Question Regarding Hoaxes

[Guest Crowlogic]

^ Norse Raise the jawline and flatten the face a bit and you've got Patty.  And yes there is room still to accommodate the human head inside.  But the eye location can stay happily as it is.  BTW seems even with Patty's smallish head it's still bigger than any of the human real heads that get posed next to it. The body bulk makes it seem the head is smaller than it might be otherwise.  Body bulk does that.  Perhaps you might want to research the threads where the subduction line was discussed. Also I did request examples of real animals or people exhibiting this detail.  All that's come are words and that includes you too.  You asked me to stand and deliver and I stood and delivered.  I asked the proponents to stand and deliver and they deliver words.  Well what can you show me that confirms Patty is in the right side of reality with that subduction action going on?

Edited May 29, 2016 by Crowlogic

[hiflier]

That's it? That's your response? You say I'm fixated on casting or not casting footprints and I've been saying all along the issue is with having to mount up and go get the plaster. I've said the mind of a hoaxer who actually planned all of what was said to have transpired wouldn't be at the site without plaster. But what did you do? Say I had a fixation on casting prints.....WRONG. After I proposed that a hoaxer would have taken more footage of Patty, and why I thought so, you say there may have been out takes.....wrong again.

You don't address posts directly but continue to sling mud at me instead citing "predetermined belief", "cowboys as gospel", "fixation on casting prints", faux inquiry" and several other character undermining attempts. Typical Crowlogic attack the poster MO. Where do you get off with all that? And now I'm attacking you in defense.

And I'm not just saying that just to have something to say. You've been in error and won't confront it. You make beautiful guitars but if you didn't spend so much time belittling your antagonists you'd have little to say. Report me if you wish- this is worth a warning as far as I'm concerned.

[hiflier]

How did this thread move into another suit debate?

[norseman]

^ Norse Raise the jawline and flatten the face a bit and you've got Patty.  And yes there is room still to accommodate the human head inside.  But the eye location can stay happily as it is.  BTW seems even with Patty's smallish head it's still bigger than any of the human real heads that get posed next to it. The body bulk makes it seem the head is smaller than it might be otherwise.  Body bulk does that.  Perhaps you might want to research the threads where the subduction line was discussed. Also I did request examples of real animals or people exhibiting this detail.  All that's come are words and that includes you too.  You asked me to stand and deliver and I stood and delivered.  I asked the proponents to stand and deliver and they deliver words.  Well what can you show me that confirms Patty is in the right side of reality with that subduction action going on?

Janos Prohaska, best in the biz at that time states that IF Patty is a costume? Its the BEST he has ever seen. As Janos described you can see Patty's muscles moving. Which is why in his professional opinion you would have to glue each hair onto the film subject.

So you can add bulk in a suit or you can add muscularity detail in a suit in 67 but you couldnt do both....unless you found a giant to glue hair too.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdx6t0QWc5g

Either way the official Bob H story of himself and a suit made by Roger Patterson, who had zero experience in Hollywood doesnt pass muster.....sorry.

[hiflier]

Allow me to refresh your memory and make things easier for you Crowlogic:

 

OK. I'll play your game Crow; but only this one time.  There were "probably" no out takes and so they "probably" ran with the ONLY 59 seconds that they had. Is that better now that I'm stooping to speculation? No it isn't and it isn't for you either. You can speculate until the cows come home but at the end of the day you only have the film as we know it. Watering down this thread by dumping what-if's all over it is an old game and you do it somewhat well considering all the practice you've had.

 

The bottom line is though the boys at Bluff Creek blew the chance to create and SHOW more footage of what people call Patty. Either because they only had the one chance or because they simply weren't that smart. They forgot the plaster after all so maybe between the two of them and during all the planning of making the suit, getting to Bluff Creek saddling the horses, and all the other stuff neither of them thought, "Hey, lets shoot some more footage for later".  

 

You see, you redid work, color and finishes on your guitar why? BECAUSE YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE THE FAILURES THAT NEEDED CORRECTING. P&G didn't have that luxury. They wouldn't have KNOWN they needed out takes and even if they did have out takes they wouldn't have known which were any good so why waste film on a trackway and filming Gimlin running around on horseback leading another horse? After all they only had a little over eight minutes of total film capability. In all honesty Crowlogic haven't you ever asked yourself these questions?

 

 

Crowlogic, this isn't about BCM and no matter how many time you cite it it's useless for the PGF as it makes no sense in the PGF context. So then, John Green wasn't in on the hoax at Bluff Creek when he went to look at the trackway. As in THE trackway singular. And don't worry about addressing my Post #110 even though this is the third time I've brought it up.

