Jump to content
norseman

Pgf Recreation Proposal

Recommended Posts

norseman

Just thinking out loud here.

What if we were able to put our heads together and recreate the PGF? Using the original camera/lens combination, 2 riding mounts and a pack animal, basically as close as we could get it.

What about the film subject? What suit should be used? Should we concern ourselves with recreating Bob H's testimony of the suit he supposedly used? Or something simply "store bought" that would be in the range of income of a out of work rodeo cowboy during the late 60's, that can be had today?

One thing that has always bothered me, is that no test I have ever seen takes into account the tracks that were left behind. I think it is only fair that since no plausible explanation has ever been given, the recreation film subject should be made to not only make a good sell on film, but also a good sell with plaster casts after. Can both things be accomplished at once?

I'm pretty skeptical that it can be, but I'm willing to take a good look at it.

I have the horses, and tack covered.........anybody else have anything they would like to contribute? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John

I think it's a nice idea - but as has been said before (and also fairly recently) recreating the PGF only proves that it can be recreated - not proof of what is actually on the film.

I know it's perhaps cynical - but who gets to decide if it's a successful test? I remember years ago visual effects expert Jim Danforth commenting (going from memory here) that even the academy awards for visual effects were somewhat subjective in nature as there were no technical specifications laid down to measure a successful effect (for example visibility - or lack of, compositing artifacts at a given distance from the screen).

In the case of the PGF where like it or not, there is a high degree of emotional attachment, conviction often overrides reason. Over the years on this board I've certainly seen posters claim the PGF subject eclipses similar creatures created in Hollywood years later. I believe that even if judged by a completely unbiased and neutral party - a success would not be accepted within certain quarters of bigfootery, whereas a failure might be jumped all over to prop up certain folks already established convictions while likewise not convincing those that already think the most reasonable explanation for the film is a hoax**.

As you mention budget and footprints - again - who decides on these restrictions as we simply don't know what happened or what money was available at the time? There is certainly evidence of available funding above and beyond the often quoted 'poor cowboy' level - even then remarkable work can (and has) been done by dedicated amateurs who's budgets are presumably extremely limited but don't have the business overheads of a professional to take into account.

Sorry to sound defeatist but honestly that is the short version of the problems I envisage with such a recreation however sincerely proposed and executed.

**ETA Cards on the table - I personally have no doubt that the PGF could be visually duplicated - so a 'failure' would make me start wanting to ask questions!

Edited by John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

The bottom line for me?

I want to see a very large man in a ape suit match Patty's gait, WHILE putting down a comparable track way in moist sand. And do so on 16 mm film in a convincing manner.

green_laverty_pic.jpg

I think a test like this would show the plausibility of something like this being hoaxed. I personally believe it wouldn't be easy to do one or the other (man in fur suit filmed or believable trackway of a 700 lbs animal), but it would be impossible to do BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

Either some guy in blue jeans is seriously jumping and stamping tracks into the soil a 1.25" deep or he is walking along in a compliant gait in a fur suit........but he isn't doing both.

If this could be proven conclusively..........then the hoax theory becomes even more complex, and more twisted. Now Patterson, Gimlin and film subject must shoot the flim, make a trackway, and then cover up the extra sign to make the track way look convincing that two cowboys rode up with three horses and startled a Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

The person to be able to have this happen could be Bill Munns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

I think a test like this would show the plausibility of something like this being hoaxed. I personally believe it wouldn't be easy to do one or the other (man in fur suit filmed or believable trackway of a 700 lbs animal), but it would be impossible to do BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

Why would both need to be done at the same time? Let's say the guy in the suit walked, and left light impressions doing his compliant gait. All someone has to do is follow those footsteps with heavy fake feet on, not that difficult to do. Green even said to Gimlin about their being P&Gs tracks all over and around Patty's tracks at the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Why would both need to be done at the same time? Let's say the guy in the suit walked, and left light impressions doing his compliant gait. All someone has to do is follow those footsteps with heavy fake feet on, not that difficult to do. Green even said to Gimlin about their being P&Gs tracks all over and around Patty's tracks at the scene.

Right, the two pronged attack scenario.

It's actually quite hard to do, at least convincingly. For one the monkey suit track isn't going to line up with a faked trackway of a "giant" animal. So that means somewhere along the way, you have to start sterilizing the trackway and that leaves evidence of its own of skullduggery.

But if this test failed to show that it was a hoax? Then the two pronged scenario could be the next scenario tested.

