Question Regarding Hoaxes

[hiflier]

First, I would like to welcome the two of you to the BF Forums. So, your opinion please on whether or not someone who went to all the trouble hoaxing the PGF would only have a short video. Then  slap in another reel of film from the saddlebag and shoot a trackway instead of having the guy in the suit parade around the woods for a few more times to get more footage of a "creature with breasts". And then, after shooting the trackway, ride back to camp for plaster which hoaxers IMO should have had with them. I'm proposing that a hoaxer would go back to camp with the film, the costume, and the guy who wore it and he, Patterson and Gimlin at that point would have simply left.

 

The film of "Patty" and the trackway would have been enough to fool most folks and going back to the site to cast footprints would be a redundancy a hoaxer wouldn't have bothered with. In fact if anything more film of the guy in the suit in a different place in the woods doing something different like climbing a hill would be more of what a hoaxer might do. Hoaxing or not the round trip on horseback to get the plaster and the lack of more "creature" footage says something about that day....TO ME...   

Edited May 24, 2016 by hiflier

[guyzonthropus]

I hear what you're saying...but if all of a sudden you pop up outta the woods with not one, but multiple reels, filmed in multiple contacts/events, when it was deemed highly unusual for a person to see them more than once or twice over a lifetime, much less a fortnight in the woods with yer horse, that might draw suspicion from the experts of the time and their horses (y'know..the four horsemen...) whereas making the extra effort to go back for the plaster, presuming that's what actually happened, would enhance the presentation of them being serious and dedicated researchers who go the extra mile(literally) to gather as much related corroborating evidence as might be found, all in the name of science and its method..

Another possibility is that that morning, ole Roger was a bit full of himself and offhandedly told Bob to get the plaster as well as the other stuff they'll need that day, but. Bob was thinking "I ain't his servant" then said pretty much just that, and rode off. Roger, being a self-promoter and proud of it was so taken aback he thought to himself "after an outburst like that, I'm certain he took some with him..."then after Patty did her strole, they were both like"hey, where's the plaster? I thought you brought it..." "i told you to get it yourself..."

Or maybe the night before, while reviewing the plans for next day over some Yakima whiskey, Roger was like "I know...We'll leave the plaster back in camp to lend further credibility, 'cause no one making a hoax would forget the plaster, so if we do, we'll look more professional, ironic, ain't it? Sure it may raise some question someday down the line, but by then only Bob will be around for the interrogation"

And please bear in mind the fact that I wasn't there, nor do I personally view the film as a fraud, so the above comments are of a strictly hypothetical nature and context, and should be viewed as such, despite the wonderful little plot twist at the end of my brief re-enactment of "that Which probably wasn't" , bringing the post around the full cycle, absent critique or criticism for any or all!

[hiflier]

Hey, The hypotheticals are fine. But at the end of the day what do we have to go on? Oh, not much beyond what P&G themselve said about the events before, during, and after the footage was shot. One more thing to add is that until the film was developed they didn't know if there would be ANYTHING recorded on it. Things could've been under/over exposed, the tape could've been no good or improperly loaded and the frames destroyed by light during the loading process similar to 35mm camera film.

 

I didn't look into whether or nor the reels are enclosed inside a case and loaded as a cartridge or not. But even if there was any worries about whether or not they captured something on the reel? a second run by th guy in the suit for good measure would've been expected just for good.  measure. And even then there may have been doubt of success so casting footprints would have been the ONLY evidence they would've had. That in and of itself says a lot too. 

 

I also am a proponent just so you know but this little detail of going back for plaster if they didn't really need to to pull off a hoax has been running around my brain for several days now. The more I think about it- adding in the follow up report by Lyle Laverty (FS)- the more I say that the entire deed could have been done in a stand of woods anywhere and they could've simply SAI it was at Bluff Creek. But according to everyone involved who went to the site? The deed WAS done at Bluff Creek. And I propose that if it was a hoax they wouldn't have bothered with anything that would make getting the goods difficult beyond the creation of the suit and getting the guy in it somewhere- ANYWHERE- deep in the Six Rivers National Forest.

 

So, make a suit, get a guy in it, have him take off across a sand bar, run the movie camera, hop in the truck, develop the film, and go on to fame and fortune. That to me is what I would expect from a hoaxer. Totally different scenario for a non-hoaxer of course. But either way, going back on horseback for plaster?  It has different levels of pertinence for each set of circumstances. Personally I find it kind of interesting to work through this small event detail.

