Question Regarding Hoaxes

[MIB]

I come at this from a different angle.   I wasn't aware of the existence of the PGF until about 7-10 years ago, long after my first sighting.  The figure in the film looks enough like what I saw to suggest to me very strongly she is exactly what they said she is, no hoax involved.

 

If I were going to perpetrate a hoax, I would do one thing well, not do one thing only halfway well, then try to do another halfway well to validate the first.  In practice, it creates twice as many things that have to stand up to scrutiny and if either fails, it pulls down the house of cards.   Nope, in the case of a hoax it is wisest to put all your eggs in one basket and make it a very good basket indeed.

 

The bottom line is, at this point, all attempts to prove the PGF, tracks, etc have failed on an epic scale.   The denialists have failed in every attempt and now resort to special pleading and a lot of juvenile "but but but"-ing.   They're pathetic.   It's become religion to them.   They're too wrapped up in their denial to see that every failure on their part strengthens the perception of validity in the mind of honest skeptics and honest believers alike.   And of course, knowers don't need the PGF so how the failed debunking affects them doesn't really need to be discussed.  (Besides, the laughter speaks for itself.)

 

MIB

[hiflier]

I'm not saying there aren't discrepancies. Even between the accounts submitted by Patterson and Gimlin there are discrepancies. Time discrepancies, shady reputation accusations, breeches in agreements and contracts, missing original film reels, studies that support the film, and studies that refute it, and arguments about proof, no proof, and everything else that has kept the entire thing controversial.

This thread seeks to address none of that. It's a very specific and pointed discussion- or is supposed to be anyway. And that is: would a hoaxer then or now go to the trouble of getting on horseback and ride back to camp to retrieve casting material after the fact of getting to a site on horseback with a guy who is going to then put on a suit and stride in front of a camera in the middle of nowhere. Film it and take the time and effort to get the casting materials and go back rather than just leave with the hoaxed film in hand? There's something wrong with that as far as the necessity of going back to camp for plaster.

Crowlogic says the plaster was heavy and so why tire the horses by carrying it to the view site? I say what difference does it make when it gets to the view site? The horses will have to carry the stuff sooner or later right? It makes more sense to film the guy in the suit, create the footprints, dig them out since the ground was said to be to dense for normal walking to press too deep, film the trackway, and leave the area with everything including the suit and the person who wore it. Hoaxing something that carefully as some may propose in my opinion means having the plaster on site at the time of filming.

So if they lied about going back for the plaster was it to cover the fact that they actually had it on site in the saddlebag? Not according to P&G. They had to return to camp for it. That's all this thread is about folks. Would a hoaxer, a very careful and determined hoaxer NOT have the plaster with them? And if they did then was going back for it a lie even though it would make the team look like it was their first day on the job- which it wasn't.

Sure it's a nitpick but I have to say I backpack- without a horse- and carry about 35 lbs. and you know what? 5 lbs. of that is plaster. And yeah, to Crowlogic's credit I get tired LOL. But if the plaster was an hour away in my truck and I was fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough to film a Sasquatch I WOULD go back for it. You know why? Because I wouldn't be hoaxing. This thread is about what hoaxers would do. Period

Edited May 21, 2016 by hiflier

[ShadowBorn]

 

This thread seeks to address none of that. It's a very specific and pointed discussion- or is supposed to be anyway. And that is: would a hoaxer then or now go to the trouble of getting on horseback and ride back to camp to retrieve casting material after the fact of getting to a site on horseback with a guy who is going to then put on a suit and stride in front of a camera in the middle of nowhere. Film it and take the time and effort to get the casting materials and go back rather than just leave with the hoaxed film in hand? There's something wrong with that as far as the necessity of going back to camp for plaster.

 

So if they lied about going back for the plaster was it to cover the fact that they actually had it on site in the saddlebag? Not according to P&G. They had to return to camp for it. That's all this thread is about folks. Would a hoaxer, a very careful and determined hoaxer NOT have the plaster with them? And if they did then was going back for it a lie even though it would make the team look like it was their first day on the job- which it wasn't.

