Jump to content
masterbarber

The Actual Developing Of The Pgf (2)

Recommended Posts

hiflier
BFF Donor
5 hours ago, Backdoc said:

It is not as if Al was chartering a flight when he had never done so before.  It was not as if Al was using some courier or whatever having never done so before. It sounds like in the usual course of his business he had done so many times.   He did what he was familiar with.

 

It would have been much better though if DeAtley had stated definitively that that was what he DID instead of that was what he WOULD have done. He is a sly fox who is certainly hiding something.

 

2 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

Another thing that speaks against a hoax; They got their gear together but the one item they didn't take with them was plaster of paris.

If they had planned a hoax and knew they would be casting some of their fake tracks, wouldn't taking some plaster of paris be a no brainer?

 

This was my contention also a while back on another thread. WHY did they have to ride back for the casting materials? After I posed the question dmaker replied that they didn't take the plaster with them because if would have tired the horses LOL. But going back for the casting materials was something that says no hoax, too, because they could have casted tracks even at camp or someplace more convenient and said they were from Patty just so they wouldn't have to ride all the way back to Bluff Creek. I mean the ONLY reason to go back out to Bluff Creek ans cast the tracks would be that that is where the tracks WERE.

 

More and more as we go through this and pick apart these little details the more the true story of the PGF holds together. Not to mention the 'thing' that is on the film itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Agreed about going back for casting material. More importantly as you said the film subject is really what matters 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

^ So then how can you remain convinced that she isn't/wasn't real, P-G?  Just look at that almost disproportionately small head in your avatar and compare that to all Bigfoot costumes.  How could a Bigfoot costume have been so realistically bulked up (especially back then) with such a gigantic girth and with such naturally moving muscles and with other body parts that make it seem like she could have bench pressed a greyhound bus when nothing like that is known to have been done with any costume, ever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

They took the pack horse as they were planning on looking at an area they had been to just two days before, and they were planning on camping out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
9 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

It would have been much better though if DeAtley had stated definitively that that was what he DID instead of that was what he WOULD have done. He is a sly fox who is certainly hiding something.

 

 

This was my contention also a while back on another thread. WHY did they have to ride back for the casting materials? After I posed the question dmaker replied that they didn't take the plaster with them because if would have tired the horses LOL. But going back for the casting materials was something that says no hoax, too, because they could have casted tracks even at camp or someplace more convenient and said they were from Patty just so they wouldn't have to ride all the way back to Bluff Creek. I mean the ONLY reason to go back out to Bluff Creek ans cast the tracks would be that that is where the tracks WERE.

 

More and more as we go through this and pick apart these little details the more the true story of the PGF holds together. Not to mention the 'thing' that is on the film itself

 

HIflier,

You did; I remember reading your previous posts about this and thought you made a very good point so I thought it was worth mentioning again. To pull off a hoax and provide supporting track evidence for the fake film, you would absolutely need two items; a camera with film in it and some plaster of paris. And we know they took the camera.

 

"These fake tracks look convincing, Roger."

"They do look good Bob. Now, to help sell the whole thing we need to make some casts of these tracks. Would you go get the plaster of paris you put on the pack horse?"

"I thought you packed it".

"No, I thought you did."

 

I put the odds they just flat out forgot to pack the plaster of paris at zero. It's one more item that has defied a rational explanation for the last  50+ years. I'm sorry but I don't consider concern that taking the plaster would tire out the horses as a rational explanation. ;) 

And like it's been said before; they didn't need to travel 600 miles just to make a fake film.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I don’t see how forgetting or not forgetting plaster proves anything.   I go to leave the house with my car keys still sitting on the counter at least once a week. I’ve been driving for a while now, it’s called forgetting.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

The difference is, in a hoax scenario, they know they would need plaster of paris and camp was about four miles away over what I'm assuming was somewhat rugged terrain. So it wasn't a simple matter of going back to camp over smooth, flat terrain for the plaster and being back at the track site in just 10 minutes or so. It would take time and trouble to get the plaster so it's hard to imagine they would have just forgotten it, yet remember everything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I don’t think it changes anything.  Forgetting something  Is possible for anyone any time.   You don’t think there are cases of people forgetting things when going around the world on vacation?   You’ve never forgotten something for say a camping trip?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
8 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ So then how can you remain convinced that she isn't/wasn't real, P-G?  Just look at that almost disproportionately small head in your avatar and compare that to all Bigfoot costumes.  How could a Bigfoot costume have been so realistically bulked up (especially back then) with such a gigantic girth and with such naturally moving muscles and with other body parts that make it seem like she could have bench pressed a greyhound bus when nothing like that is known to have been done with any costume, ever?