[Guest Crowlogic]

First, I would like to welcome the two of you to the BF Forums. So, your opinion please on whether or not someone who went to all the trouble hoaxing the PGF would only have a short video. Then  slap in another reel of film from the saddlebag and shoot a trackway instead of having the guy in the suit parade around the woods for a few more times to get more footage of a "creature with breasts". And then, after shooting the trackway, ride back to camp for plaster which hoaxers IMO should have had with them. I'm proposing that a hoaxer would go back to camp with the film, the costume, and the guy who wore it and he, Patterson and Gimlin at that point would have simply left.

 

The film of "Patty" and the trackway would have been enough to fool most folks and going back to the site to cast footprints would be a redundancy a hoaxer wouldn't have bothered with. In fact if anything more film of the guy in the suit in a different place in the woods doing something different like climbing a hill would be more of what a hoaxer might do. Hoaxing or not the round trip on horseback to get the plaster and the lack of more "creature" footage says something about that day....TO ME...    

However Roger while barnstorming could sell copies of the casts, just like it's done today.

[Guest Ned Merrill]

I scratched the surface of this on another thread but I would like to get some additional opinions from a wider group of Forum members. I am also hoping the Mods and Admin will let this run for a while before moving it elsewhere.

The question revolves around the Patterson Gimlin Film shot in October of 1967 of what looks like a real Sasquatch. An apparent female from the looks of things but there has been much debated over the years about whether it's a hoax or not.

After the short film was finished Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin went back to their camp to procure casting material in order to make casts of the footprints. Now understand this is on top of an already remarkable film- real or not. So the question is this:

With film footage of a supposed female Sasquatch already taken what would be the point of returning to camp, picking up casting material, and going back out to the creek bed to make footprint casts. Now granted they didn't know if the film actually recorded the creature we call "Patty" so was the footprint casting a back up measure? Or if they knew the filming was successful then why do the foot castings? After all if the film was for the purposes of hoaxing an it didn't turn out then they could have simply set up another attempt and filmed again and again until they got it right.

So. Since the filming was right it should have been enough in and of itself to pull off a hoax. Why go to the extra trouble of getting on horses, riding back to camp and then returning on horses to make molds? Now that that's said we see a lot of what are called CGI video hoaxing but rarely if ever does the film crew talk about or show that casts of footprints were also made or a follow up of a trackway recorded. Plenty of furry, blurry blobsquatches though. Some are even pretty clear and obviously hoaxed.

The PGF was reasonably clear as well but the effort was made to still get film footage of the trackway and footprint casts. Was that extra effort necessary to pull off what some say is a video of a Human in a suit? If it WAS a Human in a suit then I can't see where any effort to make footprint molds would have or should have even entered the minds of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. Additional foot casts simply are not needed to pull off a hoax. Filming a guy in a suit yes; track casts no.

Has anyone thought about this aspect of the case for or against the reality what is or is not on the Patterson Gimlin Film? My opinion is that the extra effort at getting follow up footprint casts says a lot about it. In truth they didn't need them to have a hoax in that day and age be a success.

Thoughts? Opinions? This thread may not last in the General Forum so fire you shots over the bow while you can

 

You are addressing the framework of this supposed sighting. My problem from day one has been the framework.

 

The guy went out with the express purpose of filming a Sasquatch. Not only did he get one on film, he got one right out in the open, clear as day, and it seemingly obliged him and walked the catwalk.

 

Incredible.

 

And nobody in the near 50 years since has come anywhere close.

 

It like playing the lottery once, and winning it all.

[hiflier]

Crowlogic, I agree with you as well as Ned Merrill. Somehow though I think the sale of Bigfoot foot castings would be a pittance compared to selling the movie and the rights. Going on tour and showing the movie for a price AND selling casts at the venues though? Good pocket change.

@Ned. Yes the framework. Would you take some time please to expound a bit on that? My contention is that with all the setting up of something like that (costume etc.) as a hoax why take the time to even take plaster on the trip in the first place. I don't think the extra income would matter unless it's for some researchers where it might be the only factor. As in no Patty on film to promote.

Edited May 25, 2016 by hiflier

[Guest Ned Merrill]

You are addressing the framework of this supposed sighting. My problem from day one has been the framework.

 

The guy went out with the express purpose of filming a Sasquatch. Not only did he get one on film, he got one right out in the open, clear as day, and it seemingly obliged him and walked the catwalk.

 

Incredible.

 

And nobody in the near 50 years since has come anywhere close.

 

It like playing the lottery once, and winning it all.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

You are addressing the framework of this supposed sighting. My problem from day one has been the framework.

 

The guy went out with the express purpose of filming a Sasquatch. Not only did he get one on film, he got one right out in the open, clear as day, and it seemingly obliged him and walked the catwalk.

 

Incredible.

 

And nobody in the near 50 years since has come anywhere close.

 

It like playing the lottery once, and winning it all.

 

A tornado lifts up a house and transports ir to another state and it drops it on a blade of grass.

