• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

Gimlin 1/3 rights

Gimlin has 1/3 of the rights. Does this mean he gets a 1/3 cut of the film rights of that 10 K that Patricia Patterson supposedly gets per each showing agreement ? If so, that's pretty damning motivation among alot of other things for him to continue this charade. Wonder if the profiteering of this film has cooled down considerably since the Long book ? Is the money still coming in ? All. This is my first post here. I have read through alot of these threads (not all of course) and great stuff. I will admit I was a big believer as a youth. I remember seeing a TV documentary I think in 1974 and the movie Mysterious Monsters at the theater in 1975 or so. Anyway, as the years went by, I started to lose interest in bigfoot and accept the fact that I was duped by these carnival barkers. No bodies and really nothing since the farce of 1967. Then the Greg Long book came out and the background of Patterson was finally revealed. I still cannot believe it took so many years for that to happen. Just wanted to pop in and say hello and will continue to pour over these threads.
 
mysteriousmonsters65 said:
Gimlin has 1/3 of the rights. Does this mean he gets a 1/3 cut of the film rights of that 10 K that Patricia Patterson supposedly gets per each showing agreement ? If so, that's pretty damning motivation among alot of other things for him to continue this charade. Wonder if the profiteering of this film has cooled down considerably since the Long book ? Is the money still coming in ? All. This is my first post here. I have read through alot of these threads (not all of course) and great stuff. I will admit I was a big believer as a youth. I remember seeing a TV documentary I think in 1974 and the movie Mysterious Monsters at the theater in 1975 or so. Anyway, as the years went by, I started to lose interest in bigfoot and accept the fact that I was duped by these carnival barkers. No bodies and really nothing since the farce of 1967. Then the Greg Long book came out and the background of Patterson was finally revealed. I still cannot believe it took so many years for that to happen. Just wanted to pop in and say hello and will continue to pour over these threads.
Click to expand...

MM65-

We do not believe that Gimlin has any rights to the film.

He sued Patricia Patterson for his share of the proceeds, and settled out of court for an undisclosed settlement.
 
Thanks Drewbot for clearing that up. :) Still, it appears Gimlin is in too deep to ever fess up. Fawning bigfoot fanbases holding him up in sainthood for years will do that I guess. I don't imagine he has too much time left anyway. Not sure if his wife is still alive to do the confession deed because I understand from some comments here she hated all this bigfoot nonsense. Who knows if he really confessed all the deception to her or not. I find it hard to believe but it is possible.
 
Drewbot said:
MM65-

We do not believe that Gimlin has any rights to the film.
He sued Patricia Patterson for his share of the proceeds, and settled out of court for an undisclosed settlement.
Click to expand...

As I posted before - there is no evidence to back up any assumption on ownership of the film rights. The settlement could have included cash, film rights, or a combination of both. It also could have been a big zero for Gimlin as well. The fact is - nobody outside of the settlement process knows unless they have exclusive insider information given to them by one of the parties.
 
Drewbot said:
A fun analysis of Bob Gimlin’s body language- enjoy. https://youtu.be/Xl2eiocOnoM
Click to expand...

The guy is making a whole lot of assumptions based on very little knowledge of Gimlin's personal speech patterns and his body language.
Cops making the same assumptions based on a very poor understanding of stress indicators whilst following the steps of the "Reid Technique" have put a lot of innocent people in jail.
 
I don't follow this too closely, but was there ever a consensus on the veracity of Bob Heironimus' story? When I first heard his story, and saw some video, it seemed legit.
 
Warp12 said:
I don't follow this too closely, but was there ever a consensus on the veracity of Bob Heironimus' story? When I first heard his story, and saw some video, it seemed legit.
Click to expand...

There is a book called The Making of Bigfoot by Greg Long that gives pretty good support of the Bob H in a Costume theory.

Remember that Gimlin and Patterson's story was built on lies, even the parts they didn't have to lie about. Why did Gimlin have to put on an Indian wig? for example.

In fact: a good question for Gimlin would be: When Roger was filming the creature on the river bank, were you wearing the Indian wig?
 