I seriously do not believe that this scenario is going to be very easy either for a hoaxer. It's going to be very hard to sterilize a long track way.........very hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Just noting that I have put together some proposals for doing filming recreation tests. Waiting on decisions of others who would need to be involved.

Making an effort to stage such an event may reveal considerations we had not thought about, and that's what I hope to accomplish. Where we discuss things as being easy or difficult, as we try to visualize the event in our minds, a filming recreation may lend clarity to those discussions by showing the actual ease or degree of difficulty in doing various things that needed to occur to produce the film as we know it.

So it is a worthy goal to aim for.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

Right, the two pronged attack scenario.

It's actually quite hard to do, at least convincingly. For one the monkey suit track isn't going to line up with a faked trackway of a "giant" animal. So that means somewhere along the way, you have to start sterilizing the trackway and that leaves evidence of its own of skullduggery.

But if this test failed to show that it was a hoax? Then the two pronged scenario could be the next scenario tested.

I seriously do not believe that this scenario is going to be very easy either for a hoaxer. It's going to be very hard to sterilize a long track way.........very hard.

An 81.5" stride length is not that difficult, especially when doing a compliant gait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

An 81.5" stride length is not that difficult, especially when doing a compliant gait.

While putting a track down that is 1.25 inches into wet sand? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Just noting that I have put together some proposals for doing filming recreation tests. Waiting on decisions of others who would need to be involved.

Making an effort to stage such an event may reveal considerations we had not thought about, and that's what I hope to accomplish. Where we discuss things as being easy or difficult, as we try to visualize the event in our minds, a filming recreation may lend clarity to those discussions by showing the actual ease or degree of difficulty in doing various things that needed to occur to produce the film as we know it.

So it is a worthy goal to aim for.

Bill

Bill,

I think it would very quickly become evident that this would be outside the realm of 3 cowboys, a modified Morris suit and a rented film camera, to pull off......IMHO of course

Also some food for thought.

http://www.ourbigfoot.com/gimlin_patterson_bigfoot_costume.html

Morris remembers the initial phone call from Patterson as being

quite odd, as he was looking to procure a gorilla suit, but he

wanted it to look more like a Neanderthal. The suit Morris sold

Patterson cost $450, which was quite expensive in the day. Roger

Patterson told Philip Morris that the gorilla suit was for a prank,

The suit cost Patterson 450 bucks.

According to this inflation calculator?

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

450 US Dollars in 1967 is currently worth:

$2905.46

Three THOUSAND dollars in today's money, does anyone else here have three grand to drop on a "prank" suit? And of course the Morris suit isn't the suit we see in the PGF. Which means additional costly modifications were made to the three thousand dollar suit OR Patterson had a fleet of these suits (when he was forced to rent a camera) OR it's not a suit at all in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Norseman:

I remember those days, having started at Universal Studios as a Makeup Artis for their "Tour" Makeup Show, in 1969. I got paid $25 a day, so I'd have had to spend a month's salary to buy a Morris suit, if I wanted one then.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Here is the Ivan Marx video of the Bossburg "cripple".

It's not even in the same league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
The suit cost Patterson 450 bucks.

According to this inflation calculator?

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

450 US Dollars in 1967 is currently worth:

$2905.46

Three THOUSAND dollars in today's money, does anyone else here have three grand to drop on a "prank" suit? And of course the Morris suit isn't the suit we see in the PGF. Which means additional costly modifications were made to the three thousand dollar suit OR Patterson had a fleet of these suits (when he was forced to rent a camera) OR it's not a suit at all in the film.

In a single day at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City DeAtley and Patterson made $84,000 showing the PGF on two king size sheets sewn together by a maid from the Holiday Inn they stayed at. In today's money that is $520491.59. Three thousand for over half a million in a single day. That's not including the hundreds of thousand of dollars they made in total which would be millions now. I'm talking about a single day projecting on blankets - half a million. DeAtley knew what he was doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolftrax

While putting a track down that is 1.25 inches into wet sand? :blink:

Have you tried it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

In a single day at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City DeAtley and Patterson made $84,000 showing the PGF on two king size sheets sewn together by a maid from the Holiday Inn they stayed at. In today's money that is $520491.59.

Who said that, Long? It looks like that place held what 2-3 thousand people, max?

post-131-095598900 1306117058_thumb.jpg

So.. They charged $5 and filled that place 6 times that day?? Just wondering where you got those figures... ??

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...