What are the odds that it would drop on that blade of grass?

The blade of grass thinks it amazing out of the billions of possibilities of dropping, the tornado chose to drop the house on it,

what where are the odds it thinks?

100%...

[MIB]

 

You are addressing the framework of this supposed sighting. My problem from day one has been the framework.

 

The guy went out with the express purpose of filming a Sasquatch. Not only did he get one on film, he got one right out in the open, clear as day, and it seemingly obliged him and walked the catwalk.

 

Incredible.

 

And nobody in the near 50 years since has come anywhere close.

 

It like playing the lottery once, and winning it all.

 

 

Not so much.  That statement shows a lack of awareness of history.

 

Patterson had been out many times before and many after.  

 

Same for Paul Freeman.

 

There are other vids out of roughly equal quality ... in other words, other vids people are still debating.   The PGF is just the best known.   Far from only.

 

Y' gotta do better homework.

 

MIB

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

You are addressing the framework of this supposed sighting. My problem from day one has been the framework.

 

The guy went out with the express purpose of filming a Sasquatch. Not only did he get one on film, he got one right out in the open, clear as day, and it seemingly obliged him and walked the catwalk.

 

Incredible.

 

And nobody in the near 50 years since has come anywhere close.

 

It like playing the lottery once, and winning it all.

 

Ned you've got a good handle on the issue.  Let the proponents spin their  web of luck and perseverance then remind yourself than it's a half century since the PGF and so far each and every well known BF event has been proven hoax.   Don't believe the secret squirrel nonsense that there are great films or photos of this thing.  There aren't if there were it would have been made public.  Bigoot requires conspiracies and cloak and dagger in order to keep going.  It's been running on empty for a long time now.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Crowlogic

[ShadowBorn]

I am still trying to figure out what the line of questioning is by Hiflier ?  Do you actually believe that the filming of this creature is a hoax? That it was done for profit only? and that they would go through all this trouble through all these years and carry this lie? I just cannot see this happening, all though the creature that is in the film does not look what I saw , does not mean it is not real. What they did that day has no meaning on the out come, since they spent days searching. The one person that you should be asking is the person who is still alive and his name is Bob Gimlin. He is the only person who can accurately give the answers that you are searching for. The others who were there that seen the tracks can only confirm what they seen. This sighting should have been treated like a crime scene , But I understand how they tried to document what they could with what they had at the time. 

 

I can see that this was not a normal event, but I also can see how others have tried to copy this same event. This is why, what makes those events hoaxes. Since they have tried to make it so similar to the filming of Patty. How can one trust those videos that look similar to Patty walking the same way in the wilderness, except with a steadier hand. It is just to convenient for people to film a creature that makes one nervous to be around them. Now this is just my take and this is due to my dislike to hoaxers. People need to out hoaxers when they are caught and have them listed so that they may not be misleading people from the truth.

[hiflier]

Crowlogic, none of that is what this thread is about. But you managed to repeat every slam you've been using in one post so at least you're making progress.

 

@Shadowborn, this this thread is attempting to create a discussion on whether or not a hoaxer would bother with the plaster if they had a guy in a suit ON FILM pretending to be a Bigfoot. I mean after going through the paces of making the suit, going on location on horseback, putting the guy in the suit, and having him parade ONLY ONCE? for a couple of minutes?! Why not shoot more "Bigfoot" instead of shooting a trackway and then returning to camp to get the plaster to cast the footprints? I am not discounting the P&G story but instead am asking that if they were hoaxers then does what I've said make any sense? IMO a hoaxer would make the suit, film the guy in it in ANY location closer to civilization as long as it LOOKED like wild habitat, and then split with the goods.

 

Would those same hoaxers go to all that trouble and then do a turnaround trip to camp just to get plaster? Plaster that should have been with them in order to pull off the hoax without getting on a horse and going back to get it. That's what doesn't make sense to me if it was an intended hoax. Why not use the film to capture an hour of the guy in the suit instead of the short time they filmed Patty. They had the extra reel of film with them for the trackway but IMO if they were hoaxers they would've concentrated the filming more on "the creature", skipped the plaster and left to go get rich. That to me is what a hoaxer would do.

 

Bottom line here is: If it was a hoax then the actions of the participants- and the results of those actions- simply do not logically match up to how I think hoaxers would operate. THAT'S what's being laid out for this discussion.

[Incorrigible1]

 

There are other vids out of roughly equal quality ... in other words, other vids people are still debating.   The PGF is just the best known.   Far from only.

 

I'm curious about this statement. Would you care to list a couple of these equal quality videos? Thanks.

[daveedoe]

in his own words, sounds conniving to me. 

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

And heeeeeere's Johnny!