Warp12 said:
I don't follow this too closely, but was there ever a consensus on the veracity of Bob Heironimus' story? When I first heard his story, and saw some video, it seemed legit.
Click to expand...

BH’s story is very credible. Greg Long did a great job of interviewing the surviving “players”. The book has a few flaws as does any work of its kind. Aside from Long’s expressed contempt for Patterson, the major problem was reconstructing the final part of the road trip to the camp site from BH’s imprecise recollection.
 
Cervelo said:
I'm not making this personal but your near hysterics in regard to this subject can't help but be noted
Your claim of a lynch mob going after Al DeAtley is absurd
Your claim of me lecturing you in regards to Munns is absurd
Your request for any documentation for Al DeAtley's participation in PGF is absurd
You don't set the the bar for evidence supporting his participation in PGF or for skeptical inquiry but you seem to be pretty good at lecturing others about it.

I haven't seen you present anything remotely based on facts or logic just a lot of emotional hand waving, having seen this behaviour from others, I can't help but be reminded of this response that was posted to this style of debate.....I wish I could credit the original poster.

"It's as if you are a singularly fantastic presence on the planet. I'm skeptical of virtually everything that you say. You talk about yourself all the time here, so the arguments are drawn onto you rather than the object of your claims. It tests the forum guideline of "attack the argument, not the arguer" because you force the argument to be about you based on personal anecdotal experience."

Thx to Drew for posting the above, that's the tip of an iceberg of support for Al DeAtley's participation in PGF. Anyone with an Internet connection could verify it for themselves if they had an interest in the facts, but I'm not convinced that's what this is about.....I'm not really sure what it's about LOL!
Click to expand...

It's about you originally claiming that DeAtley FUNDED the PGF. You are making the claim that he was part of a conspiracy to make the PGF and that document shows nothing of the sort.

There is no doubt that he participated in the merchandizing and promotion of the film - after the film was shot of course. He also bailed out of the company 3 years later giving his share to his sister.
I seem to recall him being totally non-committal about the authenticity of the creature that was filmed - but I could be wrong about that.

Now - if he did profit off the the exploitation of that film - good for him. Most people thought it was entertaining and they got their money's worth. Just like people have made millions from Oliver Stone and Michael Moore "documentaries". ;)
 
I think I've said this before but it bears repeating.

Where is the suit?

The focus should be tracking it down. I can't imagine it was destroyed, if for no other reason than it would be good for a laugh in the future. And today that suit has to be worth six figures. It has to be sitting in somebody's attic, basement, or closet somewhere.

If I win the lotto that's how I'm spending my retirement.
 
Axxman300 said:
I think I've said this before but it bears repeating.

Where is the suit?

The focus should be tracking it down. I can't imagine it was destroyed, if for no other reason than it would be good for a laugh in the future. And today that suit has to be worth six figures. It has to be sitting in somebody's attic, basement, or closet somewhere.

If I win the lotto that's how I'm spending my retirement.
Click to expand...

Most likely destroyed (fire?) to prevent the hoax from being discovered. They weren't in it for a laugh, rather being the con men they were, it was all about the money.

The most obvious tells for me were the distinctly white face (never mentioned in descriptions in ANY tale I have heard of), and the line at the top of his hip boot that shows near the same time he looked back. Such boots were obviously worn and stuffed to fill out the legs of the suit.
 
MBDK said:
Most likely destroyed (fire?) to prevent the hoax from being discovered. They weren't in it for a laugh, rather being the con men they were, it was all about the money.

The most obvious tells for me were the distinctly white face (never mentioned in descriptions in ANY tale I have heard of), and the line at the top of his hip boot that shows near the same time he looked back. Such boots were obviously worn and stuffed to fill out the legs of the suit.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I don't see Patterson destroying it. That's just me, though. He could double his money after a time by pulling out the suit, and placing up for auction.

The only reason it never surfaced, in my opinion, is because it was on loan, or parts of it were, and they had to be returned. There is a good chance we've already seen it in use on bad TV shows, and drive-in movies, and never knew it because they swapped out the head.
 
rockinkt said:
It's about you originally claiming that DeAtley FUNDED the PGF. You are making the claim that he was part of a conspiracy to make the PGF and that document shows nothing of the sort.

