Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OkieFoot

If the PGF is fake, all of this has to be true.

Recommended Posts

OkieFoot

This is something I've thought about from time time over the last couple of months. The PGF has generated a lot of controversy with people on both sides and as I would read through various posts in different threads, it made me think about all of the items that would all have to be true if the PGF was really a hoax. None of this is anything new; they have all been mentioned on here in the past at one time or another. I thought it might be a good idea to put all of them down in one place. (They're not in any kind of chronological order.)

So, if the PGF was fake, all of the following would have to be true. Feel free to add anything I've omitted, which is very likely, and correct anything I've stated incorrectly. I'll have to split this into several posts to keep each one from being overly lengthy.

 

If the PGF is a hoax:

 

Very basically, it means Roger and Bob G. lied; and Bob G. has been lying for 50 years.

 

It means the actor in the suit and the suit maker agreed to join in the conspiracy. They have both kept quiet for 50 yrs. and if they are no longer living, took the secret to their grave.

 

The 4 way stretch fabric needed for a fur costume to show muscle movement was not available in 1967. If the film was fake, it means the suit maker must have been a magician because he had the necessary fabric even though it didn't even exist at that time. How did he pull that off?

 

It means the suit maker, who apparently had suit making abilities that were head and shoulders above the Hollywood suit makers of the time, has never made another suit like it. And neither has anyone else using 1967 materials, methods and technology.

 

It means Roger and Bob G. went to a lot of trouble to haul three horses, plus all the necessary gear and supplies, about 600 miles to northern California just to make a hoax film that could have been made a lot closer to home back in Washington.

 

In the video of a Bigfoot Conference that was posted on here some time ago, while Bob Gimlin was speaking, a man asked about Bob Heironimus. Bob G. had the man come up on stage, had him remove his hat and looked right at him and told the man there were only two people there that day. It means Bob G. lied right to the man's face.

 

Since there would be no reason to rush the development of a fake film, it means Roger made up a fictitious timeline that worked against him and not necessarily for him. 

 

It means Roger knowingly lied to the newspaper reporter when he contacted the person the night of the 20th and told them he had got a real Bigfoot on film.

I had read when Roger was telling the reporter about his encounter, that he was very excited and his story came out "in gasps." It means when Roger sounded excited, he was really faking his excitement.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
5 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

Very basically, it means Roger and Bob G. lied; and Bob G. has been lying for 50 years.

I agree. I've been saying this all along.

 

 

8 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

It means the actor in the suit and the suit maker agreed to join in the conspiracy. They have both kept quiet for 50 yrs. and if they are no longer living, took the secret to their grave.

If it turns out Philip Morris  was the suitmaker, then you are incorrect. Mr Morris spoke out almost 20 years ago.

 

 

11 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

The 4 way stretch fabric needed for a fur costume to show muscle movement was not available in 1967. If the film was fake, it means the suit maker must have been a magician because he had the necessary fabric even though it didn't even exist at that time. How did he pull that off?

Disagree. The suit in the gif below was made in 1955

tarsal.gif

 

 

14 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

It means Roger and Bob G. went to a lot of trouble to haul three horses, plus all the necessary gear and supplies, about 600 miles to northern California just to make a hoax film that could have been made a lot closer to home back in Washington.

I agree. It's called showmanship.  Ivan Marx once travelled to Alaska[?] to hoax evidence.

 

 

15 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

In the video of a Bigfoot Conference that was posted on here some time ago, while Bob Gimlin was speaking, a man asked about Bob Heironimus. Bob G. had the man come up on stage, had him remove his hat and looked right at him and told the man there were only two people there that day. It means Bob G. lied right to the man's face.

I somewhat agree. I get the impression that the whole thing was scripted; that the man and his statement were planted. Once again, showmanship.

 

 

17 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

Since there would be no reason to rush the development of a fake film, it means Roger made up a fictitious timeline that worked against him and not necessarily for him. 

It could very well be an oversight on Roger's part. He may have been caught up in the moment and not realized his slip.

 

19 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

It means Roger knowingly lied to the newspaper reporter when he contacted the person the night of the 20th and told them he had got a real Bigfoot on film.

I had read when Roger was telling the reporter about his encounter, that he was very excited and his story came out "in gasps." It means when Roger sounded excited, he was really faking his excitement.

Absolutely agree.

 

Great post/thread btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer

Excellent, thanks. I am sure there is more in that vein as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Continued,

 

It means when John Green, Rene Dahinden and Jim McClarin all met at Al DeAtley's house on the 22nd, they had no clue they had been asked to come and watch a fake film. A film the two hosts knew was fake but pretended the whole time the film was real.

