The PGF Hoax

Oldie but a goodie:

http://pgfhoax.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/patterson-gimlin-film-hoax-proven.html

I don't see how this proves the film to be a hoax. Lack of a print "proves" the film is a hoax, but other prints can't be considered "proof" the film is genuine?
While neither can be considered proof, prints, or lack thereof, could be considered as evidence for both sides of the debate.

I don't see how what was written in that blog proves anything for the Film to be fake.
Much Talk about scientific proof goes both ways.
Problem is for every Discredit of the film their is credibility to the film.

I would say that the lack of a print is fairly damning evidence that the trackway cast footage was staged (as per Krantz's suggestion it was) but it's on a different reel of film I think. It doesn't affect the validity of the PGF film of the "creature" tho I am pretty dubious of many things on the creature film itself.

You gotta love V00D00SIXXX! His PGF critique is spot-on. You'll have to watch the YouTube link from Shawn's blog post ~ it's not showing as public at his channel. I have to laugh at Shawn's title choice, as this was posted in January, before he hooked up with Team Tazer.

"Skeptic Rambles About How Unconvinced He Is About Certain Bigfoot Evidence".

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/skeptic-rambles-about-how-unconvinced.html

So patterson faked the casting and its also a fact when travelling america to profit from his hoax he used an actor stand in for Bob gimlin.

Doesn't seem too credible.

But let's just brush all that aside he filmed a bigfoot right? On the camera he didn't pay for? Everyone loves a bad guy turned good story right?

BurdenOfProof wrote:So patterson faked the casting and its also a fact when travelling america to profit from his hoax he used an actor stand in for Bob gimlin.

Doesn't seem too credible.

But let's just brush all that aside he filmed a bigfoot right? On the camera he didn't pay for? Everyone loves a bad guy turned good story right?

I'm on the fence with this film BUT there are many things surrounding the film that make it highly suspicious.There were also loans he got to fund his project, which were never paid back. He screwed Bob Gimlin in my opinion and Mr. Gimlin received almost nothing. I think Gimlin sold his rights for one copy of the movie and $10.
Patterson had a history of taking but never giving back in return. Patterson couldn't remember his film speed but he remembered to fully wind the camera before hand? One full crank on the K100 will allow 40 feet of film to be shot. Patterson had 24 ft. left according to articles I've read online.
Rule of thumb is this: If you record a short amount of film, then stop, always wind up the spring.
To add to this, the lens would have to be preset in order to film "on the fly" as Patterson did.
I'm sure we can all agree that Patterson had no time to adjust anything based on the film itself.
These are only a few of the suspicious things I've with the film and the people involved.

Glad to see you are at least on the fence and not just blindly believing like most. The circumstances are extremely suspicious.

I've always had trouble believing he could get the camera out and ready and start filming so quick while on a horse.

Not to mention the complete lack of consistency with this and other descriptions of bigfoot. The bigfoots described by a lot of people would have been long gone before he got the camera out. Or according to some peoples description of Bigfoot it would not have even allowed them to get that close in the first.

I always try to remain open to both sides of the debate when it comes to the PGF and I'm not 100% convinced either way yet.
I've recently become interested in film and I've done plenty of reading on Super8 and 16mm cameras. I've also spent hours 'talking to an old guy who owns a camera store. He sells mostly standard 8mm, Super8 and 16mm. That's where I bought my Super8 camera.
This old guy is a walking encyclopedia when it comes to film and he lets me look at any camera I want to. Cameras back the are not like camcorders of today where you just pop open the view screen and you're good to go. Everything was manual and you had to make sure your settings are correct.
I'm actually surprised that his film speed wasn't changed or his exposure was out of whack. It's just another piece of the puzzle.

OP seems obsessed with this film, that in itself is more than a little suspicious meaning it's likely real. Gimlin may not be telling it 100% as it went down, not that it's fake because my conclusion is that there's no possibility of that whatsoever from a physical point primarily, but rather regarding his own role. The official version is probably sugar coated for the public, the innocent horse trip to film a Bigfoot, when according to M.K. Davis there's another Bigfoot figure also that doesn't appear to be Patty but is still claimed to be her. Thus, Davis is shunned from the finer Bigfoot circles preferring the gentle story.

Should say there may be some editing, but the fact that it's impossible to be a guy in a suit remains without a question simply from an anatomical view. Never mind the movie industry at the time still resided in the Stone-Age with cheap fluffy suits, let alone clueless on this species' real primate limb build. We know this now, they didn't then hence every bad movie since, however human vs. Sasquatch proportion is the deal breaker here if you know anything about these beings you'll see why we can't fake them realistically. We ourselves are constantly in the way of that, something cynics won't be able to use on the public's ignorance anymore.

