Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
River

PGF Hoax

82 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

River

I'm claiming that during the footage of Patterson casting the track, there should be an impression visible past the one he is casting (a right foot imprint he is casting). There is not. The footprint is present in the footage of the 4 imprint scene. The ground in the previous footage of Patterson making the cast it was flat mud. I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression (the right impression being cast, is the same right footprint cast Patterson represents coming from the film subject)

nonextprint.jpg

composite-casting.jpg

frameshowingbothprintsandtheirrelationship.jpg

castcomparisonclose.jpg

Edited by River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ryu

In other words it is fake. Yeah, I think that particular case had already been debunked though I am not completely sure if it has or not.

There have been plenty of cases where supposed casts were made from footprints only to be discovered they were hoaxed. I suppose one could have managed a more realistic looking print if one had cursory knowledge of how a footprint, in this case a humanoid one, looks when it is made.

The print is too flat-footed to be humanoid and the toes seem a little too close together as the print is made.

Anyways..I agree that the whole thing was most likely staged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msmike1

For the people that believe there will never be enough evidence to debunk any of it no matter how ridiculous it is. For the people that don't there will never be enough evidence to prove the existence of bigfoot, with the exception of a body. Just the way it is.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike 215

I see that the unscientific community likes to scream HOAX if there is any evidence of Bigfoot. But the HOAX is th unscientific community itself with rampant corruption in stealing tax payers money for phoney research that goes nowhere, rampant plagiarism in textbooks, PHd dissertations and scientific articles. I have a friend who is a sociology professor. A few years ago he was working with a fellow professor on a textbook. They could not get along and he left but plagiarised my friend's part of the textbook. So my friend had to take him to court and there he was told that 10-20% of all textbooks are plagairized. The other professor had to pay a small sum to my friend, but he became very cynical about his profession.

Years ago I heard a rumon that Phds were for sale through ads in the NY Times. I tracked down the ads and was able to get info by claiming I wanted to buy one. I was given a price and told that the members of the committee will be paid off to pass me at New York University.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
evancj

Very interesting River. Thank you for the info. I don't think I have ever seen those photos before. Those casts sure do look faked to me, they look like loafs of bead with toes, as my friend psyche101 once said. They look a bit to perfect to me as well.

I see that the unscientific community likes to scream HOAX if there is any evidence of Bigfoot. But the HOAX is th unscientific community itself with rampant corruption in stealing tax payers money for phoney research that goes nowhere, rampant plagiarism in textbooks, PHd dissertations and scientific articles. I have a friend who is a sociology professor. A few years ago he was working with a fellow professor on a textbook. They could not get along and he left but plagiarised my friend's part of the textbook. So my friend had to take him to court and there he was told that 10-20% of all textbooks are plagairized. The other professor had to pay a small sum to my friend, but he became very cynical about his profession.

Years ago I heard a rumon that Phds were for sale through ads in the NY Times. I tracked down the ads and was able to get info by claiming I wanted to buy one. I was given a price and told that the members of the committee will be paid off to pass me at New York University.

*Snip*

Edited by Still Waters
No need to be rude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

Very interesting River. Thank you for the info. I don't think I have ever seen those photos before. Those casts sure do look faked to me, they look like loafs of bead with toes, as my friend psyche101 once said. They look a bit to perfect to me as well.

Yep, for sure. Check this out, it may give some insight. Convenient? lol. Patterson is documented by Krantz as faking tracks at bluff creek and making a film of it. (by the timing krantz speaks of also works with Heiromimus story) Makes perfect sense when you look at the big picture.

on Page 32 of 'Big Footprints' by Grover S. Krantz 1992 2nd paragraph: Krantz writes:

'The shape of a footprint can be dug into the ground with the fingers and/or a hand tool, the interior pressed flat, and it can then be photographed or cast in plaster. My first footprint cast was made by a student in just this manner (Fig.10). Roger Patterson told me he did this once in order to get a movie of himself pouring a plaster cast for the documentary he was making. (A few days later, he filmed the actual Sasquatch; See Chapter 4).'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
evancj

Yep, for sure. Check this out, it may give some insight. Convenient? lol. Patterson is documented by Krantz as faking tracks at bluff creek and making a film of it. (by the timing krantz speaks of also works with Heiromimus story) Makes perfect sense when you look at the big picture.

Very interesting River, do you have a link to that reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

Very interesting River, do you have a link to that reference?

It's not online - only in the book. (page and book referenced)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Very clever River. Well done. Another nail in this coffin that has taken over 10 years to lower. Might even be that much left in it yet. You make a prudent point, and an excellent case.