 

It means Roger and Al knowingly took a film they knew was fake to Hollywood to have special effects people at two studios view the film, never revealing the film was fake.What would have gone through Roger's and Al's minds as they sat there, knowing the film was fake, while Disney and Universal people said they could not replicate what was on the film.

 

It means two unsophisticated cowboys like Roger and Bob G., without much money, accomplished something two Hollywood studios said they could not accomplish. It means they duped movie studio technicians and engineers at two studios.  

 

It means Roger and Al were a couple of shysters. They traveled around promoting a film they knew was a hoax as a real film of a real creature and even accepted whatever money came their way. I thought Roger sold distribution rights, and to more than one party. If the film was a hoax, it means Roger sold distribution rights to a film he knew was fake but pretended was real to these parties. That's taking money under false pretenses.

 

By inviting scientists to view the film, trying to get people to go to the film site to look for evidence, choosing a film site that was not in a remote location where they knew they wouldn't be discovered, and by choosing a Friday afternoon, which is probably the most likely day people would take off to go camping, fishing, etc., taking the film to movie studios, it means Roger was actually doing things that could have led to being exposed or discovered making a fake film.

If Roger made a fake film, he certainly did not take precautions against being exposed that you would expect a hoaxer to do so as not to get caught. How many hoaxers would take their hoax film to Hollywood studios with expertise in special effects and let them watch the film and get their opinion?

 

It seems Roger took a gamble not paying any money to Bob Gimlin; Bob G. could have easily blown the whistle and exposed the whole thing.

 

Dmitri Donskoy, who was Chief of Biomechanics at the Central Institute of Physical Culture in Russia, studied the film and concluded, for various reasons, the gait was nearly impossible for a human to replicate. Per Grover Krantz, Donskoy's conclusion was the film depicted "a very massive animal that is definitely not a human being." A fake film means Donskoy was completely wrong.

 

I saved this for the end:

If the PGF is a hoax, it means all of the analysis, which so far points to the subject as being a real creature, is all wrong.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

...and it means that even though Roger was this con man he himself was somehow conned not once, but TWICE by others for money promising they had a Bigfoot body. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Great idea for a thread, Okie. :) 

 

One other thing that would have to be true....(yet strange).....is that Roger either made, or had made. an amazing suit, with some exceptional features.....and then never pointed those features out, to anybody.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
7 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

It means when John Green, Rene Dahinden and Jim McClarin all met at Al DeAtley's house on the 22nd, they had no clue they had been asked to come and watch a fake film. A film the two hosts knew was fake but pretended the whole time the film was real.

Sure. No argument here.

 

7 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

It means Roger and Al knowingly took a film they knew was fake to Hollywood to have special effects people at two studios view the film, never revealing the film was fake.What would have gone through Roger's and Al's minds as they sat there, knowing the film was fake, while Disney and Universal people said they could not replicate what was on the film.

 

It means two unsophisticated cowboys like Roger and Bob G., without much money, accomplished something two Hollywood studios said they could not accomplish. It means they duped movie studio technicians and engineers at two studios. 

The Disney/Universal claims are dubious at best and have  largely been debunked on this site. An animator gave his opinion regarding the animatronics department. Patterson never sought the opinion of costumers. Even Bill Munns has stated that there were places/people other than Disney/Universal that would have offered a more valid assessment of the PGF.

 

7 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

It means Roger and Al were a couple of shysters. They traveled around promoting a film they knew was a hoax as a real film of a real creature and even accepted whatever money came their way. I thought Roger sold distribution rights, and to more than one party. If the film was a hoax, it means Roger sold distribution rights to a film he knew was fake but pretended was real to these parties. That's taking money under false pretenses.

Sure. I have no problem with that. Roger also defaulted on a signed loan from Vilma Radner, failed to pay for the printing of his book, collected membership dues for his Northwest Research Association fanclub but failed to send the membership certificates out to many of those who paid, and there was also that time Roger rented a movie camera and didn't return it.  :)

 

8 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

It seems Roger took a gamble not paying any money to Bob Gimlin; Bob G. could have easily blown the whistle and exposed the whole thing.

Sure. Gimlin could have exposed the whole thing. But he would also been exposing himself as a liar and a hoaxer. Gimlin (and his wife) were already being harangued by Yakima residents for Bob's part in the PGF; to be exposed as a liar in a small town may have been an avenue Bob didn't want to go down.

 

8 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

Dmitri Donskoy, who was Chief of Biomechanics at the Central Institute of Physical Culture in Russia, studied the film and concluded, for various reasons, the gait was nearly impossible for a human to replicate. Per Grover Krantz, Donskoy's conclusion was the film depicted "a very massive animal that is definitely not a human being." A fake film means Donskoy was completely wrong.

Dr David Daegling, professor of Anthropology at University of Florida, asserted that  "Supposed peculiarities of subject speed, stride length, and posture are all reproducible by a human being employing this type of locomotion [compliant gait]"  and that if a suit  "it is not unreasonable to suggest that it is better than some of the tackier monster outfits that got thrown together for television at that time."

