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

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Making a film these days is relatively easy, comparatively speaking. With a good camera, microphone, and Final Cut, a person can basically do the whole production themselves, from filming it to "in the can" which is now just a digital file.

I wish Kit would drop back in and give us an update. I was always amazed at how well he stood up to the constant harassment on BFF1.
 
I looked at that old thread from 2010 regarding his documentary. The OP indicated it was a pitch being made to Discovery Channel Canada.

Then it seemed to drift into a documentary he was producing himself, kind of an autobiographical thing with the theme being a guy who has an initial belief in bigfoot and then ends up being a skeptic. Debunking the PGF was a major component of course but the autobiography was the core concept.

I guess there was a youtube channel with some things posted to it along with some of his music videos but I am too incompetent with youtube to figure out where it is, or maybe its gone.

That thread devolved into a long series of Sweaty diagram red herrings and general discussion of bigfoot and PGF stuff, but nothing really pertinent to a pitch to Discovery. I know how book pitches are made to agents who in turn represent you with the publishing houses, but I know nothing about how pitches are made to television shows.

With a book you produce what they call the "elevator pitch", meaning a summary of what the book is about as if just meeting someone in an elevator. You provide some sample writing, like a book chapter. You look at other similar works and show how many books were sold of that nature. The agent doesn't do much more than turn this over to the publishing house. But you can't do this directly unless you are a famous writer already.

I don't know how it is done in television world, but the documentary he started a script for and doing interviews for was this "The Conversion of Kitakaze" program and not a "Debunking the PGF" program. My limited knowledge of the 'footery world suggests that probably everyone who spends time learning about it discovers Kitakaze as a skeptic who the 'footers hate.

But in terms of a wider audience capable of selling twinkies and trojan vibrating twisters on TV I don't think that theme is going to resonate the way the Roger Patterson story itself would - it's an amazing story really. A con man who has a fatal disease but pulls off the big score before he dies and leaves a legacy outlasting every scientist that scoffed at him. An ironic triumph/tragedy.

He has an email in that thread. So someone could ask. I don't have any kind of rapport with him but I do have some interest in Japanese Karaoke girls. Not sure that is the right foundation to work from on this.
 
Thanks for the summary. Very interesting. I would think making a BF documentary would be a lot of fun (and work), but if it's from the skeptical side, it probably wouldn't be very popular in the long run. People like to believe woo. They go out of their way to believe it. It seems to fill some need to be connected with weirdness. I myself prefer things simple and straightforward, but I'm beginning to think I'm an exception statistically speaking. Although the popularity of some of the Youtubes put up by Donald Prothero and Michael Shermer may prove me wrong.
 
ABP- Yes, Kit moved to Tokyo, I asked Kitakaze if the Documentary was on hold indefinitely, he slammed this down on the table and said "what do you think?"


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
footer has idea about how to make the PGF/bigfoot real instead of a guy in a suit.
For those that don't want to wait for Kit, Assuming it is DeAtley, just go find a cable guy named Brent D in the town DeAtley lives and investigate it for yourself. You can find the suit, or convince the owner to burn it up if that's what you want ...
Click to expand...

That is some serious self-delusion.
 
I think Drewbot is they only one who has produced evidence we can rely on. If we can get some in schoolgirl outfits to do a re-creation of the PGF scene it's going to be decisive.

The show Finding Bigfoot may end up doing a favor for the skeptics though in the long run. They've put forward the PGF as the best available bigfoot evidence in existence, so this is a developing opportunity for vanity we have not had before.

Look how Bob Heironimus came forward when he saw how other people were profiting from bigfoot hoaxing when he was the original actor, shafted out of any money at all.

Now you have millions being made, and possibly millions more by Johnny-Come-Lately's who are also feeding at the trough of the original film producer: Al DeAtley. But Al is not getting credit for it and his original money is long gone.

What he has to contemplate now is the private smugness over what he accomplished vs. the more public power he would exercise in taking the limelight (and money) away from this new generation of charletans by coming out with the suit.

What that points to is the producers of Finding Bigfoot having an interest in preventing that from happening: by making an offer on the suit and implementing a nondisclosure agreement with the owner.