I wanted to also say, nice blog too. I Hate the ones that have moving gifs and glaring colours everywhere. Yours be neat, precise and to the point. Also well done. I like my reading material like that. Organised and easily accessible.

I think what is more amazing is that so many have been so mesmerized and stuck in deep debates for so long that these basic points have eluded too many for too long. Thank goodness people like you are picking up the pieces from this well battered path. :tu:

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I'm claiming that during the footage of Patterson casting the track, there should be an impression visible past the one he is casting (a right foot imprint he is casting). There is not. The footprint is present in the footage of the 4 imprint scene. The ground in the previous footage of Patterson making the cast it was flat mud. I'm also identifying the two scenes as one in the same location and impression (the right impression being cast, is the same right footprint cast Patterson represents coming from the film subject)

nonextprint.jpg

I thought it was well argued that this was the Left Foot, and that thus the right foot track is behind Patterson's shoulder?

Roger Patterson was already know to have faked other tracks by the time he made the P-G Film. I generally agree that the film was a hoax, but reserve my opinion on Bigfoot in general being real or imagined.

The prints do look very fake to me too. If you watch the P-G film, you don't especially notice super deep footprints being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Look at this edit I made to the previous pic. Clearly the next footprint could be behind Patterson.

post-26883-0-56489800-1320702456_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JonathanVonErich

Maybe you can share this in the "official" Patterson film thread, River. :D

I agree, great stuff.

Patterson Film thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

Thanks guys. This is something many people had theorized about for a long time, and what brought it on for me in particular was the whole beard issue. Patterson had a clean shaven face in the casting footage, and in the cast display footage by the tree an obvious beard growth. (more than a day or two likely) So I started from correlating the Krantz statement to those events, and then started to put the details together in a form that could be digested without being too hard to defend. I wanted to be careful about what I claimed and make sure that really it wasn't so much about opinion, or speculation. I think it's fairly black and white and there is no "out" for them. I think Gimlin would have a hard time explaining filming Patterson do this. (and according to their story, thats where Gimlin was - at Bluff Creek with Patterson and Krantz documents the timing and the actions, and there is film evidence of these statements) Krantz's documentation of these events just happened to be the jewel on top of the gold band sealing this deal. I intend to post a background to the events and a little more about the controversies but I wanted to keep my claims very clear.

Thanks for the link.

River

Edited by River
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I thought it was well argued that this was the Left Foot, and that thus the right foot track is behind Patterson's shoulder?

Roger Patterson was already know to have faked other tracks by the time he made the P-G Film. I generally agree that the film was a hoax, but reserve my opinion on Bigfoot in general being real or imagined.

The prints do look very fake to me too. If you watch the P-G film, you don't especially notice super deep footprints being made.

If the "B" Photo does not give enough perspective on the next right step, surely the next left step ought to be visible? We have the film and know the space was not covered in say 3 strides, so photo "B: Should capture this shouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

Look at this edit I made to the previous pic. Clearly the next footprint could be behind Patterson.

post-26883-0-56489800-1320702456_thumb.j

DieChecker: That is impossible for two reasons. Look at this single frame from the movie that has BOTH prints in view. It is really close, and it lines up perfectly with the green lines on all of the images. Show me your line on this image. We also have identified this as being the RIGHT cast Patterson displays at the big tree, and later in many news ads.

frameshowingbothprintsandtheirrelationship.jpg

Edited by River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Buzzkill

Even if it was a man in a suit, wouldn't he still leave foot prints?

Or because it was a man he flew the last few steps?

Maybe the ground was harder the more you move away from the river bed?

How is this prove that the footage is fake?

But the best expaination I have heard is CGI :rofl:

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

Even if it was a man in a suit, wouldn't he still leave foot prints?

Or because it was a man he flew the last few steps?

Maybe the ground was harder the more you move away from the river bed?

How is this prove that the footage is fake?

But the best expaination I have heard is CGI :rofl:

Did the bigfoot come back and leave the folling (4th print) after he cast the 3rd one? (wasnt there in the footage, and it shouldve been in clear view)

Lots of people bought copies of those casts. Kind of a nice art piece at this point. Patterson was a unrecognized as a sculptor. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

If the "B" Photo does not give enough perspective on the next right step, surely the next left step ought to be visible? We have the film and know the space was not covered in say 3 strides, so photo "B: Should capture this shouldn't it?

That could very well be. The next left step should be visible.

