Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Pgf....boggles The Mind

Recommended Posts

Guest

Hello Everyone,

I am a newbie here but have been reading the various posts on the forums for quite sandme time. There are some very intelligent people lurking here on the forum, and I always enjoy learning new tidbits and aspects of the PGF that educate me further.

Let me begin by saying that I am on the fence as far as concluding in my own mind whether or not the film was a hoax. I am familiar with Greg Long's book and many of my questions/observations use that as the source as far as quotes and timelines go. Over the years I have had several thoughts on various areas of the PGF story, and I was hoping to get any feedback, rebuttals, clarifications, etc on the matter from any and all interested forum members, in an effort to better educate myself.

I apologize if any of my topics are those which some of you have discussed ad nauseam in other posts, and have grown very sick of rehashing.

I guess one of the biggest things that always left me scratching my head is:

Patterson was a smart enough guy to fake an elaborate hoax that has perplexed thousands of people for decades now, but he was still dumb enough to screw over his two co-conspirators? Here he is making money hand over fist by four-walling this movie all over the west and midwest, and he doesnt have the brains to pay off BobH and make sure Gimlin gets his cut? It just doesn't add up to me. You would think Patterson would be concerned with others spilling the beans and cutting off his income if he screwed them over financially. Or you would think that Patricia Patterson would have told him to pay up, since she was, according to BobH, part of the conspiracy, ie knew it was BobH in the suit.

Gimlin sues Patricia in the mid to late 70s. Why doesnt BobH come forward then? No doubt he knew about the lawsuit. I would be willing to bet that there were blurbs in the paper along the lines of 'Court Battle Looms Over Bigfoot Film Rights' or something like that. Why doesnt BobH confront Patricia

Patterson at this time? Or tell Gimlin to pass along a message to her that if he doesnt get his thousand

bucks, he is calling the newspapers?

I really never understood BobH's story. Here is a guy who portrays himself as a tough guy who doesnt take crap from anyone, yet lets Patterson walk all over him for five years until Patterson dies in 1972? If it were me, after a year, I would start to get a little belligerant. But BobH doesnt do that.He claims to have 'tried to run into them guys a couple of times'. How hard could that be? He knows where Patterson lives. Back in 1967, the national minimum wage was under two dollars an hour. BobH should have been chomping at the bit to get his money. But no, he doesnt do anything.

Surely, BobH and Gimlin have spoken during this time. They are both getting screwed over as far as money is concerned, but they don't say to each other "Hey, lets go tell Roger right now, either pay up, or we talk!" But no, instead Gimlin sues later on in the 1970s. And instead of keeping things quiet and settling out of court, they pay tons of money to battle over the film rights in a court of law, wherein at any time BobH could could just show up and say "hey, the film is a fake. I was wearing a costume. I was never paid my thousand bucks, so the hell with all of you guys!" It boggles the mind why, if indeed the film were fake, that the parties involved would let it go that far. In my mind, if you

believe BobH's account, it really doesnt make any sense.

I guess one of the big things that is hard to suggest, if BobH is telling the truth, is how lying is so easy for so many people. Roger and Gimlin lied, Patricia Patterson lied, either the Patterson's children were lied to way back when, or they are harboring a lie now to keep their mother's financial windfall coming in. The spouses/children of the Patterson kids are now part of the lie or are being lied to. Gimlin's wife is either being lied to or lying for her husband. Gimlin's friends, relatives, etc. Are either being lied to or keeping a lie secret for Gimlin. Where does it all end?

Thoughts??

I apologize for any spelling, punctuation mistakes. I attempted to type this post out on my new tablet, and its not easy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Hi SC, welcome!

I would recommend reading the Self-Contradictions of Bob H thread. There's a TON of interesting stuff about Bob in there.

However, you point you make about getting stiffed the money, and waiting so long to say something about it is something that I personally have not discussed/read up on. It's an interesting topic to ponder.

Doesn't make sense to me either bud, but really the deeper you dig into this PGF stuff, the more confused one can become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thanks for the recommendation, Cotter! I will definetly check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Hi SC, and welcome.

