Question Regarding Hoaxes

[Guest Crowlogic]

Track footage.....Not someone in a suit making them? This is regarding a video of a supposed female Sasquatch and why Patterson and Gimlin, even though thy hoaxed the whole thing, or even if they didn't, went to the trouble to do a round trip on horseback just to cast prints instead of just riding off into the sunset with a bunch of reels under their arms. This isn't a hard question to understand is it because it's sure looking like a hard one.

You are assuming that the the activity at Bluff Creek was exactly as P&G say it was.  Perhaps they didn't have to go back to camp and get plaster.  If making a hoax they take plaster with them make the tracks and then cast.  After the fact they can tell the world they slapped leather all the way back to camp to get the plaster.  Nobody else was there they could have said anything they wanted to.  IMO the casts taken by Titmus don't resemble the one's Patterson cast and is shown holding.  

[hiflier]

Casting tracks was a natural thing to do hoax or not.  They brought plaster which implies the intent to cast if needed.  Having the casts has worked in favor of the film all these years it's the perfect show and tell.  Patterson took his bent stirrup around too, another show and tell.  

 

I've said many times already that the PGF is a dead end in that it didn't lead to future possibly real films or capture.  The vacuum of credible bigfoot evidence along with the preponderance of hoaxing is about as damning to the PGF as it could be.

I agree- hoax or not. And since when is not leading to future films a reason to blacklist the PGF? That make zero logical sense Crow-LOGIC If your goint to debate this don't be lazy because I'm sure not lazy about it. Sharp as a tack in fact! Anyway the point I'm making is that yes they did bring plaster- and either figured they wouldn't need it or simply forgot it. Either way going back for it says a lot considering what it took to do so. You may say these guys were used to mounting up and riding and that would be true. But after the filming of the "girl" it was either excitement that caused them to retrieve the casting goods or the thinking that just maybe they hadn't gone to enough trouble yet putting Heironimus in the suit, packing up everything, getting out there for three weeks, doing the filming, and getting the reels to the developer. Nope that wasn't nearly enough. They had to ride out to camp and back to get some molds of footprints. THEN they had done enough, right?

Now that's a logical line of thinking if you need one. In other words casting was normal as you say but if it was a hoax in a suit the fact that the cast materials weren't with them tells me that they wouldn't bother with the trouble to go and get them. Just get back to camp with the goods and keep on going. CHA-CHING!

Edited May 21, 2016 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Track footage.....Not someone in a suit making them? This is regarding a video of a supposed female Sasquatch and why Patterson and Gimlin, even though thy hoaxed the whole thing, or even if they didn't, went to the trouble to do a round trip on horseback just to cast prints instead of just riding off into the sunset with a bunch of reels under their arms. This isn't a hard question to understand is it because it's sure looking like a hard one.

You are assuming that the the activity at Bluff Creek was exactly as P&G say it was.  Perhaps they didn't have to go back to camp and get plaster.  If making a hoax they take plaster with them make the tracks and then cast.  After the fact they can tell the world they slapped leather all the way back to camp to get the plaster.  Nobody else was there they could have said anything they wanted to.  IMO the casts taken by Titmus don't resemble the one's Patterson cast and is shown holding.

Of course I'm assuming that. But the point I'm making is regardless to that. I'm basing this on what P&G said. Everything you said after "Perhaps" could have also happened. But my point isn't based on alternative scenarios. It's based on what they said. They said they had to go back to camp and get casting supplies. Without that statement this thread wouldn't even exist! Just a bit more logic tossed your way, my friend. You make for good arguments but they are not references to the story as related by P&G. I'm not saying the PGF is true mind you. I'm saying that the filming of the "girl" was more than sufficient for a hoax. So the turnaround for plaster with all that it supposedly entails makes no sense- FOR A HOAX JOB. Am I wrong to think this? The films production as we view it, the location, the logistics, the creation of a suit, and all the rest IMO? If it was me I would have blown off the casting efforts and just got out of there film(s)in hand, hide the suit, and live happily ever after.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Mr. McSquatch? I really cannot see that you directly addressed the issue. You're all around it with some obvious effort involved but this is more of a pointed question so pointed answers would be expected. Besides this isn't going to turn in to an existence debate just so everyone knows. It's only for discussion the action of whether of not Roger and Bob needed to go through the trouble they took to get the follow up prints when video of a man in a good suit would have been more than adequate for a hoax.

