Question Regarding Hoaxes

[hiflier]

Um...where are the castings of the footprints? Where's the footage of the trackway? How come it's not moving? What's it doing in the city? Why is it.....saaaaay.....wait just the guldarned minute there.......is that....is that.....HEIRONIMUS!??!

[Terry]

in his own words, sounds conniving to me. 

 

 

He's told the story so many times even HE believes it.  ;-)

 

t.

[SWWASAS]

'^^^ Amazing statement.    Of course his story has evolved over the years as he has retold it.    Much study has been done on human memory and one of the findings is that the more often an event in memory is recounted the more likely it is to have changed over time.    Even to the point that major facts are remembered wrong.    The skeptics claim this is evidence of a hoax or fabrication but it is just how the human memory works.   Each time an event is remembered the brain neuron electrical chemical  connections are reinforced to retain the memory.   If some fact is hazy then the brain creates a memory to fill in the hazy gap.      We have even seen that in the skeptics claims over the years.    Details of when, where, and how the BF costume was seen,  what phone was used, when that phone was obtained, and what it could do;    all of those have evolved with time with each telling of the event.    But apparently those inconsistencies have no meaning relative to a skeptic but are smoking guns when it comes to Gimlin's memories.  

 

Advice to future P/G type video witnesses.      Sit down immediately after the event and write every detail you can remember,   because people will be lining up to find discrepancies in your account of what happened even 50 years later.   Not only do human memories fail but without fail, skeptics 50 years from now will make the same claims about gaps in memory.   

Edited May 26, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Crowlogic]

^Indeed memory evolution.  Evolved from oh yeay me and Roge hoaxed it to You know I'd sure like to see another one up close.  Exactly how much and what type of memore evolution is permissable in Woods & Wildmen?

[norseman]

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

In my opinion you cannot do both. You cannot wear a suit convincingly WHILE wearing stompers and taking extra big strides and trying to mash tracks into the ground. I think its impossible.

Think about it..... we know exactly where the film site is. We have track casts that correspond to the film and the site. We have follow on investigations including a 6 ft 6" man walking Patty's route across the creek bed with corresponding deadfall and trees matching up in both films!!!

Todd Standing doesnt tell you where he is shooting his Sasquatch films, nor does he share it with other researchers.

The PGF stands today not just because its a **** good film, but because of the transparency after wards. No hoaxer tells you where he shot his film and oh by the way here is the corresponding trackway.......no way.

Most PGF critique I hear is about attacking Pattersons or Gimlins character......not so much the film itself. And thats because every attempt to discredit the film has failed. To my knowledge the skeptics have not even mounted a formal professional rebuttal to Bill Munn's work....why???

Its because its easier to throw rotten fruit from the shadows than it is to stand up publicly and state your case.

[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.

 

[hiflier]

Thank you Norseman for commenting here and for bringing up some of the physical capabilities and incapabilities  inherent in creating this film. Even If- big if- someone could pull off the motion and look of Patty it makes no sense to only have 59.5 seconds of film for all the work and effort beginning from having the first thought of pulling a hoax and on through the manufacting of the suit and creating the scene all the way out at Bluff Creek via traveling on horseback.

 

And even after accomplishing all of that- because the film shows that they did in fact accomplish all of those tasks- to not have the plaster casting material on board at the time of filming? Slap in another film real on site and film a trackway instead of hoaxing some more footage of perhaps the "creature" circling back and doing maybe some tree peeping at a distance? Or again walking away further in the woods so as not to show any "zippers" in the suit? To me that would make more sense for a hoaxer who had gone the extra mile setting the whole thing up.  

 

I've seen the threads debating the hands, the feet, the knees, the muscles, the walk, the tracks, the fingers, the "suit", and just about every other tiny detail of Patty. Also discussions about the timeline in and out to get the film developed and where. But all of that while interesting doesn't address why there wasn't more footage of the "creature" itself; suit or no suit. Nope. What do we get instead? Footage of a couple of guys riding around on horseback, and a trackway. And for all of than less than one minute of the absolute MAIN SUBJECT of the whole shebang- the whole purpose of this "hoax"- filming the guy in the suit.

 

It doesn't make any sense to have that perfect opportunity to shoot enough footage so that when the royalties came in from the 59 second Patty film they could fake the next expedition and simply release some more footage and say, "LOOK! We found another female one! And here's the film we took of it."  It could have really paid off to have used the trackway footage instead to make at least ten minutes more of the guy in the suit running around in different settings for later releases. I don't get why they didn't if it was a hoax. Nope they would rather get on horseback after filming Patty and run back to camp for plaster. This thread is fo dig into this aspect as much as we can to see if the PGF should even be looked at from this viewpoint. Personally I've never seen it brought up in quite this way.  

[Guest Crowlogic]

^You keep missing the point that what they ended up with was a passable short subject while the rest of the hypothetical 10 other takes were crap and wouldn't have even fooled Bob H's mom.  Did you know that Bob Dylan's masterpiece epic song Sad Eyed Lady Of The Lowlands required 5 takes yet the story says it was done in one.  Like A Rolling Stone was 5 takes, Desolation Row was another 5 takes and what appears on the album is two takes spliced together.  So expect there to be outtakes that nobody will ever see, just like nobody will ever see the suit.  It's really silly to even expect the suit to exist.  However since the post PGF bigfoot world produced not even a hair of bigfoot the PGF is best treated as a hoax until whatever has to freeze over freezes over to give us bigfoot. 