There is no doubt that he participated in the merchandizing and promotion of the film - after the film was shot of course. He also bailed out of the company 3 years later giving his share to his sister.
I seem to recall him being totally non-committal about the authenticity of the creature that was filmed - but I could be wrong about that.

Now - if he did profit off the the exploitation of that film - good for him. Most people thought it was entertaining and they got their money's worth. Just like people have made millions from Oliver Stone and Michael Moore "documentaries". ;)
Click to expand...

You drag up a quote from years back and I'm very unsure of the context of the conversation and certain I'm not going to research it.

But your contention is that DeAtley didn't fund the PGF or I can't prove he funded it?
 
Knowing bigfootry as I do, if they burned the suit, it was only because of the fanatical nature of bigfooters. I highly doubt anyone was ever worried about getting in trouble for filming a hoaxed film.

The vengeful bigfooters would be far more worrisome than anyone else.

Plus I don't know if anyone has ever been arrested for claiming non-existant wildlife to be real.

Sure, if he was taking people's life savings to start a worship service or something like that. But this was just a movie, no worse than Discovery Channel doing a documentary on Meglodon and hinting that it still exists.

The 'getting in trouble for hoaxing the film' is just something Footers projected on the story, to help them fight the hoax claims. "No one would hoax the film knowing HOW MUCH TROUBLE they could get in"
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
Knowing bigfootry as I do, if they burned the suit, it was only because of the fanatical nature of bigfooters. I highly doubt anyone was ever worried about getting in trouble for filming a hoaxed film.

The vengeful bigfooters would be far more worrisome than anyone else.

Plus I don't know if anyone has ever been arrested for claiming non-existant wildlife to be real.

Sure, if he was taking people's life savings to start a worship service or something like that. But this was just a movie, no worse than Discovery Channel doing a documentary on Meglodon and hinting that it still exists.

The 'getting in trouble for hoaxing the film' is just something Footers projected on the story, to help them fight the hoax claims. "No one would hoax the film knowing HOW MUCH TROUBLE they could get in"
Click to expand...
A couple of things here. Bigfooters weren't as rabid in those days, as most people just knew of the few mythically perceived stories that were circulated at the time. If the suit had NOT been destroyed, the sooner it was discovered, the less money they would have milked out of the hoax. Back then, movies, similar to those that are now shown on Discovery and other channels, were extremely rare and of relatively poor quality. These men were flim-flam types, who made their living by lying. Getting caught in such a flagrant way would have been disastrous for any future endeavors. Destroying the suit was in their best interest at the time.
 
Roger and Bob were flim flam types, but Al Deatley was a business man.

Give the suit to him, he was just the money man, he wasn't in front of the crowds.

No reason to burn the suit.

Roger was dead within 5 years, and it sounded like Bob wanted out of the whole thing by then.

Burning suits seems to be the Bigfooter's go to plan when things aren't going right, but a business man, he could just hold onto the suit, no one is going to come looking for it.

I just hope when Al Deatley passed away, that someone knows the significance of that thing if they find it.
 
Drewbot said:
Roger and Bob were flim flam types, but Al Deatley was a business man.

Give the suit to him, he was just the money man, he wasn't in front of the crowds.

No reason to burn the suit.

Roger was dead within 5 years, and it sounded like Bob wanted out of the whole thing by then.

Burning suits seems to be the Bigfooter's go to plan when things aren't going right, but a business man, he could just hold onto the suit, no one is going to come looking for it.

I just hope when Al Deatley passed away, that someone knows the significance of that thing if they find it.
Click to expand...
You are performing mental gymnastics to arrive at your supposition. Occam's Razor has the flim-flammers keep critical evidence out of a non-flim-flammer's control, and destroy it.

ETA: Flim-flammers due to their business requirement of gaining false trust from others, are themselves notoriously untrusting sorts.
 
Last edited:
Al Deatley wasn't getting flim flammed by Roger and Bob. If he wanted the suit, he got the suit.

There was only one true boss in that trio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom