they would have found bigfoot on the first trip out. They would have found 'bigfoot' right away.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Patterson and Gimlin had what I would call 'Suspicious Luck' they would have found bigfoot on the first trip out. They would have found 'bigfoot' right away.  

Do you know how many previous expeditions were taken and what was done on them? It's entirely possible he was looking and failed several times and then came up with *an idea*. I don't think that fact he had previous trips bolsters his claim as much as the significance of the *empty* 50 subsequent years to the present time with NOTHING that equals (not even biological material) what he claims to have stumbled on. If a BF could get caught on film ONCE, then it's going to get caught AGAIN. Is 50 years sufficient time...especially the last 20 where the technology has VASTLY IMPROVED??

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

The camera that filmed the footage is still available I think? I know it's an antique now, but it it was still functional it would be cool to take that camera and recreate the filming using only things available at the time, and the tech knowledge of the time as well. I wonder though what it would cost a professional movie studio to recreate it closely enough that a person couldn't tell the difference, without using computer generated images,

 

 

It all depends on how much you'd have to pay someone, PB, to get them to let you break their forearm... ;) ...

 

LMS-F356-F362-Matt-ArmComp2_zps4662742f.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

To this day I can come up with no clearer marker of ignorance of the evidence than believing that the Patterson-Gimlin film was faked.

 

There being exceptions to every rule, now, and yes there are with this one.



If Patterson and Gimlin had what I would call 'Suspicious Luck' they would have found bigfoot on the first trip out. They would have found 'bigfoot' right away.  

I've never considered it suspicious in the least to follow recent copious evidence of a large animal and finally see one after three weeks out.  That's what one would expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Dog,

I like your thinking.

We must keep in mind that people, for reasons of their own, do all sorts of things. We may say, "Why would a person [do this or that?]" Sometimes, there is a reason we have not thought of. We would have to admit the following: We cannot think of a reason why someone would go to all the trouble to [do this or that]"

We basically create flow chart 'tree' with a bunch of 'if / then' statements. Things like, "If they wanted to fake a film, then they would <fill in the blank>"

The best example I can think of is poker. If you need one card to make a straight 4     5      7       8      are not impossible but they are Low to draw a [6] you must have to make that straight. Depending on what cards have been played the odds might be, say, 7% chance to draw a [6].

The PGF could indeed be a hoax. I would say the chances of it being a hoax when you draw out a 'if/ then' flow chart is remote.

One of the best statements of the use of Logic comes from NASA Flight Controller John Aaron. During the actual Apollo 13 crisis most were saying it would be impossible to get the crew home alive. Given the task to bring them home, Aaron stated, "What would make it possible?"

If we apply this logic to the PGF we get two stories to consider. "What would make it possible? [for it to be a hoax]" What would it take to have this be a hoax and finish the story where there are not pieces that did not fit. What would it take to make a PGF a successful hoax?

Then, when we apply this same reasoning to the PGF, "What would make it possible ?[to be a creature of nature]"

Those are the 2 views. There is no 3rd view. The film either must be a creature of nature or it must be a hoax. There is no other choice. For many of us on the BFF, we thought the Patty-is-a-hoax side would have more compelling arguments.

I would say the odds of someone going to all the trouble needed just to pull off a hoax --those odds are very small.

If one was to pull off a hoax for money it stands to reason they would do just enough to cross the bar to create a hoax they could sell. The PGF would involve many things to pull it off most of which have never been done before. If one is to offer up a hoax, you don't go out there where you might be seen and discovered. You don't take the film and show it to experts who could catch you. You don't tell them specifically where it was filmed. You don't do a lot of the things Roger and Bob did.

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