So is it true what Heironimus said about it being done in one take at Bluff Creek? and if so do you believe him? If not then you shouldn't believe anything else he says- like about wearing the suit? And if you believe him about the suit and knew what he said about the one take thing then your comment regarding the hypothetical 10 out takes was what? Some kind of joke? Because if it was it isn't funny and you were wrong to even suggest it as it tells me you will say anything just to throw mud at something. Not cool Crowlogic, not cool at all. Time to clear the air on this as you've apparently dug a hole here for yourself and just may have gotten caught doing it.

 

There. All in one place and the issues are ready for your direct replies....try not to disappoint me this time.

Edited May 29, 2016 by hiflier

[norseman]

How did this thread move into another suit debate?

I will stop hijacking your thread, sorry.

[hiflier]

Thank you, no harm done Norseman. Especially if Crowlogic steps up to my last post in sensible fashion. If the topic stays on the suit though I'll know there's no interest in clearing the air so in a way...it WILL clear the air

Edited May 29, 2016 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

You cannot discount Crow for what he is trying to bring up on what you your self has brought up on this thread. I see what crow is saying and how it is possible that the whole PGF could of have been hoaxed. We cannot discount that idea, since the subject in the film is moving so slow. On top of all this the creature looks like it was pieced together. This is what Crow is trying to show in the film that he placed, you can see by the leg close to the hip where there is a line . The line is not natural for a animal and seems to be a seam. 

 

Hiflier

 I know that this is not what you want , but he does bring a valid question? whether this creature is a real animal or a suit.

[ShadowBorn]

Whether or not it has everything to do with the filming of this creature, how so many look like the PGF. They all seem like so convenient  to take place at that moment. So hoaxing is an art that people take great pride on, question is how long can a hoax stand ?  There were some good people there that were witnesses to the tracks.  In one way I can see how it could be real. Like maybe the tracks came before the creature and then the creature was filmed after the tracks were found. Has that ever been brought up before? there is no date stamp on the film when it was filmed? the prints could have been filmed a day or two before and then the creature afterwards, But who knows Right ! But maybe it was done so that they can confirm the prints. But I do not know since I really never placed much attention to this film, only as a kid. But I am just thinking and tying to be skeptical.

[hiflier]

Real or not is a valid question and always has been. My question regarding that is with all the extra filming of Gimlin on horseback and the filming of the track way how come there was no more filming of the absolute main focus of the film and the expedition- namely the guy in the suit? How come hoaxers would do all that had to be done to set up the hoax and then only have 59.5 seconds of "Patty"? He says I'm not trying to get into the mind of a hoaxer but what does one call this line of questioning? Crowlogic accuses me of trying to use this to prove Patty is real when in reality I think it's a good question to bring up regardless of what I think. IMO a good skeptic should have brought this up long ago.

Bottom line? Would a hoaxer use the opportunity after all the work and preparation that includes designing a costume and having someone walk around in it AT BLUFF CREEK warrant filming a rider on horseback for most of the film? It simply makes no sense to not have more footage of the man in the suit doing other Squatchy things either on the trails or in the woods or around the camp even if the footage wasn't going to be used until later on. There was a second reel after that was used on the trackway. Why that and not more "Patty"? Toss in that P&G didn't have the plaster with them in the saddlebags with the seond reel of film and it only compounds the question.

It's easy to drum up speculation to confront these questions. It's not so easy to look at the same questions and say they profile a hoaxer. This thread was started to talk about what a hoaxer would do. And I think what was done at Bluff Creek runs counter to that profile. Allow me to extend this a bit if I may: we see hoaxed videos on YouTube of someone videoing the ground they are walking on for a while and then suddenly at just the right time the camera is aimed and there's a Sasquatch figure running through the woods mostly hidden by foliage and mostly we never get to see the whole "creature" and say hoax.

The PGF may be just like that with minutes of footage of everything else then suddenly- Patty. But we see ALL of Patty for nearly a minute. Big difference though some may disagree. And those that disagree? Guy in suit. It's not that I don't get that. But it's not just a brief glimpse with Patty. And the female style of the suit is good- very good. Good enough to film more of since everyone was on site and went to such great lengths to get on site. Nope. Man on horseback and for over 75% of the film and a trackway on the second reel. No more Patty- anywhere- doing anything. "She" is simply "gone". In true hoaxer fashion? Yeah, it just may be. One suit for one minute with one trackway. And BTW, skeptical is a GOOD way to be.