[norseman]

I dont disagree Crow, just because the PGF has never been cracked doesnt absolve us from producing physical proof.

[SWWASAS]

If several takes were required why has no one seen them?  Film is not like digital media.   Someone monitored the development but no one claims to have ever seen it.  The clips not used still existed after the film was produced but where are they?   Who decided which clips to throw out and which to use?    Cecil B DePatterson?   I do not remember any claims made that they saw Patterson having or using a film editor.   Many saw the Patty film within days but no one claims to have seen the outtakes that never made the film.    How would something that could not fool Bob H's Mom suddenly be good enough to be the Patty film?. Sharp learning curve?           Patty is supposed to be a costume but no one can produce it.    Crow constantly complains that not one hair of evidence exists for BF but the skeptics dream up all of these things that were required to produce a hoax film but cannot produce any evidence any of it has ever existed other than someone's word they saw a costume or put the costume on and became Patty.       That anecdotal evidence from a handful of people with an agenda is not as good as that hundreds of impartial BF witness can provide and yet skeptics disdain and dismiss anecdotal evidence?    Put those outtakes or that Patty costume on my lab table then I might believe they exist.          .  

Edited May 26, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[hiflier]

Your "10 other takes" is  indeed a hypothetical assumption of course. And your use of Bob Dylan examples trying to illustrate that there may have been out takes has no relevance to a home made 16mm movie. Produce those out takes and we can talk. There's too much else to isolate one point and say hoax. They have a minute of a female Sasquatch- suit or not- and plenty of time and film to get it right if out takes are what your wanting. Besides, they didn't know what they had until the film was developed so how could they even know out takes were needed? What? They did their own editing after the development to get rid of the "bad" footage? I think not.

SWWA: Cecil B DePatterson? Absolutely hilarious comment!

Edited May 26, 2016 by hiflier

[MIB]

Incorr1 -

 

I'm  thinking of some of some video from MK Davis ... think it's been released now.    It appears to me to be approximately as clear as the PGF.

 

Interesting thing ... the best video I've seen is older stuff done on film rather than digital.   That's another one of those questions that, since I've seen a couple, changes from an existence question to one of how and why, but it is still a very good question that requires an eventual answer.

 

MIB

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

film has higher definition than digital.

The only caveat is that if you have enough memory storage 

you can save enough pixels that may numerically compare to analog.

But there are an awful lot of silver halide crystals on a film substrate.

each speck is three or four atoms, try getting that with a ccd.

[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.

 

 

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

 

A lack of awareness of history? No, not so much as a poorly worded post. Please excuse me for that. I am aware that Mr. Patterson had been to the location previously....again, a wide open location perfect for such a perfect shot. In fact, an ideal location. My point, sir, is that Patterson struck pay dirt where you, or I or any number of diligent searchers, over the last half century, have not.

 

Given the countless accounts I have read in the decades since, our friend mostly likes to stay hidden or make for the nearest bush, post haste. But not in the Patty film. Not in the least. It seems to wanna be seen. I am at odds with what I am seeing on that film given the numerous accounts I have read about it.

 

Now my problem with the framework of the film aside, let me tell you I find the film **** compelling....and I am on the fence.....with a significant lean towards it being legit.

 

MIB.....you might wanna assume less. Take care of your own homework. I'm not here waving a flag or damming anything....nor am I here to offend. I'll post what I think, what I know or my views without reservation. This isn't a full time or even a part time pursuit for me. And you'll find I have respect for any and all for their views....and the subject at hand.

[Guest Ned Merrill]

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.

Hiflier....TBH....I am on the fence about the Patty film. Its very compelling.....its effectively eerie....if I recall it startled the horses dramatically. It seems to suggest what we are seeing is the real deal. I lean towards it being the real deal....though again....I am uncomfortable with the notion they set out to find a Sasquatch, and not only did they succeed....it was in a near perfect wide open space and it walked through that wide open area as if wanting to be captured on film, as opposed to hi-tailing it stage left, right away, into the dark woods. But again...it shocked the horses as many accounts of Sasquatch around animals seem to suggest.

 

Over the years, as I've lazily and aimlessly done some shoddy reading on the whole Patterson-Gimlin episode, I recall reading that Roger was less than accurate with certain small details or facts. I know many have attacked his character while others seem to hold Gimlin as a man of his word. I have never met either of them and am in no position to really say.

 

If I were out searching for a Sasquatch, armed with a camera, and one just happened to oblige me, and in the process, scare the life out of my horses, myself and my partner, I'm not sure I'd be composed enough, or thoughtful and meticulous enough, to later return and take casting samples. For that matter, I might be too afraid. Then again, I get the impression Roger Patterson had some ice water in his veins, based on what I have read of the man.....so where I may have failed, he did not.

 

Going back to "framework"......it makes no sense that if this were a fake, and you knew you were lined up with suit, staging and the proper time and isolation to get the best footage possible, why even bother with plaster?

 

That they even brought the plaster, suggests to me they were sincere and earnest....and quite possibly I am wrong, that Patterson knew where his best chance lay in getting actual footage......of a Sasquatch, sans zipper.