TimeTunnel wrote:OP seems obsessed with this film, that in itself is more than a little suspicious meaning it's likely real. Gimlin may not be telling it 100% as it went down, not that it's fake because my conclusion is that there's no possibility of that whatsoever from a physical point primarily, but rather regarding his own role. The official version is probably sugar coated for the public, the innocent horse trip to film a Bigfoot, when according to M.K. Davis there's another Bigfoot figure also that doesn't appear to be Patty but is still claimed to be her. Thus, Davis is shunned from the finer Bigfoot circles preferring the gentle story.

I've seen a few different breakdowns that point out another Bigfoot but the resolution isn't that great to make a conclusive decision for me personally.
You are presenting your own opinions of the film and that's fine, but "probably" does not make it so. We have no idea how "innocent" that horse trip was, or if it happened because there are conflicting recollections of the events.
I know Mr. Gimlin is much older now, so that may explain some inconsistencies. That's why I prefer to read the original newspaper articles.
If you have anything to back up your theories, I would enjoy seeing it.

well one major thing here that trumps all else is that we dont even have the actual evidence, that being the original film reel that was shot that day.

TimeTunnel wrote:Should say there may be some editing, but the fact that it's impossible to be a guy in a suit remains without a question simply from an anatomical view. Never mind the movie industry at the time still resided in the Stone-Age with cheap fluffy suits, let alone clueless on this species' real primate limb build. We know this now, they didn't then hence every bad movie since, however human vs. Sasquatch proportion is the deal breaker here if you know anything about these beings you'll see why we can't fake them realistically. We ourselves are constantly in the way of that, something cynics won't be able to use on the public's ignorance anymore.

How is that we know the species real primate build as you called it? We may suspect this is how Bigfoot is built, but we do not "know it". If we knew it, there would be a specimen being studied.
There may be "some" editing? I've read articles and watched videos that indicate the film was spliced considerably, so that goes beyond some editing.
Patty is the enigma in the entire PG saga. It could be the saving grace, or the final nail in the coffin. Nobody except Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin know for sure what happened that day.
Scientists have differing opinions of the film so we can't rely on scientific commentary. Movie effects people have differing opinion as well, and the list goes on.
All we have are opinions so far.

Without getting too technical just now about what the industry could and couldn't do at the time, one reason we know it's real is that this is how the beings are generally described and unknown to the industry then. They're more apelike built than we are, longer arms, longer torsos, bent legs, lots of anatomical aspects why this is a real living hominin and no suit. We know Albert Ostman practically described a Pattylike female years before the film, when he described the old woman as he called her. Another clip we know is real, is the Marble Mountain video from 2000, Ostman again decades before described the male in great detail exactly like the subject caught in that video. While it's not physical proof it's photographic proof, consistantly going hand in hand with witness reports no suits have ever successfully recreated.

TimeTunnel wrote:Without getting too technical just now about what the industry could and couldn't do at the time, one reason we know it's real is that this is how the beings are generally described and unknown to the industry then. They're more apelike built than we are, longer arms, longer torsos, bent legs, lots of anatomical aspects why this is a real living hominin and no suit. We know Albert Ostman practically described a Pattylike female years before the film, when he described the old woman as he called her. Another clip we know is real, is the Marble Mountain video from 2000, Ostman again decades before described the male in great detail exactly like the subject caught in that video. While it's not physical proof it's photographic proof, consistantly going hand in hand with witness reports no suits have ever successfully recreated.

My point was this; we do not "know". We have ideas and theories, that's it.

"Another clip we know is real, is the Marble Mountain video from 2000"

oh we know its real now, sorry I must have missed that bit where it was proven, my bad

Well we can close our eyes so much we block out logic too, this I know skeptics like to do just because discovery's not made officially yet they tend to ignore the obvious that set the real thing apart from hoaxes.

Well you can close your eyes, poop your pants and do the patty walk. With that load in your pants you should look like you have a diaper butt. Make sure film it and post it here. We'll compare it to the pgf for authentify.

Guys, we have a troll. Hope this place won't turn into the blog madness.

It would help if users couldn't post anonymously as a guest. Most trolls simply can't be bothered to go through the process of registration.

Everyone's entiltled to their opinion.

That having been said, I am very leery of any grown adult who can look at the PGF and see a real creature.

I cant seem to find this information but what is the size of patty's footprint. I always thought her height could be extrapolated from that info.

anon wrote:Everyone's entiltled to their opinion.

Of course, but most Trolls can't muster up anything resembling an informed opinion and have nothing to offer but childish insults.

If you can't even be bothered to register, why should anyone think that you've taken the time to research the subject in any great depth - and I say that as a ardent sceptic who has plenty of doubts about the PGF.

bigwill wrote:I cant seem to find this information but what is the size of patty's footprint. I always thought her height could be extrapolated from that info.

If I remember correctly, her footprint was 14.5 inches long and she was estimated to be 6' 6". This varies depending on the source of information.
I'm not sure if foot size correlates to height though. I know people my height who either have smaller or larger feet than mine.