Edited May 29, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Crowlogic]

One more time there is nothing I can tell you that you want to hear.  I have given you real world possibilities as to consider when thinking how the film may have been created.   What you need to do is start asking the same questions I began asking myself about the entire bigfoot universe.  Bigfoot is not just the PGF.  But as I understand the world reality is an all or nothing affair.  And so it is with bigfoot reality.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Crowlogic

[Guest Crowlogic]

Whether or not it has everything to do with the filming of this creature, how so many look like the PGF. They all seem like so convenient  to take place at that moment. So hoaxing is an art that people take great pride on, question is how long can a hoax stand ?  There were some good people there that were witnesses to the tracks.  In one way I can see how it could be real. Like maybe the tracks came before the creature and then the creature was filmed after the tracks were found. Has that ever been brought up before? there is no date stamp on the film when it was filmed? the prints could have been filmed a day or two before and then the creature afterwards, But who knows Right ! But maybe it was done so that they can confirm the prints. But I do not know since I really never placed much attention to this film, only as a kid. But I am just thinking and tying to be skeptical.

How long can a hoax stand?  Research the Surgeons Photo at Loch Ness and you'll have a clue.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Crowlogic

[hiflier]

One more time there is nothing I can tell you that you want to hear.  I have given you real world possibilities as to consider when thinking how the film may have been created.   What you need to do is start asking the same questions I began asking myself about the entire bigfoot universe.  Bigfoot is not just the PGF.  But as I understand the world reality is an all or nothing affair.  And so it is with bigfoot reality.

You gave me the BCM which doesn't apply. You gave me contradictory out take ideas that don't apply and you dodged posts that contained direct statements. And you've given me unnecessary personal slights and Barbs that DEFINITELY don't apply. I can't really see much in the way of any contributions as far as the mind of a hoaxer. We all ask the question of why they do it. I offered money as a reason with regards to YouTube clicks and even a motivation for the PGF. That didn't come from you so another zero in your column. I've asked what would you do in P&G's shoes....nothing came back. So as far as not wanting to hear things? You only have yourself to contend with.

Edited May 29, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Crowlogic]

^In P&G's shoes I would have shot the film and made casts.  I would avoid shooting the film in a way that might make it too easily seen as a hoax.  I would have made test shots before I committed to a take I'd then go public with.  Test shots don't have to be at Bluff Creek.  BTW it's easy to shoot a  full reel of  8 minute of film.  So you roll 7 minutes of sedate stuff then at the end have the film explode into lights action camera which is exactly how it plays out does it not?  

[hiflier]

^In P&G's shoes I would have shot the film and made casts.  I would avoid shooting the film in a way that might make it too easily seen as a hoax.  I would have made test shots before I committed to a take I'd then go public with.  Test shots don't have to be at Bluff Creek.  BTW it's easy to shoot a  full reel of  8 minute of film.  So you roll 7 minutes of sedate stuff then at the end have the film explode into lights action camera which is exactly how it plays out does it not?

Yes, that's how it plays out. And it seems to be a popular hoaxer pattern from what I've seen and the PGF may be no different in that regard. So, money talks one could say. I would also shoot a film in a way that that might make it too easily seen as a hoax. The easy way is to use more distance between me and the subject. But if I wanted to double or triple my clicks on YouTube for instance then while I've got the person in the suit I would shoot two or three more segments in different settings by not using the same trail or choosing a place with a different tree line even if I do that by only turning around.

I would also install the subject at various depths in the woods and doing different things that a Sasquatch is reported to supposedly do. Now I have "new" segments to upload later in order to generate more clicks/income. I would do this because of all the hoops I had to jump through to get the subject initially into the suit at the chosen site by renting the suit etc. Oh I could still shoot a trackway and cast prints too even though most hoaxers don't bother with such things because I would have the plaster with me where I was recording the "creature". Then go home, upload the video and watch the clicks mount up. Wait a couple of weeks and upload the second one without ever stepping outside.

In this entire thread I really though someone would come along and maybe not in so many words say just that. This thread is for that- getting into the mind of the hoaxer. Why it never seemed to get this kind of reply is beyond me. Maybe no one wanted to bother as things were beginning to slip into an existence discussion- something that was never meant to happen. Thank you for your response and it was good o see that it better addressed the topic. Took a while to come around but thanks to you it finally did. I don't understand why people make things so complicated sometimes.