And again I say this because I haven't seen any one else or another team go to this length to hoax the public where video of a guy/gal in a suit AND prints were used to try and fool the public. BTW, which Ape Canyon photo was staged and do you know that it's a strawman argument anyway right out of the gate? In other words I'm having difficulty relating it to the PGF.

(HINT: I'm probably not the only one)

 

What you call follow supporting evidence, I consider part of the hoax.

 

Roger was involved casting 'tracks' long before the  PGF happened.

 

This was the heyday of Bigfootery. In case you haven't noticed, cast footprints were generally the standard of evidence at the time.

 

What kind of bigfoot hunter would Rog have been had he packed up the camera without casting some tracks?

 

As I said in my previous post; Roger was a showman. I'm not talking about existence. I'm talking about misdirection. If that makes you uncomfortable I'm fine with that.

 

Fwiw I don't believe PG tracked Patty after the filming, nor did they return to camp for plaster. The casting materials were likely in the packhorse saddlebags.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Squatchy McSquatch

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Not the same thing. I contend that if he filmed the Sasquatch first as a hoax then casting any tracks or filming a trackway probably wouldn't be part of the hoax. The dynamic of having things in the reverse order is an important thing to consider here. If Freeman's intention was to hoax a video? Then do bunch of takes of a guy in a suit and move onto to developing.

I understand what you are saying but this is all about hoaxing by putting a guy in a suit and filming him. If hoaxing was the intent behind the PGF then only that film would be all that would have been needed. That's what this thread is about. So are you suggesting that Freeman filmed a trackway, cast the prints, and then said "Hey, I've got a great idea, let's put a guy in a suit and film him too. But first lets ride our horses back to camp and then ride back out again to do it. That way it will seem more authentic to the gullible public"?

That's the scenario for the PGF. Of course there are no timestamps on the videos like today so both parties may have fudged the order of things. In which case we take them at their word or not. No one has suggested that Roger and Bob did anything in an order other than what Roger and Bob said regarding the order in which the films were made. So I'm saying if you've got the video of the guy in the suit...uh...even though it was a female suit LOL...then casting prints was moot and to even think of doing it after the fact for the sake of a hoax, knowing the effort involved, they would've just run with what they had staged and called it good.

 

The idea that film alone would be sufficient proof is your claim.  I am not required to regard it as anything other than a false argument.

 

Unless, of course, you can back up your claim with an example of a Bigfoot having been proven by film and film alone.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Squatchy McSquatch

[hiflier]

Oh Nothing makes me uncomfortable, my friend. It gets in the way of clear thinking. For the record I haven't called anything "supporting evidence". And yes, casting prints was de rigueur for the day and still is. As far as having casting material already on board a packhorse? IMO THAT would be what was expected right? Then as long as it was a hoax why not lie and say they had the materials with them? Even if the materials WERE still at the camp instead of lying the other way round by saying they had to go back for them?

If you're going to debate this then paint me into a corner that has no window. Saying one has to go back for casting items in a day when as you say, and we know, was a time when casting was a given would be embarrassing to admit. It therefore follows that to lie and say they had the necessary items with them would make them look good. But they didn't look good. The said they forgot those materials. If they discovered that fact on site and had to go for them then it would have made more sense to lie and say that they had them packed on the horse. It's little things like this that makes me wonder how the heck they ever engineered the film and all that would have had to be incorporated to pull it off.

Saying they had to go back to camp might make for good copy but why lie about it as having the goods on board would have been better copy all the way. So...they either lied about having the stuff on board, or lied about going back to camp. Zat sound about right to you?

[OldMort]

So let's take it a step further: Gimlin allegedly got up in the middle of the night and rode a few miles in the rain in order to cover the tracks with bark or whatever. Did they still feel that despite the film and casts that they had insufficient evidence and needed other witnesses to corroborate their story? That part seems a little over the top as if it were contrived...

[hiflier]

Not the same thing. I contend that if he filmed the Sasquatch first as a hoax then casting any tracks or filming a trackway probably wouldn't be part of the hoax. The dynamic of having things in the reverse order is an important thing to consider here. If Freeman's intention was to hoax a video? Then do bunch of takes of a guy in a suit and move onto to developing.

I understand what you are saying but this is all about hoaxing by putting a guy in a suit and filming him. If hoaxing was the intent behind the PGF then only that film would be all that would have been needed. That's what this thread is about. So are you suggesting that Freeman filmed a trackway, cast the prints, and then said "Hey, I've got a great idea, let's put a guy in a suit and film him too. But first lets ride our horses back to camp and then ride back out again to do it. That way it will seem more authentic to the gullible public"?

That's the scenario for the PGF. Of course there are no timestamps on the videos like today so both parties may have fudged the order of things. In which case we take them at their word or not. No one has suggested that Roger and Bob did anything in an order other than what Roger and Bob said regarding the order in which the films were made. So I'm saying if you've got the video of the guy in the suit...uh...even though it was a female suit LOL...then casting prints was moot and to even think of doing it after the fact for the sake of a hoax, knowing the effort involved, they would've just run with what they had staged and called it good.

 

The idea that film alone would be sufficient proof is your claim.  I am not required to regard it as anything other than a false argument.

 

Can you cite an instance where bigfoot has been proven real by a film?

Film alone is NOT my claim. Now that's the second time you've issued a false comment. And whatever you're "required" to do is entirely your own judgment. Even asking if I can cite an instance where film is proof just shows that you're struggling getting this. This isn't about the film as proof. And this isn't about anything based on other than what P&G said. They said they had to go back for casting materials. Period. I'm saying as a hoax why would anyone go to the trouble? Even if it wasn't a hoax why go to the trouble? If they did indeed have the materials in a saddlebag why lie and say they didn't?

You're trying to make this into something much bigger that it is. All I'm saying is for all the rigamarole after the supposed filming of Heironimus in a suit- and even getting to the point of being able to do so- suit and all- why would hoaxers not simply leave with the film in hand and a smirks on their faces. This whole turnaround for casting supplies just doesn't make sense then. That's all this thread is about. If you were hoaxing the exact same thing in the exact same way would you go to the same trouble just to get a set of prints or would you run with the film chuckling? It's an honest and fair question.

[guyzonthropus]

As much as I hate to say it...crowlogic does have a point about the potential for the actual sequence of events to be considerably different than reported.

And in considering the motivations of a hoax, one might do well to think of other possible players with more nefarious agendas and intent, such as any groups wishing to discredit the phenomena or creating distraction.

Don't get me wrong, I view the film as authentic, myself, but were it to be hoaxed, one ought not discount the possibility of deeper more far reaching intent on the part of other unnamed participants, some who could well have foreseen the benefit or need of producing casts as further evidence to be disproved or as further distraction from the actuality of the creatures.

Edited May 21, 2016 by guyzonthropus

[hiflier]

<sigh> Crow, extend this all you wish. All it does is step over the current questions I already have. Whether or not P&G thought or didn't think what they had was good enough; and even if we think that way too it's beside the point. I'm not belittling what your saying. But it's premature. This is about a hoaxer. This thread is about HOAXERS remember? everything you've read up to this point is all in regards to hoaxing. It's about whether or not and how much trouble a hoaxer involved in the PGF would go to to get the goods to market. Rain for instance. Everyone talks about the rain. Has anyone looked up an archived weather site to see if it was raining? I haven't so I'm asking.

I'm only after this: FOR A HOAXER I'm saying that all the horseback riding the making of the suit the location of the filming and the actual filming is a lot to go through but I can see how a hoaxer might go that far. Which by itself is pretty far. It's the footprint casting portion that I'm working on here. Once everything necessary to make the film real enough to still be debated today, in and out of science, had been accomplished a hoaxer wouldn't go to the trouble that P&G said they did to get casted prints. Which is the nexus of this thread.

Now that's my opinion- I don't think after jumping through all those hoops and getting footage that I would give a hoot about casting prints- much less ride my horse back and forth to camp to do so. The argument is a simple as that.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^Ok Here's how it goes in my book.. Roge shoots film on Sept 12 1967, Film is developed in Palo Alto CA and sent to Al Deatley.  Roge calls Al on Sept 19th and Al tells Roge the film is shaky, distant and technically not very good and they better cast some tracks to help support it.  Roge makes his "official"  trackline and some casts and now has the full Monty for the world.  However you slice it the boys at Bluff creek either deemed it necessary to strengthen they hoax or they made casts to enhance whatever it was.  A true hoax artist is going to dot i's and cross t's as best they can.  Roger's only misstep was the Kodachrome and secret development.

 

Lastly when they shot the film they had no way of knowing if it would fly so sure do as much as you can.  You say you're sharp on this but check your level of brightness at the same time.  You're spinning wheels that are of little consequence.

[hiflier]

As much as I hate to say it...geologic does have a point about the potential for the actual sequence of events to be considerably different than reported.

And in considering the motivations of a hoax, one might do well to think of other possible players with more nefarious agendas and intent, such as any groups wishing to discredit the phenomena.

Don't get me wrong, I view the film as authentic, myself, but were it to be hoaxed, one ought not discount the possibility of deeper more far reaching intent on the part of other unnamed participants, some who could well have foreseen the benefit or need of producing casts as further evidence to be disproved or as further distraction from the actuality of the creatures.

Points well made. But pointing to possible other nefarious players and "potentials" for a different scenario other than what has bee related by P&G has it's own set of problems. That little thing about the casting materials being at camp and not on site. It's a sticking point with me. If it's a lie then why lie? The casts were made and if the materials for doing that were with them all along then....why lie and say they weren't. That's the point. Because even if they were hoaxers of the film once done after going through all they went through just to get it?

If it was me I would have said, "You stupid IDIOT!" gone back to camp with the film and kept going. Or lied and said yeah, I just walked over to Ol' Dollar, reached into her saddlebags and got the stuff to cast those babies. Piece o' cake. And not oh stupid me I left the goods at camp and had to ride back to get them. Not if I was the hoaxer at least. And that is what this discussion is all about- would a hoaxer do the round trip horsey ride or just split and try to get the film shown by April Fool's Day 1968?

[guyzonthropus]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on those points, it would surely be one of those "DOH!" moments when they realize the casting materials were not on hand, be it actual or hoax.

In light of his efforts to have the film realized as authentic, he went to considerable effort, and were it to be a hoax, other supportive artifacts could well prove influential if not pivotal, especially in the eyes of science and those he sought to fool, and by the point of the filming, I'm sure he'd put a lot of time thinking it through. After all, back then, casts were the main physical evidence, so in a way, they may have figured the need for the corroborating plaster essential. Who knows...

Once again, I do think the film is authentic and quite compelling.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Making casts was the perfect thing for them to do.  Roger had an entire cast collection so why not add the cast of the jackpot as well.   Schlepping plaster around makes little sense it's heavy and one more thing to tire the horses.  But Roger had sense to have it by a stream so the water was easy to get.  But hey it all happened conveniently near camp considering the size of the forest.

[hiflier]

Crow, can't say your book is fiction but it's not the script I'm working from. The script everyone usually works from is the P&G story. If you don't believe the story and keep on tossing out the "Story According To Crowlogic" then you will keep missing the point.

And TBH they schlepped the plaster for three weeks so what would be one more day. Regardless they didn't have it with them. But they could go and get it as you are hinting at. But a hoaxer with the money shot wouldn't bother or even HAVE plaster if the entire effort was about creating a costume, finding a guy to wear it and shooting a film of it walking in the wild. And even if a hoaxer took plaster why leave it at camp only to have to ride out for it? Good hoaxers would have had it with them. And even if that was the case they wouldn't lie about having to make an extra trip on horseback to get it.

As a hoax it just doesn't add up that plaster would be an afterthought. I say they wouldn't have bothered even bringing any but if they did they'd have it with them and do the deed all in one shot and get out.

FYI the closest weather report I could locate stated that there was fog and light rain at 5:00 am on the 21st and again later but nothing on the 20th. Granted that was a record at a place some distance away but thought you might like to know.

Edited May 21, 2016 by hiflier