Jump to content
Cotter

How much longer should we wait for a PGF recreation before it's determined it can't be done?

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch
4 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

From bd earlier; "Why did Roger shake the film until he got really close and then negated the reason to shake that film by getting stable at the closest point?"

 

From the standpoint of a hoax, what we are apparently supposed to believe is Roger and Bob G. planned this brilliant hoax that fooled people at two movie studios, plus many other people, including some scientists, but while filming the hoax, apparently Roger either completely ignored or completely forgot that flaws in the suit, or maybe problems in performing the walk by the actor, would show up better in closer shots, and proceeded to get closer to the figure and get the best frames of the video. Closer shots enable more detailed analysis so any flaws or problems are more easily spotted.

 

There's nothing like planning a hoax that you hope will fool people and then sabotaging yourself by getting the best shots at the closest point and making detection of fakery easier to accomplish.  

 

It's called the money shot. Roger drew it long before he filmed the PGF

 

storyboardmoneyshot.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
4 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

It's called the money shot. Roger drew it long before he filmed the PGF

 

storyboardmoneyshot.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Care to explain the logic of how this addresses the Q earlier on shaking the camera by design (and then not shaking it).

 

Also,

 

Let's clarify for any new people in the room, Roger did not draw Patty in some pre-Patty way.   The drawing was the account of someone else as you are well aware and Roger was just drawing it.   Roger also thought of the concept of Bigfoot as some Ape like MAN vs some Man like APE.  This drawing was not some ' tell'    It has no more to do with Patty than an episode of Buck Rogers would have to show pre-involvement in the Apollo moon landing.

    

 

Roger shook the camera because why?

Roger stopped shaking the camera because why?

Do you agree the camera stopped shaking/become very stable when Roger is at  the near closest point to Patty?

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Supposedly Roger shook the camera because he was running.

 

Were I to venture a guess, the camera became more stable in order to establish the money shot/lookback.

 

regarding the circumstances of the drawing: you afford Patterson more coincidence than is statistically possible.

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
10 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Supposedly Roger shook the camera because he was running.

 

Well we do know he was in fact running and I don't think there are many people who would say the film shows anything other than he was running be it real or a hoax.

 

I take it from this you are saying he is shaking it to sell to us the viewer he was running?

 

 

10 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Were I to venture a guess, the camera became more stable in order to establish the money shot/lookback.

 

I'll try to get beyond the planning involved with a man in a suit under this logic and just say the look back occurs at the near closest point and the most stable point of the film of the suit in broad daylight.   One may wish to get THE shot.   But like any trick you can't get so close as to see the person is hanging from wires and not really floating.   If you are trying to sell the floating illusion you don't get too close.  If you are trying to sell this close-up you cant get too close or too stable.  the camera here is both close and stable.   This eliminates any thought the shaking of the camera would be used to help blurr or cover up or deceive.   That occurs at a farther point where suit flaws are less evident.  It seems Roger is pretty careless to not make that money shot then but choose by design to make it later.  That is, Closer and no where to hide.

 

10 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

regarding the circumstances of the drawing: you afford Patterson more coincidence than is statistically possible.

 

 

 

I have previously stated IF the PGF is a hoax the ONLY reasonable remote possibility has to be the shaking of the film is simply from the running toward the man in the suit.  A hoax run looks a lot like a fake run.  As far as what is possible, the idea the camera was shaken by design as part of a hoax is nuts.  Bob H and some others trying to sell a hoax have not thought through why there would be any need to shake the film. 

 

As far as Patterson, it has to be real or a hoax.  For the PGF to be real only one extraordinary thing must end up being true.  The rest falls into place.  For it to be a hoax several extraordinary things must all turn out to be true.  Many of this do not fall into place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I am inclined to believe that the film has to be some kind of forgery 

I have no idea how it was accomplished. I also think the drawing in the book has nothing to do with the Patterson subject. I read the book. In the remote possibility the creature actually exists then the film is much easier to explain. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

I don't mean to sidetrack the thread but there is an interesting related side story concerning Roger's running with the camera and that portion of the film. I'm sure most are familiar with this but I'll mention it anyway since we're discussing Roger's running with the camera when trying to get closer to Patty.

 

If I have this more or less correct, a Russian scientist (I cannot recall his name but I think maybe it ended in "ev", Igor Bourtsev?) used the vertical oscillations of the film caused by Roger's running with camera, along with an estimation of Roger's step (or maybe stride) length, to estimate the film speed. I don't know just what his method was so maybe someone can fill in with more detail.

I'm fairly sure he came up with a film speed of 16-18fps.