 

8 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

I saved this for the end:

If the PGF is a hoax, it means all of the analysis, which so far points to the subject as being a real creature, is all wrong.

 Yup. That's what it means. If the PGF is a hoax.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Squatchy! My, my. Impressive. Now....about those moving lips on the 'face mask' under the head piece with the football helmet? Here's were your imagination will be put to the test. Of course you have the solution right? Lemme guess, Hieronimus pulls his hand back through the arm hole, slithers it up into the mask and moves the lips by twiddling his fingers. I mean bloke in a suit correct? ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Assuming it was BobH in the suit, he said 'like' a football helmut.

 

Could have been something like these, could have been something entirely different:

4708325_4_l.jpgaviator.jpg

 

Under the BobH scenario it is not reasonable to expect Bob to know the exact construction of the headpiece.

 

As far as lip movement: I already demonstrated that a static object can show perceived movement with the Glasser Gif. Two frames, taken at different angles can give the illusion of movement. I'm certain that a moving object (Patty) and a moving camera (Roger) at a much greater distance could amplify this effect.

GlasserBigfootAG4_zpsfed238bd.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
21 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

Dmitri Donskoy, who was Chief of Biomechanics at the Central Institute of Physical Culture in Russia, studied the film and concluded, for various reasons, the gait was nearly impossible for a human to replicate. Per Grover Krantz, Donskoy's conclusion was the film depicted "a very massive animal that is definitely not a human being." A fake film means Donskoy was completely wrong.

 

I have very carefully looked at the things Donskoy said about the film and have found nothing he observed that I couldn't see for myself.

 

4way stretch fabric in gorilla suits was not invented until the 1980s. Patty's hide stretched without bunching, which as far as I know - only real hide does that.

greenarrow-1_zps6eaa8a63.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
19 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

4way stretch fabric in gorilla suits was not invented until the 1980s. Patty's hide stretched without bunching, which as far as I know - only real hide does that.

greenarrow-1_zps6eaa8a63.gif

 

Perhaps the suit was made out of bear hide.

mangler2.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
1 hour ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

I have very carefully looked at the things Donskoy said about the film and have found nothing he observed that I couldn't see for myself.

 

4way stretch fabric in gorilla suits was not invented until the 1980s. Patty's hide stretched without bunching, which as far as I know - only real hide does that.

greenarrow-1_zps6eaa8a63.gifperson trying to replicate

 

In his paper, Donskoy mentioned "The gait of the creature is confident, the strides are regular, and with no signs of loss of balance, of wavering or any redundant movements."

I remember some time ago reading about an attempt to replicate the gait and it was mentioned in the write-up that the person trying to replicate the gait had trouble maintaining a consistent gait after a distance, though they didn't mention how far that was. I assume this was due to a human trying to duplicate a gait that is unnatural for a human.

 So it would make you wonder how Roger's actor was able to maintain the gait but others can't. ;)

The guy should have won an Academy award.

Edited by OkieFoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier

Hmmm. Philip Morris and Bob Heironimus said nothing about bear hide. But who knows, if Heironomus can change his story about the suit three times what would be the harm in changing the story just one more time, eh? But since you said "perhaps" then you don't really know. Besides any holes anyone has tried to poke in the suit thing have already been poked. Nothing works. That's why cherry picking doesn't work. There's always something in the whole picture that refutes the small detail.

 

In other words one has to look at EVERYTHING as a package deal. Anyone can break out a small matter but skeptics have not been able to have anything stick because an element on the WHOLE PGF and it's backstory has refuted whatever gets suggested. Bear skin? Seriously? There's nothing like trashing Philip Morris's story with a wave of your hand is there. And Bob H's as well. Good work. And more bandwidth down the drain. 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

The puzzle, for me ... I do not, for one instant, accept that the PGF is fake, but if it is ... how did they know what to make?   Patty is **perfect**.   Given the details of the male I saw, Patty is what the female should look like from a biological perspective.   Given the details of the apparent adolescent I saw, Patty is what his mother should look like ... older, more "filled out", and female.  Exactly correct in the critical details yet deviating exactly as a real biological thing must.  This requires the suit makers to have known what to make.   Unavoidable.   So .. explain how.  Don't waist air or electrons arguing or trying to explain it away, that's a non-starter and I'm not buying it.   Explain HOW.

 

MIB

Share this post


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

 

Perhaps the suit was made out of bear hide.

mangler2.jpg

 

Can we see some of your examples actually moving?  Why are they always still shots.  Amazing what happens when you ask something to go from standing still to moving:

 

 

Every one of these things looks like they could work until the are called upon to actually function.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×