So it is almost as interesting as Asian girls in bikinis: the value of the suit increases with the current popularity of Bigfoot, most especially this television show, and that value is a competition between debunking the profiteers vs. taking a cut of the action.
 
Vortigern99 said:
But Odinn assures us with his customary hubris confidence that it's DeAtley! Are you suggesting that he's mistaken? :eek:
Click to expand...

Hubris eh? That was uncalled for. I play the Devil's advocate for crappy debunking. I'm not a footer. My interest is in the film, period.

DeAtley is the only choice, IMO. If not, then who amongst the major players is an option? Bob H? Nope. Bob Gimlin? Nope. Patterson's family..unlikely. Who else? The Wallace family? Right. If it wasn't DeAtley, then this is all BS.

Bill Munns said it was the cable guy. Brent D was the cable guy. Bill Munns knows. So what cable guy is there other than Brent D? So then, he described servicing a mansion that the suit was in. Who amongst the players has a mansion? DeAtley. Kit said it was complicated. IMO, that's because Kit wasn't dealing with Al DeAtley himself. He could only have been dealing Alan DeAtely, big Al's son. This is the complication Kit talks about. Alan has a strained relationship with his father and access to the suit would be behind big Al's back. But that's just my take. No hubris involved. :)
 
If someone comes out with the suit and proves it, all kinds of hell will break loose. Kind of like the Shroud of Turin. And people will still believe.
 
Óðinn said:
Hubris eh? That was uncalled for. I play the Devil's advocate for crappy debunking. I'm not a footer. My interest is in the film, period.

DeAtley is the only choice, IMO. If not, then who amongst the major players is an option? Bob H? Nope. Bob Gimlin? Nope. Patterson's family..unlikely. Who else? The Wallace family? Right. If it wasn't DeAtley, then this is all BS.

Bill Munns said it was the cable guy. Brent D was the cable guy. Bill Munns knows. So what cable guy is there other than Brent D? So then, he described servicing a mansion that the suit was in. Who amongst the players has a mansion? DeAtley. Kit said it was complicated. IMO, that's because Kit wasn't dealing with Al DeAtley himself. He could only have been dealing Alan DeAtely, big Al's son. This is the complication Kit talks about. Alan has a strained relationship with his father and access to the suit would be behind big Al's back. But that's just my take. No hubris involved. :)
Click to expand...

I think your reasoning is sound. GT/CS seems to think otherwise, which is what I was responding to. I apologize for bashing you, even in jest.
 
Am I the only one who remains a tad bit skeptical about KK and his "suit"? I'm not willing to blindly accept KK's word that he has found the suit.

KK's obsession with BF and the PGF, apparent by his gazillion posts, is enuff for me to question if his suit find wasn't some sort of hoax aimed at the bleevers.
 
At this point, I suspect the KK documentary and the reveal of the suit has about as much chance of happening as a DNA paper by TheMelba has of being published.
 
clayflingythingy said:
Am I the only one who remains a tad bit skeptical about KK and his "suit"? I'm not willing to blindly accept KK's word that he has found the suit.

KK's obsession with BF and the PGF, apparent by his gazillion posts, is enuff for me to question if his suit find wasn't some sort of hoax aimed at the bleevers.
Click to expand...

Who could blame you for being skeptical? You aren't alone.

Generally past behavior is an excellent prediction of future behavior. So with KK, a good question to ask is whether he's done such a thing before. From what little I have seen of him here that would be out of character. But many here have way, way more experience on two forums with him and also correspond privately so they would know him better.

I have a great deal of empathy for wanting to be the first person to break news of a find like this. I doubt I would be able to keep my mouth shut. So geez, I don't fault the guy for it.

Believing the suit is still around is a lot more reasonable than believing in an undiscovered 800 lb primate species running loose all over the country. The strongest candidate location is with Al DeAltey and the story of its discovery is pretty reasonable. It is also reasonable understanding why the cable guy would be fired for having a picture published without the permission of the owner.

In statistics we would say there is an observational equivalence between the two explanations. Consistent with both. If we don't bring priors into it. But if we're Bayesians then it matters very much what our priors are on KK. If he's been a little hoaxer himself over the years then you have to come down on the hoaxing side. If he's been forthright in all things then the posterior is on the side of a true find.
 
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