Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

^^

You're right about the closest frames. We need to remember that Roger ran after Patty and steadied his camera when he was closest to Patty and got the best and clearest part of the footage. If it had been a fake film, this portion of the film is when a flaw would get exposed.

It means if the film was fake, Roger helped sabotage his chances of selling a fake film as genuine. 

Edited by OkieFoot
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Exactly.  I have wondered what PGf detractors would expect to be different about Roger and Bob G.'s actions during that 1 minute if the film were to be more convincing to them.  Some say that Roger would have or, should have chased after her more if she were real, and/or that Bob G. should have pulled the trigger.  Personally, I'm glad that neither of those two things happened. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xspider1 said:

^ Exactly.  I have wondered what PGf detractors would expect to be different about Roger and Bob G.'s actions during that 1 minute if the film were to be more convincing to them.  Some say that Roger would have or, should have chased after her more if she were real, and/or that Bob G. should have pulled the trigger.  Personally, I'm glad that neither of those two things happened. 

 

Lol, that's a silly idea that someone would chase after BF if caught on video, the fact that he possibly got away with it....he's lucky.  I could understand a brave person holding their ground when unnoticed, but when faced with an almost 7' creature, 2x to 3x your strength.....logic dictates you back off.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that is absolutely illogical is to assume you'll do something logical when you're afraid.     There are a number of things I should have "logically" done different during both of my sightings.   Oh well, didn't, and I don't get a replay.    The situation you envision and plan for is not the one you'll be presented with.

 

MIB

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ Exactly.  I have wondered what PGf detractors would expect to be different about Roger and Bob G.'s actions during that 1 minute if the film were to be more convincing to them.  Some say that Roger would have or, should have chased after her more if she were real, and/or that Bob G. should have pulled the trigger.  Personally, I'm glad that neither of those two things happened. 

 

No one can say what they would do until put into that situation

 

So what exactly happened in that encounter -

1) The creature first spots Roger on his horse as Roger comes around the overturned root system. The creature is seen squatted by the creek (possibly getting a drink). Then it stands up as Roger attempts to control his horse. 

2) Then Bob comes around the large root system and sees the creature standing next to the waters edge. Bob releases the pack horse (which bolts) while attempting to control his horse ... the creature turns and steps up a 3' high bank and lands its stepping foot around 12 or so inches onto the surface of the sandbar and proceeds to walk away.

3)  Patterson grabs his camera and yells for Bob to cover him as he moves forward down the bank near where the creature was first spotted.

4)  With the creature still walking away - Roger runs up the bank and drops to his knees just short of the large log seen in his film. He proceeds to film the creature while getting some of the best images of her out of the entire film.

5)  While the subject is turned and looking toward the camera ... Gimlin starts his horse in motion so to cross the creek and get behind her. With the creature still walking away, Roger moves up to the large log and films the subject as it continues walking away through the trees until such a time Roger runs out the remaining film on that particular reel.

 

I personally cannot see how Roger could have done any better than what he did. Had Roger of not tried to close the distance between he and the creature, then there would have been those who would have been critical of this. And even though Roger and Bob agreed not to kill one these creatures if should ever come up on one - Gimlin has stated that had the subject of gotten aggressive in any way, then Bob said he would not of hesitated to empty his rifle into the creature. I believe him him when he says this.

 

The next order of business with the creature now gone and out of view was to document the film site. As amateurish as Bob and Roger were ... had they not documented the evidence and done the test they conducted, then I would certainly have been one of their biggest critics.

Patterson film site track.jpg

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator
On 11/26/2017 at 0:47 PM, OkieFoot said:

If the PGF is fake, it means Roger possessed a high level of knowledge of Sasquatch foot anatomy and how a Sasquatch walks.

Here is what Roger was able to train his actor to do:

1. Walk with a bent knee gait, and was able to maintain the gait through the whole walk seen on the film.

2. Rotate his knees laterally as he walked.

3. Was capable of walking  in a single line manner.

4. Walk with a 42-48 inch step, toe to heel; then after Roger had run out of film, continued walking and increased his step to 60 in. shortly before starting up an embankment. (apparently the suit prevented him from hearing Roger yell "Cut!" ;))

 

Regarding point 3), the inline trackway  is common with humans and easy, but only if you are barefoot and leading with your toes rather than your heels. We usually lead with our heels because we wear shoes.

 

A person in a suit would likely act like they were wearing shoes so it would be a special effort to walk leaving an inline trackway. That's a pretty significant clue meaning that Roger would have understood that a barefoot person walks with a different trackway than with shoes- something most people don't know.

 

Occam's Razor- at what point does the hoax story become so complex that the real thing is the simpler answer? Seems like its well past that right now...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, salubrious said:

 

Regarding point 3), the inline trackway  is common with humans and easy, but only if you are barefoot and leading with your toes rather than your heels. We usually lead with our heels because we wear shoes.

 

A person in a suit would likely act like they were wearing shoes so it would be a special effort to walk leaving an inline trackway. That's a pretty significant clue meaning that Roger would have understood that a barefoot person walks with a different trackway than with shoes- something most people don't know.

 

Occam's Razor- at what point does the hoax story become so complex that the real thing is the simpler answer? Seems like its well past that right now...

 

That's a great question; it's a big reason I started this thread. Spider put it very well in an earlier post; "The number of very unlikely conditions that would have to exist in order for this film to be a fake boggles the mind." 

 

I've even toyed with the idea of a Part II to this thread; If the film is fake, a list of all the items and aspects of the film that are still lacking a rational explanation 50+ years later; e.g. the depth of the tracks; where the suitmaker obtained stretch fabric that didn't exist, etc.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
14 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

That's a great question; it's a big reason I started this thread. Spider put it very well in an earlier post; "The number of very unlikely conditions that would have to exist in order for this film to be a fake boggles the mind." 

 

Another 'unlikely condition'....(under the 'hoax' scenario)....which can be added to the list, Okie....is a detail that Bill Munns just recently mentioned....Roger having 5 high-quality prints made, of  5 different film frames....apparently, on two different occasions.

 

That action by Roger is more consistent with the film being legit...and Roger having a real interest in the filmed subject....than it is with the film being a hoax executed by Roger. 

 

 

Quote

I've even toyed with the idea of a Part II to this thread; If the film is fake, a list of all the items and aspects of the film that are still lacking a rational explanation 50+ years later; e.g. the depth of the tracks; where the suitmaker obtained stretch fabric that didn't exist, etc.. 

 

 

I have previously listed a few significant things which are lacking...under the 'hoax' scenario... 

 

1) The "bloke" who "wore the suit"...

 

2) The guy who "supplied/made the suit"...

 

3) Any "confessions"....from either Roger, or Bob...

 

4) The "suit"...

 

5) A replication of "the suit".....or,  any scientific analysis which shows the realistic details on Patty...(contracting calf...etc.)....being reproduced by a human subject wearing a suit...and in motion.

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Another 'unlikely condition'....(under the 'hoax' scenario)....which can be added to the list, Okie....is a detail that Bill Munns just recently mentioned....Roger having 5 high-quality prints made, of  5 different film frames....apparently, on two different occasions.

 

That action by Roger is more consistent with the film being legit...and Roger having a real interest in the filmed subject....than it is with the film being a hoax executed by Roger. 

 

 

 

 

I have previously listed a few significant things which are lacking...under the 'hoax' scenario... 

 

1) The "bloke" who "wore the suit"...

 

2) The guy who "supplied/made the suit"...

 

3) Any "confessions"....from either Roger, or Bob...

 

4) The "suit"...

 

5) A replication of "the suit".....or,  any scientific analysis which shows the realistic details on Patty...(contracting calf...etc.)....being reproduced by a human subject wearing a suit...and in motion.

 

 

 

 

That's a good point; thanks to Bill for the info. Making high quality prints on two different occasions does seem like a a lot of trouble to go to for someone that made a fake film. Seems to me a high quality print would be a good way to expose a flaw.

To add to this: Something I put a lot of weight on is the fact that Roger took his film to two movie studios and let their experts watch it. Like you said earlier, this seems more like someone that had a real film and not one that he hoaxed. 

 

This is my thinking, and I think I've said this before: when you look at Roger's actions after the film was made, they just don't look like the actions of a hoaxer. One example is what I mentioned earlier about taking the film to two movie studios. How many hoaxers would make a hoax film and then take it to two movie studios and let people with expertise in special effects watch it?  Roger's film could have gone the same direction as the Titanic right then. ;)

As I said before also; it's like a counterfeiter taking fake money into a bank and letting their people examine it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Another 'unlikely condition'....(under the 'hoax' scenario)....which can be added to the list, Okie....is a detail that Bill Munns just recently mentioned....Roger having 5 high-quality prints made, of  5 different film frames....apparently, on two different occasions.

 

That action by Roger is more consistent with the film being legit...and Roger having a real interest in the filmed subject....than it is with the film being a hoax executed by Roger. 

 

 

 

 

I have previously listed a few significant things which are lacking...under the 'hoax' scenario... 

 

1) The "bloke" who "wore the suit"...

 

2) The guy who "supplied/made the suit"...

 

3) Any "confessions"....from either Roger, or Bob...

 

4) The "suit"...

 

5) A replication of "the suit".....or,  any scientific analysis which shows the realistic details on Patty...(contracting calf...etc.)....being reproduced by a human subject wearing a suit...and in motion.

 

 

 

 

And anything further than the things mentioned above were flash animations designed to suppress information or using the worst images possible when much better ones were available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of this from reading the developing thread concerning the day of Oct. 20th. When you consider Roger films Patty around 1:30pm in the afternoon; later shows up at Al Hodgson's store around 5:30-6:00pm(?), and later calls the newspaper reporter to tell them of his encounter of a Bigfoot earlier that day. Would it be safe to assume he told Al Hodgson about his encounter from earlier that day?

If the PGF is fake, it means Roger began lying within hours of making the film; and before he even got the film developed, and didn't even know whether or not it turned out okay. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
On 12/20/2017 at 7:42 AM, OkieFoot said:

I thought of this from reading the developing thread concerning the day of Oct. 20th. When you consider Roger films Patty around 1:30pm in the afternoon; later shows up at Al Hodgson's store around 5:30-6:00pm(?), and later calls the newspaper reporter to tell them of his encounter of a Bigfoot earlier that day. Would it be safe to assume he told Al Hodgson about his encounter from earlier that day?

If the PGF is fake, it means Roger began lying within hours of making the film; and before he even got the film developed, and didn't even know whether or not it turned out okay. 

 

Al had closed his store and went home and was in the process of having a cook out when Roger called from the Hardware store. Al had to go back to his store where he talked with Roger for a while. It was then Roger told him of the days events. I believe Al told me that Bob and Roger left from the hardware store around 7PM or after. Gimlin says they went from there to go send off the film. They saw Al again after 9PM at the Rangers Station - Syl McCoy was there as well. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Roger spoke to the press at that time as well. The two me arrived at their camp sometime after midnight.

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

 

Al had closed his store and went home and was in the process of having a cook out when Roger called from the Hardware store. Al had to go back to his store where he talked with Roger for a while. It was then Roger told him of the days events. I believe Al told me that Bob and Roger left from the hardware store around 7PM or after. Gimlin says they went from there to go send off the film. They saw Al again after 9PM at the Rangers Station - Syl McCoy was there as well. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Roger spoke to the press at that time as well. The two me arrived at their camp sometime after midnight.

 

Something interesting that didn't stick in my mind from what I had read about the immediate aftermath of making the film was that Roger had asked Al Hodgson if he would call Don Abbott about bringing in tracking dogs  to search for the creature; this would be just hours after making the film.

The interesting part is if the whole thing was a hoax, what would be the purpose of bringing in a tracking dog? To put on a show to help sell the film as real? 

If it was a hoax, Roger was going to great  lengths to sell his film as genuine.  

Faking his excitement while telling a fake story to the newspaper reporter about encountering a real Bigfoot and getting it on film was another nice touch. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
On 12/22/2017 at 5:49 PM, OkieFoot said:

 

Something interesting that didn't stick in my mind from what I had read about the immediate aftermath of making the film was that Roger had asked Al Hodgson if he would call Don Abbott about bringing in tracking dogs  to search for the creature; this would be just hours after making the film.

The interesting part is if the whole thing was a hoax, what would be the purpose of bringing in a tracking dog? To put on a show to help sell the film as real? 

If it was a hoax, Roger was going to great  lengths to sell his film as genuine.  

Faking his excitement while telling a fake story to the newspaper reporter about encountering a real Bigfoot and getting it on film was another nice touch. ;)

 

What is not known by many researchers is that when the rains came the next morning and Bob and Roger had to pack up camp and get back across the creek before the water got to high and fast for Bob's rig to cross it - there came a point when Bob told Roger that he has had enough. Bob was soak and wet - cold - and exhausted by the time he got the truck back up the hill. Roger pleaded that they stay another week as he was expecting people to soon show up along with a tracking dog(s), but Bob was adamant about leaving for home. Bob was low on money - had been gone longer than he had originally planned and for all Bob knew the weather was going to be wet and cold. Roger asked Bob if he would come back and get him in a week if he stayed behind and Bob said he will leave Roger behind, but he (Roger) would have to find his own way back to Yakima. Roger was then left with little choice but to return with Bob.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks  for the reminder. I actually remember hearing Bob saying that in an interview.  Doesn't sound like a man that hoaxed a video does it?

That is of course if Roger did say that. I have no reason to think he didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...