 

(someone correct me if I'm wrong somewhere)

 

Edited by OkieFoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson–Gimlin_film

 

"One factor that complicates discussion of the Patterson film is that Patterson said he normally filmed at 24 frames per second, but in his haste to capture the Bigfoot on film, he did not note the camera's setting. His Cine-Kodak K-100 camera had markings on its continuously variable dial at 16, 24, 32, 48, and 64 frames per second, but no click-stops, and was capable of filming at any frame speed within this range. Grover Krantz wrote, "Patterson clearly told John Green that he found, after the filming, that the camera was set on 18 frames per second (fps) . . . ." It has been suggested that Patterson simply misread "16" as "18".

  • "Dr. D.W. Grieve, an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics ... evaluated the various possibilities" regarding film speed and did not come to a conclusion between them. He "confessed to being perplexed and unsettled" by "the tangible possibility that it [the film subject] was real".
  • John Napier, a primatologist, claimed that "if the movie was filmed at 24 frame/s then the creature's walk cannot be distinguished from a normal human walk. If it was filmed at 16 or 18 frame/s, there are a number of important respects in which it is quite unlike man's gait." Napier, who published before Dahinden and Krantz, contended it was "likely that Patterson would have used 24 frame/s" because it "is best suited to TV transmission," while conceding that "this is entirely speculative."
  • Krantz argued, on the basis of an analysis by Igor Bourtsev, that since Patterson's height is known (5'2" or 5'3"), a reasonable calculation can be made of his pace. This running pace can be synchronized with the regular bounces in the initial jumpy portions of the film that were caused by each fast step Patterson took to approach the creature. On the basis of this analysis, Krantz argued that a speed of 24 frames per second can be quickly dismissed and that "[we] may safely rule out 16 frames per second and accept the speed of 18."
  • René Dahinden stated that "the footage of the horses prior to the Bigfoot film looks jerky and unnatural when projected at 24 frame/s." And Dahinden experimented at the film site by having people walk rapidly over the creature's path and reported: "None of us ... could walk that distance in 40 seconds [952 frames / 24 frame/s = 39.6 s], ... so I eliminated 24 frame/s."
  • Bill Munns wrote, "One researcher, Bill Miller, found technical data from a Kodak technician that stated the K-100 cameras were tweaked so even when the dial is set to 16 fps, the camera actually runs at 18 fps. . . . I have nine K-100 cameras now. . . . I tried it on one camera , and got 18 fps, but the rest still need testing [and all with "film running through the camera"]."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
10 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

It's called the money shot. Roger drew it long before he filmed the PGF

 

storyboardmoneyshot.jpg

 

Other than a drawing that depicts a left footstep and a film frame that shows a right footstep, I see almost no similarity between those two images at all.  I'm not surprised, however, that those look almost identical to some professional PGf denialists.  That's a great example of grasping at straws after decades of finding nothing what-so-ever to indicate a PGf hoax.  :thumbsup:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

storyboardmoneyshot.jpg

 

Roger didn't even understand the swing phase ! But hey...hahaha !
 

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Hiflier, thanks for posting the film speed info; it had been a while and I couldn't remember who had written the info about Igor Bourtsev's study. Rene Dahinden's comments were interesting also.

 

Regarding the sketch next to Patty; would it be fair to call that head shape "odd"? It's flat on the top and shaped like a rectangle. Was it based on what someone said they actually observed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Roger Patterson did not come up with the big breasted female Sasquatch.....if we are to believe its all a hoax.

 

That honor would go to William Roe and his daughter a full decade before.

 

https://cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/femalebf/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Pat, thanks for the info. I've read the Albert Ostman story a couple of times and apparently snuff can come in handy at times. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Here is an excellent video of how the Dawn of Man sequence was filmed.  While the entire video is excellent, of special interest are the 'ape' suits.  They appear about 6:00 to 9:00 marks.  It is interesting just how much work and all the special lighting (explained at start of the video) was needed to make the suit look good.   They did not just show up at a creek bed and yell action.  Those who say the PGF is easily faked and use 2001 as evidence need to watch and consider this video.

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

It just occurred to me that I could likely get invited to about every BF conference for years if I had "the" suit.    Wait until Bob Gimlin is talking on stage then walk up behind him.  Might give him a heart attack but would be entertaining.   Anyway if someone had "the" suit we would have seen it by now.    

 

  I went to one conference and was sort of sitting in the back and a guy approached me and said he had a BF body on his truck and wanted to know what to do about it.  I of course said are you serious?    I figured there is always a chance someone produces a real body.    Anyway I was curious enough and bored with the speaker so I followed him out to the parking lot.    Sure enough, he had a full sized BF manikin strapped to the top of his van.    It might fool someone rounding a corner on a dark night but was not very good.      I have no idea why he brought it or what he expected to do with it.   It was cold and windy so I wanted to get back inside.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...