As someone who posted about the actions of people outside the film and how those actions incline towards one view or the other, I am a great believer in assessing the intuitiveness of someone's behavior as part of the overall credibility assessment. So in my mind, your question is as good as any of the film questions -- those that discuss, for example, the skeletal frame of Patty and whether a human could fit in a Patty suit.

This may belong in the Bob H forum, but I'll give my take in your thread.

Two contrasting viewpoints:

A) You're right. To my sensibilities, Roger's having withheld payment provides BobH the motive and justification for "outing" his friends, Roger & BobG. Since he didn't, he likely didn't have the goods. Tends towards a film-is-authentic viewpoint.

-or-

B) You're not accounting for the era. To my father's sensibilities, a man's word is everything. BobH was likely made to promise not to reveal the secret, as was BobG. Despite not being paid, BobH felt duty-bound to honor his word. Back to the example of my father, I know of situations in which deals went sour because another person didn't fulfill their promise, yet my father would neither break his word nor badmouth the other person (outside of our house). If it was a co-promise to a third party, my father would perform both his and the other person's work to meet the obligation, if possible. Suing another person just wasn't a common thought back then. His consolation in those situations was the knowledge that he was the better man; the rest was simply a lesson learned in not doing business with that individual. Thus, given it was the 60s and 70s -- pre McDonalds hot coffee spill civil suit -- BobH would have written off the proceeds. Then two things occurred: 1) the expectations of behavior in society changed: we expect balance and a lack of balance is cause for redress, and 2) Gimlin became the toast of the expanding bigfoot community, a person held in reverence as the only living person to have seen a clear lasting view of a bigfoot with evidence to support his claim. That's when BobH decided to come forward.

That also explains why BobG was absent from bigfootery until this last decade (a couple of conferences excepted where he attended as an audience member).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

Welcome SCsquatchy. I think that's a great point.

One thing to consider too, in the case of both Bob H. and Bob G. is that RP was a friend or at least acquaintence who was dying of cancer. Even if they were unhappy with him or even angry, that might have kept them from pursuing anything. After Roger died, Bob G. did sue. I don't know---it's tough to play armchair pschologist about people who don't really know and interpret their actions 40 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think you both make interesting points. I wonder if BobH ever even spoke to RP again after the film was shot? Or if he attended his funeral? There are many questions that I wish Long had asked in his book that weren't. I would have liked to have learned more abou BobHs relationship over the years with Gimlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

-or-

B) You're not accounting for the era. To my father's sensibilities, a man's word is everything. BobH was likely made to promise not to reveal the secret, as was BobG. Despite not being paid, BobH felt duty-bound to honor his word. Back to the example of my father, I know of situations in which deals went sour because another person didn't fulfill their promise, yet my father would neither break his word nor badmouth the other person (outside of our house). If it was a co-promise to a third party, my father would perform both his and the other person's work to meet the obligation, if possible. Suing another person just wasn't a common thought back then. His consolation in those situations was the knowledge that he was the better man; the rest was simply a lesson learned in not doing business with that individual. Thus, given it was the 60s and 70s -- pre McDonalds hot coffee spill civil suit -- BobH would have written off the proceeds. Then two things occurred: 1) the expectations of behavior in society changed: we expect balance and a lack of balance is cause for redress, and 2) Gimlin became the toast of the expanding bigfoot community, a person held in reverence as the only living person to have seen a clear lasting view of a bigfoot with evidence to support his claim. That's when BobH decided to come forward.

That also explains why BobG was absent from bigfootery until this last decade (a couple of conferences excepted where he attended as an audience member).

According to the BobH / Greg Long story, the secrecy wasn't limited to the so-called players. BobH told everybody at the local bar and hundreds of people in Yakima ended up knowing, including everyone that worked at the Pepsi plant where the two Bobs worked.

In that story you also have Roger telling everybody that he's planning a Bigfoot hoax- camera shop guys, Phillip Morris, etc.

So the idea that keeping a secret because people were men of their word doesn't apply anywhere in this story. BobH himself started blabbing immediately when he got back to Yakima. Figure in all the people that supposedly knew about it and you have a whole city supposedly keeping the Bigfoot mystery a secret for over 40 years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Yep, that's one of the worst parts of the GregL/BH impossible time-line. And, after the filming, we're supposed to believe that Roger gave the suit (which was 100% top-secret) to his trusted alley BobH so that he could carry it around town and brag about it at the Happy Hour? Nope, I'm thinkin' none of that ever happened.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

Tell us about the Patterson-Gimlin time-line were Patty gets filmed and then the developed film turns up in Yakima a day or two later after taking 6 days to develop.

If that is not accurate then please explain the correct version so I can understand.

On Topic: Maybe BobH thought Roger was going to pay him at some point but got strung along then Roger dies. Maybe he felt awkward asking Mrs Patterson for $$. Maybe he didn't know if she was in on it or not. Maybe he thought Mrs Patterson needed the money worse than he did. Maybe he didn't want to disrespect the dead. There could be a lot reasons.

but..........

BobH lying about his participation in the PGF does little to prove the authenticity of the PGF. It only serves to rule out BobH as Patty.

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

6 days to develop film?? Wow, that is one slow process.

On-topic: BH's various and conflicting stories about being Patty does nothing to help the PGf opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

On Topic: Maybe BobH thought Roger was going to pay him at some point but got strung along then Roger dies. Maybe he felt awkward asking Mrs Patterson for $$. Maybe he didn't know if she was in on it or not. Maybe he thought Mrs Patterson needed the money worse than he did. Maybe he didn't want to disrespect the dead. There could be a lot reasons.

Still wouldn't explain why the rest of Yakima mysteriously kept the secret too. The PGF makes the world news and every person in Yakima plays along for 45 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

Still wouldn't explain why the rest of Yakima mysteriously kept the secret too. The PGF makes the world news and every person in Yakima plays along for 45 years?

Well, all of Yakima is a bit of an exaggeration, but it does seem that among the friends and family of the principals it was something of an open secret. There are a couple of things that make it hard for me to complete dismiss Bob H. despite the fact that his story changes and has inconsistencies. One of those is that you have all his old drinking buddies saying that he told them all about it years ago. There are a bunch of them on that Nat Geo show. Are they all lying? Maybe. But there they are there saying that. Greg Long interviewed all those people saying that the local rumor was that it was Bob H. in the suit. Long clearly had an agenda and asked leading questions, but did he actually fabricate people's answers? Again the "earlier suit theory" could help explain all this, but so could the fact that Bob H. was telling the truth as best he remembered and then began embellishing it as others like Morris started to influence him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter
but so could the fact that Bob H. was telling the truth as best he remembered and then began embellishing it as others like Morris started to influence him.

It's no fact, only speculation that Bob was telling the truth.

Bob could have told everyone he was the guy in the suit simply because he liked being the center of attention. He was friends with Gimlin and could easily have picked up basic details of the story from him or Roger. That could explain why his directions and descriptions of the area made no sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

6 days to develop film?? Wow, that is one slow process.

Roger said he drove to Eureka and mailed it Friday afternoon/evening and DeAtley received both rolls Saturday and had then had developed at the nearest kodachrome lab that closed at noon on Saturdays and was hundreds of miles away using a process that took somewhere between 2 hour (claimed by the guy at Dwayne's Photo who had never used or seen the K-12 process) and 36 hours ( as claimed by Kodak Labs) to complete and was premiering the PGF Sunday at his house in Yakima.

Am I missing something?

Edited by Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Being such a small community at the time, one could assume that many of BobH's friends also know Gimlin. It worth pondering if any of them questioned Gimlin about the story BobH was spreading. Surely, since it is alleged that hundreds of people around Yakima had heard that BobH was in the suit, Gimlin would have caught wind of this many years before Greg Long ever came around asking questions.

I can kind of support the notion that BobH might have felt sorry for Roger and his health issues, but then again, its not like Patterson was at death's door for the five years after the film was shot. While its true one can never know whats in another man's mind, it still seems rather strange to me that BobH would make practically zero effort to get his promised payment.

For me, as I previously stated, one of the most bothersome aspects of Long's book were the questions he didn't ask BobH.

Edited by SCsquatchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...