DieChecker: That is impossible for two reasons. Look at this single frame from the movie that has BOTH prints in view. It is really close, and it lines up perfectly with the green lines on all of the images. Show me your line on this image. We also have identified this as being the RIGHT cast Patterson displays at the big tree, and later in many news ads.

frameshowingbothprintsandtheirrelationship.jpg

I think this is more telling. The composite of the footstep photos...

post-26883-0-08184700-1320730764_thumb.j

I think the photo you posted should show the next step, if it was the same as the step in the composite. Yet, I've heard it argued that Patterson casted two footprints that were not one after the other, but in two totally different parts of the trackway. So potentially some of those pics might be of one and others of the other. They do look very much like they are all the same print, but two feet in the same river mud are bound to make similar appearing prints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

That could very well be. The next left step should be visible.

I think this is more telling. The composite of the footstep photos...

post-26883-0-08184700-1320730764_thumb.j

I think the photo you posted should show the next step, if it was the same as the step in the composite. Yet, I've heard it argued that Patterson casted two footprints that were not one after the other, but in two totally different parts of the trackway. So potentially some of those pics might be of one and others of the other. They do look very much like they are all the same print, but two feet in the same river mud are bound to make similar appearing prints.

Thsts why if you take a close look at the other images I identified the surrounding features of the land to match locations, and impressions. Patterson did remove a couple of sticks and some brush also. It appears that they may have tried to clean up their boot prints etc around them after. The ground almost looks different, but the features in the dirt immediately surrounding the imprint being cast are very unique and it makes for a perfect match, as well as the "rock" (that is likely a dirt clod) are in the same location. The idea of showing it in the same frame was to show that the composite distance and angles are accurate and that the following print should be really close, and slightly to the left. (should be in plain view in the casting footage)

Pretty huge mistake on Pattersons part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

castcomparisonclose.jpg

Clearly the right foot cast fits onto the two pics on the left. But the one on the upper right, the one in dispute, would to me, still be in dispute. The photo supplied does not show well enough to say that any of the points of similarity show it to be the same footprint. Especially (on the top two photos) points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Plus it appears that the disputed photo appears to be dried mud, and fresh pour of plaster, yet the right side photo appears to be soft mud still and then below that dried mud. The front of the lower left pic footprint cast is clearly free of the dirt, and thus we know that the edges of the footprint have been messed with. Also on the top two photos, there are landmarks in both that do not match up.

I'm not saying that this was a real bigfoot, but I am saying that your theory based on these pics is really just unprovable. With a little imagination the top right pic could easily be the left foot cast, with the promenant toes. Knock off a little thin plaster off the end of the toes and your 90% there.

post-26883-0-72098600-1320732476_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

Clearly the right foot cast fits onto the two pics on the left. But the one on the upper right, the one in dispute, would to me, still be in dispute. The photo supplied does not show well enough to say that any of the points of similarity show it to be the same footprint. Especially (on the top two photos) points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Plus it appears that the disputed photo appears to be dried mud, and fresh pour of plaster, yet the right side photo appears to be soft mud still and then below that dried mud. The front of the lower left pic footprint cast is clearly free of the dirt, and thus we know that the edges of the footprint have been messed with. Also on the top two photos, there are landmarks in both that do not match up.

I'm not saying that this was a real bigfoot, but I am saying that your theory based on these pics is really just unprovable. With a little imagination the top right pic could easily be the left foot cast, with the promenant toes. Knock off a little thin plaster off the end of the toes and your 90% there.

post-26883-0-72098600-1320732476_thumb.j

We will have to agree to disagree. I think if you study the images better you'll see everything matches up perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

The only other thing I can think of is that the "pour" photo with Roger in it is a recreation, maybe done with the same feet he did the originals with and then re-poured to get him in the shot. That would explain why there are no other prints, and why the ridges of dirt roughly match up, as he would have used the same stomping boots with BF feet attached that he used before. Also would explain differences in Rogers appearance and differences in the appearance of the ground. Days or weeks could have gone by between the orignal photos and the follow up recreation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
River

The only other thing I can think of is that the "pour" photo with Roger in it is a recreation, maybe done with the same feet he did the originals with and then re-poured to get him in the shot. That would explain why there are no other prints, and why the ridges of dirt roughly match up, as he would have used the same stomping boots with BF feet attached that he used before. Also would explain differences in Rogers appearance and differences in the appearance of the ground. Days or weeks could have gone by between the orignal photos and the follow up recreation.

That is good critical thinking and something that I already considered. The only problem with it is the cast appears to be wet and not quite filled (pattersons hand appears to dip into the wet cast and stir it around in the footage) Also, the outline of that cast is pretty identifiable (the dried one in the ground, and the right one patterson later displays in many articles and photos)

Edited by River

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skookum

I saw this film enhanced, and if it is a hoax that is one brilliant suit. It has dozens of moving muscles in the face!!! Plus they have tried dozens of athletes to try to replicate the walk and none had the range of movement required.

Last thing is all the people that have come forward to say they were in the suit, many could not could lead investigators to the correct location of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.