I do not see issue's with this , if they were looking for this creature and have been for days . Then that one day they just decided not to take nothing with them but a camera. Sure then it makes sense that they would ride back to camp and pick up their plaster. Why not try to cover up their find, even though they have it on video. By cover up their find is , that it was raining and they did not want to loose the evidence of what they have just filmed.  I do not know  about the rain but this is what i read some where.

 

Besides people start to learn afterwards , they have had their first sighting. I still do not carry plaster on me or any of that stuff, mainly cause I do not care. But maybe they did have some thing to prove , this is why they did what they did. But we do not know since we were not in their heads at the time of the sighting. If they did have the plaster in their saddle bags well then good for them , but I have always thought that the tracks were not cast until days later. Also that they tracked this creature as far as they could. So does this sound like a hoax, the one thing I would always like to ask Mr Gimlin is why he never pulled the trigger. They both had this creature tagged and they decide to film it, when they could of had a body worth more. Strange?

[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.

 

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.

 

 

You've overcomplicated the concept of a hoax.

 

See showmanship and misdirection.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

<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.

 

If this thread is (by your own words) about HOAXERS,  but not about existence...

 

You just trolled yourself in your own thread.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Squatchy McSquatch

[Squatchy McSquatch]

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?

 

see showman

see showmanship

see my first post in chief...

[hiflier]

Thank you for your contributions.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

You're wecome.

 

Great thread, btw, and I mean it.

[hiflier]

Thank you,  This is the kind of thing that comes out sometimes after I've succeeded in over caffeinating myself.. The finer details of the PGF have been debated to death. At first I thought this was a finer detail too but I'm coming around to the thought that it really is not a finer detail. This isn't about a hand or a foot or a zipper. It kind of about how far a hoaxer would go to pull off an illusion of something being real. In the case of the PGF I'm saying, or trying to say that all the planning and creativity involved in filming a guy in a suit in the manner and location that it was done in the PGF would have been plenty. The work, the time, the trips out and back, the costume creation etc. and this isn't about whether or not the whole thing is true or not.

 

It's about whether or not most hoaxers would deem all that effort as being adequate enough to fool the public and then get rich. Stick the guy into the suit and then laugh all the way to the bank. The story says that another reel of film was retrieved out of the saddle bag to film the trackway so filming was the obvious intent of the expedition. Why not simply film another episode of a guy in a suit AGAIN and in a different location or setting instead wasting film on a stupid trackway!! Sticking logic into this little issue of casting a plaster footprint has turned the thing into something that in truth makes little sense. Put on top of that the claim that they had to go back for the plaster and the story gets even stranger.

 

So the PGF.....Yes? No? Less likely? More likely? ........Can't even go there. It's the whole casting of the prints thing that has raised a flag. Why or why wouldn't a hoaxer go to the trouble P&G said they went through to make molds of those prints. I would like to think showmanship was the purpose but IMO filming more hoaxing of a guy in a suit would make more sense. Unless as some say, the trackway was filmed at a different time like the Freeman thing. But since all we have is P&G for the story then anything else is what-if's and speculation. Hey, this ain't easy stuff.

Edited May 23, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

More important is that upright walking hominids out of Africa that looked like Patty were not known at that time.

So making a suit that looked like exactly like one would mean you had foreknowledge of future science discoveries.

[hiflier]

I'm looking into that aspect. Right off the bat there is this 1955 drawing from a witness encounter in Mica, BC. Most of us have seen this sketch:

I still stand by my original ideas and arguments in this thread. Hoax or not the film should have been enough to run with. A hoax especially would have plugged the second reel in and shot more footage of the "creature" with the "'silicone' breasts" instead of filming a trackway. Running back to camp on horseback for plaster to make casts would make little sense in that scenario.

[guyzonthropus]

Ok..how about this...just as in our time the idea of recording sounds in the night, or finding a big tuft of odd smelling reddish-Brown fur, while intriguing, unless you actually see the creature making the noise or losing that tuft to a fence line, you can't say with absolute certainty that you know what kind of creature it came from. You might be pretty dang sure, but not 100% without the visual corroboration. In this context the casts were nearly as important as the film which is saying "we observed the creature that made these tracks, and it looks like this" Either footprints or footage alone might be dismissed, but presented with both, each backing up the others validity, integrity and contex, the event and evidence is harder to refute, be it false or factual in nature.

Now, I've done a little reading on the history of this field of hoaxing, but I'm surely no expert by any means, and yet, it does indeed appear that mid to upper level hoaxing was hardly as widespread as it is today(probably before R.D. even got his first mask and pair of hairy gloves!)

Mind ya, though, hoaxing bigfoot footage wasn't so easy back then. There was no Amazon nor eBay to log onto, for your choice from a wide array of possibly passable ("little farther back...") furry costumes availble through one-click shopping with free shipping, no photoshop or "SassinYerPic" apps on the ole mobile, no easy access green screen or pages of free spooky/dramatic music downloads. In other words, maybe hoaxers would have viewed such second trips to grab the plaster all a part of producing a proper hoax, much less a decent "interesting background story" rather than whining because they had to interrupt their trolling to fine tune their "sounds of the forest" sound track, and frequency wipe the giggling from the original audio file.

Kinda like buttering toast, in that what we, today, might well deem excessive effort(milking a cow, churning the butter itself, carving ice blocks from the frozen lake in the dead of winter just in case you make butter next summer, etc. I.e., a lot of work for some toast!)for one part of a tasty breakfast, was seen back then as just all part and parcel in the making of a good and balanced hoax production.

Does this make any sense?

[hiflier]

Yes, it does and thank you for the input. I will add that "in the day", though the difficulties may not be viewed as much then as today, the effort made was still off the scale. As in there wasn't one darned thing easy about that hoax if it was indeed one. Ray Wallace making and then tromping around in his stompers wasn't easy. But something like the PGF? That wasn't just a trick cinematic overlay of a suited guy in someone's back yard overlaid onto a forest background. When I think of the logistics of getting all the sections of that joke together to a point that is still controversial today it boggles the mind.

Just the creation of a suit good enough to be argued over for over forty years is something. There should be an hour of footage of a hoax that well done for all the planning and work put into it. Some may argue that not much really went into the "production" but in truth all one has to do is read the P&G account leading up to and after the film was made. And since this thread is based on that account I still think filming the trackway (and not having plaster with them at the time) instead of making more film of some guy in a suit makes no sense for a hoax. They had extra film with them after all.

So how come they lied about having to go back for plaster just to embellish the story for dramatic effect? Why not also lie and say they had to go back for the extra film too instead of saying it was in the saddlebag? Things just aren't adding up too well here.

Edited May 24, 2016 by hiflier

[aether-drift]

The PGF is unconvincing to me.

 

There is a horizontal crease in the IT-band/TFL area which when combined with the stiff and boxy glutes, etc. just appears completely off to me, like a person constrained by a costume. The legs similarly appear to have a strange Q-angle, I mean nothing about this creature and its gait looks very natural. The stabilized and cleaned-up versions are even less compelling.

 

...TO ME...

[Guest magnum peditum]

I like that line of thinking. IMO it's a great point.

 

I have mentioned before how unlikely it seems to have the PGF be on the end of a reel considering it's film for a one and done event and not the re-recording nature of a video tape. Only one shot can work and would completely mess up the story if it didn't work out. It seems like an unnecessary complexity to add that aspect to a story. Better to say Patty was on it's own reel so many takes can be made to get it right. Why make it more difficult on oneself?

 

The timeline of development doesn't seem to prove much either. Why would a story seem more real if it's given a very short time for filming to developing to showing? It doesn't seem to add any real veracity to the overall story. If it took a week to develop the film, or even a couple weeks... how would that detract from the story? How would a very quick development time add to the story to make it more believable? Maybe I am missing something.

 

It's worthwhile to examine the story and try to see how it all works out. There are no guarantees that a true account will be conveyed with 100 percent accuracy. It's actually common and somewhat expected to have different aspects provide a certain degree of variance in any description of events.