1967 Patterson Gimlin Film: a discussion

Jan 3, 2012
5
0
California
The Patterson Gimlin Film of 1967: The challenge of a solution?

I am respectfully inviting discussion in regard to an event which is widely perceived as a trick, a hoax, or a performed illusion, but something which has never successfully or conclusively been proven to be such, by any rigorous and professional group or panel of experts, in the illusionary arts, or in other fields of expertise. I feel it is a reasonable and respectful topic for this forum because the analysis does require a solid mechanical knowledge of how tricks, illusions and hoaxes are devised or engineered and choreographed.

The event I speak of is the 1967 filming by Roger Patterson of something walking through the Bluff Creek wilderness woodlands. There is a powerful and persuasive urban legend that the film has been debunked, but it has not, and remains a true mystery.

Successful illusions and tricks start with some assumption on the part of the viewer or audience, an assumption the magician or illusionist deliberately selects, and deliberately encourages, while actually working around that assumption by some alternate method or process. Once the viewer or audience accepts as fact the assumption in their minds, they will be fooled and they will never figure out the truthful solution to the trick, event or performance.

Conversely, the magician or illusionist who desires to reverse engineer the trick, to actually solve the truthful description of how the trick is accomplished, that person must approach the analysis with no assumptions, because it is the very act of assuming something that generally hides the solution.

So, I feel that a discussion with people who are trained, disciplined and very attuned to the fundamental necessity of going into an analysis with NO ASSUMPTION (my emphasis) are the people who actually have some prospect of finding a truthful solution. I am hoping to find people who can approach this topic with no assumptions, and can work through the discussion with me.

Up front, I will acknowledge it is well known that I have tried to dissect this film and determine if it is a hoax or trick, using the same rigorous analysis methodology one would use to reverse-engineer a stage magic trick, to understand how it is accomplished, and I find that this curious event of 1967 defies just about any traditional rule of the illusionary arts (whether that be performing magic or movie special effects). I remain interested in trying to resolve the mystery.

Why the film is worthy of analysis by people knowledgeable in the illusionary/magical arts and profession and why a discussion in this forum is a respectful topic:

It is my understanding that classical magic tricks and similar performed illusions operate with the following criteria for success, and reverse-engineering of such tricks similarly considers these factors in making a determination of performing solution:

1. Controlling the point of view - depending on the mechanism of illusion, control of viewer’s point of view may be necessary for the illusion’s success. The classic “Girl to Gorilla” transformation required such a controlled point of view for it’s success. Richard Wiseman’s YouTube video illusion “The Skull” is another splendid example (and a brilliant and elegantly simple but effective illusion, by the way)

2. Controlling the environment ( or often stated as “preparing the room”) - many successful tricks and illusions require that the physical performing environment be arranged in advance to make the illusion performance effective.

3. Controlling the team - Assuming more than one person is involved, the lead illusionist must control the where-abouts and actions of each team member, have excellent communication with all, visual or audible, so all efforts are coordinated as rehearsed.

4. Deliberate revealing of distracting elements - When elements of the environment seem like obstacles for success, attention is deliberately drawn to them to heighten the viewer’s doubt that the illusion event will be successful. Chris Angel’s “walking through a metal gate” trick specifically highlights the fact of the gate being padlocked, an obstacle for opening the gate. So the fact of the lock, an obstacle to opening the gate, is deliberately and clearly brought to the viewer’s attention.

5. Destroy and Recover - Many tricks involve something being destroyed or otherwise damaged, and then restored to pristine original condition, and a substitution of a pristine alternate is the general solution.

6. Investing in what shows - Many illusions are elaborate and thus costly, and so under such circumstances, the cost is wisely invested in the elements which show most prominently in the viewer’s perception. Cost is not wastefully invested in things which the staging plan doesn’t show to the viewer.

7. Anticipating the technique for revealing the trick - Anticipating that people will try to figure out the “trick”, a master illusionist anticipates what analysis method or technology such skeptics will use, and incorporates into the illusion design some deliberate factor or component which will give a false positive to the analysis method or technology. What the illusionist cannot anticipate is technology which may come to exist decades after the trick was done, and this new and un-anticipated technology should easily reveal the trick, because the illusionist did not anticipate it and thus did not design to deceive it.

8. Subtractive illusion (when you can only add) - Illusionists and movie special effects people alike eternally deal with the challenge of making something large (a space or container) look too small to hold the actual contents we put in it. We make the large thing appear small by enlarging the things around it.

9. Illusions of re-arranged anatomy - Dismembering people, stretching them, or otherwise re-arranging their anatomy into impossible configurations has limitations which must be meticulously designed and restrictions on the performance routine to accomplish. Because the real anatomy cannot be re-arranged, there are specific limitations to these illusions.

10. Practice makes perfect - Successful illusions require exhaustive practice, rehearsal and rigorous choreography when more than one person is involved in the illusion performance. Successful illusions do not likely occur with improvisational one-time attempts.

11. Staging support (far from home) - An illusion accomplished in a non-conducive setting, (street magic, or remote location special events for TV specials) generally require substantial support equipment, staff and preparation time, and are more ambitious than illusions performed in a “safe haven” setting, like a conventional theater stage.

12. Use of calculated mis-direction to prevent the viewer from seeing the true solution - Mis-Direction is truly one of the classic devices for successful deception, and it’s practice has been raised to a fine art unto itself as an ingredient for success.

It is my aspiration to discuss this film event from the 12 criteria listed above. It is my intention to focus on the event, and not get caught up in the gossip about the lives of the people involved.

Finally, I have a few requests for people who wish to comment.

1. If you cannot go into this with no assumptions, and simply join me in working the problem, I hope that you will give your attention to other forum activity instead of this topic.

2. I have encountered people who are so dismissive of this topic that they ridicule the very attempt at a serious and thoughtful consideration of whether the event was real or hoaxed. If you are one such person, please spare us your ridicule and devote your time to other topics.

This opening Post is to simply start the dialogue, explain why I feel the topic is worthy of being discussed in this forum, and present some basic considerations which I feel are necessary for a successful discussion.

One closing consideration:

For the most part, you discuss things which going in you know are tricks of some kind, so it would be easy to adopt that assumption here, and many people do. But occasionally, something is done which is not a trick, in the sense of being something other than it appears.

David Blaine is, of course, one of today’s pre-eminent practitioners of magical arts, and much of what he does is in fact, a trick, an illusion. But when he put himself into a block of ice, it was not a trick so much as a real event as it occurred. I recall hearing people say the “ice” was clear acrylic, not cold at all, and that he had a hidden IV to nourish him, but as much as my research indicates, this remarkable event was a factual event and the ‘trick” (for lack of a better word) was David’s preparation to permit his physical anatomy to endure or accomplish what the average human cannot endure. The event was real, and explained by an understanding of biology and anatomy.

Similarly, John Scarne’s fabled skill at cutting four aces from a regulation honest deck of cards, was described as not being a trick so much as a real event of extraordinary skill and adaptation of memory and tactile perception. When we discuss him, we consider both options, a real skill and a trick.

I bring it up simply because on rare occasions, something widely perceived by people as a trick, may in fact be a real event with some factor of rare biology, physiology, or adaptation being the truthful solution. On that basis, I think it only fair that the PGF mystery, however obvious it may seem to some of you as being a hoax, may in fact have a real biological solution, and I simply feel until the mystery is truly resolved, that option cannot be dismissed.

Bill
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results