Because I am convinced based on evidence or lack there of available to me that the creature does not exist. I never said I could explain the wonderful film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I used to carry around casting material in my pack but castable footprints are a very rare thing.   The casting material is heavy and you have to carry the water to mix it too.   It is basically dead weight that is very rarely used.    So I leave it in my truck and if the footprint is good, would hike out and carry it in.     How would P/G even suspect they would find castable footprints or that anyone would want to see them if they cast them?  It was not like Meldrum was out there waiting for a cast.     I think he was about 11 at the time.  

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

^ Very good points, SWWASAS, those are more reasons to believe Roger and Bob G's "story" absolutely, in my opinion.

 

On the other hand, if you are forgetting your car keys at least once a week (while intending to leave in your car), Twist, then maybe try something different, like hanging your keys on a hook by the door?  (just a suggestion)  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

I'm going to rephrase what I said earlier.

If we assume a hoax scenario, what we'll see is what Roger and Bob actually did doesn't really make much sense for a hoax. 

They knew ahead of time on the afternoon of the 20th, they would be making a fake film, casting some fake tracks and then go ship the film off to get it developed. 

In making the film and casting the tracks, only two items are needed; a camera with film and plaster of paris. That's all they needed, only two items. (Three if you count the suit but I would expect the actor would look after that) 

So how much sense does it make that they only need two items and both men forget one of them? Both men can only remember one out of two items? And furthermore, both men forget the exact same item. 

Does this all sound perfectly logical? 

Let's remember, it wasn't a short easy trip back to camp. And at that time of year, and in the mountains, it gets darker earlier (Bob mentioned this to John Green) so a trip back to camp for the plaster just delays things even more. 

 

Here's what really defies logic in a hoax scenario; If the plan was to make a fake film, cast tracks then go ship the film off, what was the purpose of taking only camping equipment on the pack horse when there were no plans to camp out overnight? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

If the whole thing is a hoax then forgetting the plaster could be totally made up.  An added little detail or nuance to add to the story.   If that’s the case then obviously it worked since you all are using it to aid your opinion that it all went down as they say.   

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Patty walks a certain distance over time. 

 

She does this smoothly. 

 

If a person cannot walk that distance in that amount of time,  it is not a man in a suit.  

 

If a person can then we need to know if a suited human can.

 

This logic is the same as testing the Memorial Day footage with an Olympic level sprinter.  In that case the sprinter could cover the distance as the filmed figure.  If it has turned out one of the fastest people on the planet could not best the figure on that film it would conclude a hoax would be nearly impossible in that case.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

bd, I've read of a couple of attempts where a human tried to cover the same distance as Patty did in the same or less amount of time and the subject could not do it. And these attempts would have been without a suit on; and we know a fur suit would slow a person down.

 

Your mention of this reminds me of something I read about last week. A man was talking about how uneven the surface was that Patty walked over yet she never does look down as she walks. She does walk somewhat leaned over but she doesn't look down at her feet; she always looks forward. And she walks at a consistent, steady pace; she doesn't stumble or hesitate. 

He also mentioned even after she looked back at Roger, she still did not look down as she turned back; she just continued on as before. So he tried experimenting at outdoor wildlife expos to see how a person's walking would be affected by wearing a costume mask over their face. He would find willing subjects, have them put on a pullover gorilla mask and walk briskly for about 15 yds. He also got some people to be the audience and note how often the subjects would look down while walking.

The results were that the subjects looked down an average of 3-5 times over 15 yds. And they weren't walking on the same type of surface as Patty. 

The experiment wasn't exactly scientific and I don't know how much can be taken from it but it was interesting.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×