• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob Gimlin may have had to agree in a legal settlement not to disclose certain information about the event. (if it were proven to be fraud, that would void the contract of course)
 
I'm not sure I buy into that explanation. It has been brought up in past threads, and no one to my knowledge has offered a reasonable scenario how that would actually work.

What information? What kind of language would be employed in such a contract? Any such contract IS void because the film is a premeditated hoax for monetary gain(conspiracy to commit fraud).

Is there some way to weasel around this? Such as some kind of wording that prohibits Bob Gimlin from endangering the financial benefits of Pat Patterson? Is it even possible to come up with such a contract without tacitly admitting to fraud?
 
What I was eluding to is, there could've been some type of signed agreement between the principles to "stick to the script" when asked about the events. NDA are common in many businesses. This certainly looks to me like a business agreement between Gimlin and the Patterson estate.


From wiki:
Records show that Bob Gimlin sued DeAtley and Patterson's widow, Patricia, in 1975, claiming he was not receiving his share of the film's proceeds
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I know.

The problem is Bob Gimlin is quite happy to "disclose" information about the official story of events in the film and surrounding it.

It would follow that, this purported Non-Disclosure-Agreement is about elements of the fraud itself, which is illegal. It is conspiracy. Therefore, to me, it doesn't seem likely.. so I'll ask again :

What kind of language would be employed in such a contract? Any such contract IS void because the film is a premeditated hoax for monetary gain(conspiracy to commit fraud).

Is there some way to weasel around this? Such as some kind of wording that prohibits Bob Gimlin from endangering the financial benefits of Pat Patterson? Is it even possible to come up with such a contract without tacitly admitting to fraud?

What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
STRONG LIKE BEAR said:
The problem is Bob Gimlin is quite happy to "disclose" information about the official story of events in the film and surrounding it.

It would follow that, this purported Non-Disclosure-Agreement is about elements of the fraud itself, which is illegal. It is conspiracy. Therefore, to me, it doesn't seem likely.. so I'll ask again :

What kind of language would be employed in such a contract? Any such contract IS void because the film is a premeditated hoax for monetary gain(conspiracy to commit fraud).

Is there some way to weasel around this? Such as some kind of wording that prohibits Bob Gimlin from endangering the financial benefits of Pat Patterson? Is it even possible to come up with such a contract without tacitly admitting to fraud?

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Could he be under contract as a performer and he's obligated to stay in character in public? A comparison might be a professional wrestler, who's expected to portray their on-screen character in public even though the business is fictional. Yes, he really is a Canadian lumberjack and he really does hate Wilhelm the Gestapo Officer. No, he can't tell you the proper way to execute a piledriver without breaking your opponent's neck.
 
Excellent point. Now that is something to consider indeed!

Wow. See, that's why I asked! There may be other possibilities that haven't been considered. Anyone got any more?
 
Wasn't the NDA a function of a lawsuit that was brought at some point over the film ? I may be mixing stories in my mind, but I recall discussion of a lawsuit that Gimlin brought against DeAtley and Patterson's wife. Can someone square me away ?
 
It's not clear what their agreement was settled to be, (to me at least) or if any NDA were signed previously, or post that court date. However, as a performer in a movie Gimlin may have had to sign an agreement not to disclose certain aspects of their performance. (much like a magicians assistant for instance) Gimlin words things very carefully to avoid a possible fraud. (IMHO) It is not illegal to profit from a movie of a fur covered subject. King Kong, Godzilla, all of those creature films have fictional characters, but they can advertise it as the scary monster etc. (let us remember that Patterson at the time was allegedly shooting film for an ANE production at the time according to his story)

There may be no agreements, and Gimlin may just want to keep the ball rolling. Who knows. :)

If I were DeAtley, (financier) I'd have had the principles sign some papers to make sure things don't go kaput.
 
Does anyone have evidence, or know of where the idea that Roger Patterson worked at Corriganville in the early 1960's or late 1950's?

Dfoot brought it up, Greg Long brought it up, but does anyone have any evidence? An interview? a Pay stub? etc...
 
Just found this and thought it might be some new footage some may not have seen, I know it is new to me.

Tim :)

This Footage Was Shot Weeks Before Patterson-Gimlin Filmed Bigfoot In 1967

Here it is folks. Sharon Lee at Cryptomundo received this filmed labeled on YouTube, "Never before seen John Green footage from Patterson/Gimlin film". This rare footage was filmed in the Blue Creek Mountain ridge, 1967, from late August to the first couple of days in September-- a month away from the famous filming of "Patty", the Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. M.K. Davis discussed this footage a few years ago, and according to PGF history buffs: "This IS a very important footage".

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/this-footage-was-shot-weeks-before.html#moretop
 
RedRatSnake said:
Just found this and thought it might be some new footage some may not have seen, I know it is new to me.

Tim :)

This Footage Was Shot Weeks Before Patterson-Gimlin Filmed Bigfoot In 1967

Here it is folks. Sharon Lee at Cryptomundo received this filmed labeled on YouTube, "Never before seen John Green footage from Patterson/Gimlin film". This rare footage was filmed in the Blue Creek Mountain ridge, 1967, from late August to the first couple of days in September-- a month away from the famous filming of "Patty", the Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. M.K. Davis discussed this footage a few years ago, and according to PGF history buffs: "This IS a very important footage".

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/this-footage-was-shot-weeks-before.html#moretop
Click to expand...

Dog looks bored.

ETA: Perhaps this needs the Sweaty One's patented colored squiggly lines.
 
Last edited:
lol~ that's what I thought to, you would think if BF came by that area Mr. Dog would have been going nuts with smelling everything in site, or at least pissing all over the place to remark his territory ~

But maybe the dog was trained not to react to BF in such a way, who knows, I want to believe, but it all seems so misleading, I must say I am beginning to have my doubts about this BF stuff.

Tim ~ lol
 
How do you train a dog a dog not to react to something that you can't get any sign from? No scat, no hair, no smells, no sights. Besides, aren't dogs supposed to go bonkers when BF's are around, hide, whimper, run away, act unlike they do for anything else they might come across?
 
RedRatSnake said:
Just found this and thought it might be some new footage some may not have seen, I know it is new to me.

....

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/01/this-footage-was-shot-weeks-before.html#moretop
Click to expand...

Wow. Textbook Wallace stompers in a perfectly straight line running parallel with tire tracks.

35cyq1.jpg
 
I think a dog is needed to sniff out Dr. Ketchup's missing DNA paper.
 
Last edited:
Tontar said:
How do you train a dog a dog not to react to something that you can't get any sign from? No scat, no hair, no smells, no sights. Besides, aren't dogs supposed to go bonkers when BF's are around, hide, whimper, run away, act unlike they do for anything else they might come across?
Click to expand...


You don't do well with reverse narcissistic spiraling sarcasm do ya~ lol

"O" well! The monkey is just all about butt plugs anyway, who cares.

Tim :rolleyes:
 
The BF threads seem to be running neck and neck with all the different species of the creature that have seemed to pop up in the last few years.

Tim :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom