Jump to content
Daniel Perez

P-G Filmsite, 1967 and 2018

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
On 10/4/2019 at 7:53 AM, OkieFoot said:

 

Agreed. I think it's been called the "best evidence", so far. The film has a figure that can be analyzed, and it has been by many people, some scientists included. You can't measure key aspects like body proportions or arm length or arm proportions or how a creature walks or shoulder width just using a written report of a sighting.

And so far, after 51+ years, all the analysis points the same direction. 

 

There is what I call a Hoax Paradox when it comes to bigfoot:

Basically, the more impressive the film the more likely it is to see a hoax.  The least impressive the film, the more likely aspects a hoax can be hidden.  

 

The problem with filming close up daylight filming is it exposes the walking figure to multiple levels of scrutiny.   Pretty hard to hid aspects of a hoax that way.  Easier to scrutinize the walk, look for suit tells, measure speed, look for height and stride references, and so on.

 

Roger and Bob offer:

 

-Film in perfect daylight vs nightime

-Open Creek bed vs twilight thick woods

-Close filming (about 100') vs far away at the most stable point.

-Film vs still shots.  We can see Patty movie and even measure movement rates.

-They offer tracks vs avoiding casting tracks

-Tell where it took place right away vs hiding or 'not being sure' where it took place

 

Under nearly everything they did, Bob and Roger increase the odds of seeing a hoax.  Any single thing they did could reveal a hoax.

 

 

 

If they really didn't want a hoax discovered they would shoot the film....

 

-In the dark          

-At a long distance   

-Don't tell anyone where you filmed it   

-Don't make any footprint casts as they might reveal a hoax or open Questions on the issue of the walk.

-Don't use movie film since a moving creature suit is harder to sell as real and hide dynamic flaws.

-Travel far far away from home since it cost $$$$ and you have no idea after all that effort if you even got it on film with a passible result.

 

 

The Hoax Paradox is in play here.   

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
11 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

There is what I call a Hoax Paradox when it comes to bigfoot:

Basically, the more impressive the film the more likely it is to see a hoax.  The least impressive the film, the more likely aspects a hoax can be hidden.  

 

The problem with open close up daylight filming is it exposes the walking figure to multiple levels of scrutiny.   Pretty hard to hid aspects of a hoax that way.  Easier to scrutinize the walk, look for suit tells, measure speed, look for height and stride references, and so on.

 

Roger and Bob offer:

 

-Film in perfect daylight vs nightime

-Open Creek bed vs twilight thick woods

-Close filming (about 100') vs far away at the most stable point.

-Film vs still shots.  We can see Patty movie and even measure movement rates.

-They offer tracks vs avoiding casting tracks

-Tell where it took place right away vs hiding or 'not being sure' where it took place

 

Under nearly everything they did, Bob and Roger increase the odds of seeing a hoax.  Any single thing they did could reveal a hoax.

 

 

 

If they really didn't want a hoax discovered they would shoot the film....

 

-In the dark          

-At a long distance   

-Don't tell anyone where you filmed it   

-Don't make any footprint casts as they might reveal a hoax or open Questions on the issue of the walk.

-Don't use movie film since a moving creature suit is harder to sell as real and hide dynamic flaws.

-Travel far far away from home since it cost $$$$ and you have no idea after all that effort if you even got it on film with a passible result.

 

 

The Hoax Paradox is in play here.   

 

 

 

 

 

Bd, you make some good points.

On the bolded part, to add a little to it, slightly modified. (I don't mean to stray off).

 

If they really didn't want a hoax discovered...

-Don't take the film to two movie studios and let people with expertise in special effects watch it. 

-Don't allow Roger to sit down with Grover Krantz and let him view the film and do some analysis. 

- Make the film in a very remote location where the odds of someone happening by are very slim. To me, that would be a no brainer for a hoax film. Remember Lyle Laverty and his crew came by the spot. Instead of a few days later, what if they had driven by on Friday afternoon during filming? 

 

Share this post


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

Here's Manute Bol's arms.

He was really skinny; not surprising for being 7'7.  His pants only had one back pocket.

 

2044862869_mannybol.jpg.2cd5bb6afc778d6b32afd868faf11d00.jpg

 

 

 

 

Good example of a person with very long upper-arms, Okie. :) 

 

But....as with the rest of humanity...his lower-arms...(forearm + hand)….are longer, still...

 

Manute-Bol1.jpg

 

 

There is no 'getting away' from that distinctly human 'arm proportion'.

 

And, when adding an extension onto a person's lower-arm....the proportion becomes more extreme, in that same direction....and.....less Patty-like.

 

Hence, the rock-solid conclusion that the PGF subject was not a human being wearing 'arm extensions'.  

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Sweaty,

If we suppose the PGF is really showing a human with arm extensions, can you imagine what the persons real arm proportions would look like without the arm extensions on. 

 

In the picture you posted of Manute Bol, if he was turned any more to his left he would disappear from view.

 

Share this post


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

Sweaty,

If we suppose the PGF is really showing a human with arm extensions, can you imagine what the persons real arm proportions would look like without the arm extensions on. 

 

 

We can visualize that, Okie... ;) 

 

I took an image of Patty, and shortened the length of her lower-arm by a few inches, to simulate your imaginary scenario...

 

Pattys-Extra-Short-Forearm1.jpg

 

There is quite a difference in 'arm proportion' between that imaginary "suit wearer".....and an average human. 

 

 

Quote

In the picture you posted of Manute Bol, if he was turned any more to his left he would disappear from view.

 

Just about!  :thumbsup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch

Lots of people were at the Patty Film site soon after, someone would have exposed it as a Hoax if it was one! It would have been obvious, they said they tracked Patty for miles afterwards! How do you fake those deep prints deeper than a horse print?

I wish the entire Patterson casting the Patty prints and Stomp Test film reel would surface, multiple warehouses somewhere have copies of this unless it was thrown in the trash or lost in a fire! Look at the old Bigfoot Documentaries that use portions of this footage, it was getting around for years then vanishes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gigantofootecus

Long hair is placed on a costume to hide limb proportions, seams and joins. Not Patty tho. Her costume was skin tight and the most significant feature of the costume is that it didn't have a single fold or crease anywhere on the fabric. Not one.

 

Have a look at all the creases on the Morris suit. Morris expects us to believe that the costume his studio created from scratch (and not from his old gorilla costume) matched Roger's efforts which Morris claims was cobbled together from pieces of his old gorilla costume. So did he nail it?

 

Bob H looked just like a guy in a suit because he was photographed at high resolution and the hair on his costume was relatively short to try and match Patty. However, Patty was filmed at matching resolution yet I can't find a single fold, pleat or crease on the suit while Bob H looked like a...fool. 

 

Blevins, on the other hand went for low resolution imagery to hide everything.

 

352_3.thumb.png.4cfafd163cecf91bb61ac1fc9752e336.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On 10/25/2019 at 10:41 AM, OkieFoot said:

 

Bd, you make some good points.

On the bolded part, to add a little to it, slightly modified. (I don't mean to stray off).

 

If they really didn't want a hoax discovered...

-Don't take the film to two movie studios and let people with expertise in special effects watch it. 

-Don't allow Roger to sit down with Grover Krantz and let him view the film and do some analysis. 

- Make the film in a very remote location where the odds of someone happening by are very slim. To me, that would be a no brainer for a hoax film. Remember Lyle Laverty and his crew came by the spot. Instead of a few days later, what if they had driven by on Friday afternoon during filming? 

 

 

And if reports are correct (?) Roger got hoaxed twice at the cost of $$$$  to him.  1)  He was hoaxed by a report of someone in Tibet area who had a Bigfoot     2) Hoaxed by someone who claimed to have a bigfoot body in an abandoned mine shaft.      

 

If these reports are true it really makes you think Roger- in his mind- believed in Bigfoot after the PGF.   It seems a tougher sell to me to think Roger and Bob could do a PGF for money (know it was fake) but yet be taken in by not one, but two fakers.  

 

If a drug dealer sells parsley to someone claiming it is Marijuana it is unlikely someone will be able to con that same drug dealer by selling him parsley.  Unlikely the guy falls Twice for the same con he pulled on someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutPools
On 10/26/2019 at 11:07 PM, SackScratch said:

Lots of people were at the Patty Film site soon after, someone would have exposed it as a Hoax if it was one! It would have been obvious, they said they tracked Patty for miles afterwards! How do you fake those deep prints deeper than a horse print?

 

Is there really evidence of people having tracked Patty for miles after the film was made? People actually found tracks of Patty miles away from the film site? I was under the impression it stormed heavily in that area after the filming and most if not all of the tracks would have washed away. 

Edited by ThinkAboutPools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SackScratch
2 hours ago, ThinkAboutPools said:

 

Is there really evidence of people having tracked Patty for miles after the film was made? People actually found tracks of Patty miles away from the film site? I was under the impression it stormed heavily in that area after the filming and most if not all of the tracks would have washed away. 

 

Once the tracks were out of the sand bar created by the 1963 flood and up the canyon into the rugged forest they fade into nothing due to the typical ground covered in pine needles, twigs, moss, leaf litter and assorted crap that doesn't show tracks... Bob Gimlin stated in interviews that they tried to track Patty for miles afterwards and in the days and weeks after many people entered the film site, if you was doing a Hoax you'd do it at a secret site and not tell the exact location to avoid recreation films like John Green did for size comparison! Didn't Titmus go straight there and cast dozens of the prints?  Pretty sure I seen on the 2005 show called "Mysterious Encounters" with Autumn Williams photos of Bob Titmus posing with dozens of tracks he cast at the Patty Film site, I remember because I re-watched those shows on dvd last weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Here is a really cool video, I just came across on YouTube....pretty self-explanatory...

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...