Jump to content
Admin

Kitakaze's Patty Suit Bombshell (2)

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Al DeAtley - principal financier of the Patterson Gimlin Film - never had any doubt the film was a hoax.

 

 

 

 

Al DeAtley - Guy who lives in Washington State - no doubt about that.

 

As for the Film being a hoax...

 

 

Happy 4th, everyone!!... :) ... KaBOOM-AG3_zpsaff5c52a.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Al DeAtley - principal financier of the Patterson Gimlin Film - never had any doubt the film was a hoax.

 

Patricia Patterson continues to profit from the film, so it's safe to say Al has never 'disgraced' the Patterson legacy in any way.

 

He's just very careful about what he says and how he says it.

It's pretty common knowledge that Al was all about money and only stuck with Roger for that purpose. What Al thinks about Roger or his film really doesn't add up to much since he's never actually come forward with anything tangible.

The point here is the existence of THE suit and it being displayed in his home. That in itself would jeopardize many things for the Patterson family with the wrong leak.

Al stated that the Patterson family (including his wife) still believe Roger was telling the truth. So if that were true then it doesn't make much sense for Al to have THE suit displayed in their home, otherwise his wife Pat and the Patterson family would know it was all a hoax.

If his wife Pat and the Patterson family knew it was all a hoax, then they would be jeopardizing the whole secret by having said suit displayed in her home and vulnerable to a leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Going a step further...we don't even have any evidence (of substance) that there is even a suit on display in Al's house.

 

Some folks do not seem to concern themselves with substance as much as rumor and innuendo. The same folks will tell you that DeAtley was the financier of the PGF, but is that true or just more speculation. If anyone can be said to have financed the Bluff Creek trip leading up to getting the film - it was Gimlin for neither Roger nor DeAtley ever reimbursed Bob.

 

Roger was never known to have any money and he probably did rely on sponging funds from his brother-in-law to dabble in his Bigfoot interest. At the time Roger heard about the BCM tracks, he had been playing with the idea of doing a little documentary as him being a Sasquatch hunter, but again just how much was DeAtley involved here as Roger had three weeks to prepare for he and Gimlin heading out to California and it was Bob who had to flip the bill.

 

The evidence tells me that DeAtley got involved when he got the news that  Roger and Bob had an actual encounter whereas Roger filmed a Bigfoot. It was then that DeAtley stepped up to the plate and helped with the marketing of the film for if Al didn't jump at the opportunity - someone else would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

i saw Kit on Facebook the other day responding to a post by Dr Meldrum I think. I wont link it because that would probably be like outing a members real name and personal info, since much of that is on facebook, and one can zero in real fast with even the small amount of info there. I don't know Kit, just read his posts on here, and gathered he was into debunking the PGF pretty deeply. Why ever he stopped posting here I think he still monitors or keeps up with the bigfootery field casually  at least by seeing his post on Dr. Meldrums page. I haven't studied the Patty film enough to argue with anyone here on the merits, I always thought it looked convincing though since seeing it as a youngster. And to Summitwalkers statement : None of it matters because BF doesn't even exist! The general public think it is laughable that a critter like BF could exist and remain uncatalogued by science, BF is not even on the radar of legitimate science. Even more mysterious is why or how grown men can still believe that BF is out there "  Is the default position of all the people I know excepting those proponents or enthusiasts on forums such as this one. Which was mine until my own senses forced me to reconsider that position. But I have never understood why disbelievers, of which I was chief, would put any effort at all into something they don't believe exists. Not just bigfootery, but ufos, atheists, etc. I just never had the urge to crusade against the unreal I guess, I just thought witnesses were mistaken, lying or some just insecure people who wanted attention. And i still believe that is true in many cases. But I listen and read of experiences with different eyes and ears now, and I find it is easier to believe someones' strange story if you have experienced that same strange story yourself. I will attempt to update my knowledge of the PGF so I can better understand the points yall are making from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

... Why ever he stopped posting here I think he still monitors or keeps up with the bigfootery field casually  at least by seeing his post on Dr. Meldrums page...

 

You can look up a person here and see when they last logged in.  Kit was last active on the forum about two months ago, per his profile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

You can look up a person here and see when they last logged in.  Kit was last active on the forum about two months ago, per his profile.

 

 

Yeah, but you don't need to be logged in to view the majority of forums and sub-forums (like this one). Anyone can read them, you don't have to be a member.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Yeah, but you don't need to be logged in to view the majority of forums and sub-forums (like this one). Anyone can read them, you don't have to be a member.

 

 

I didn't understand your post.  Did you really mean but, or did you mean and?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

Bigfoothunter, on 05 Jul 2013 - 2:26 PM, said:snapback.png

Cervelo, on 05 Jul 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:snapback.png

This is a good start for an overview...

http://en.m.wikipedi...son-Gimlin_film

Typical ... reference debunked tabloid type sources so to get a good overview of the facts. :crazy:

Anything specific you feel is incorrect?

 

 

 

Ahhhh, So the statement about your not wanting to waste time and bandwidth on the subject of the PGF wasn't true after all ..... I'm shocked!!!

 

To answer your question - The page started out telling us what most scientist think of the P/G film, but offer not a single stat in support of that statement. The remark doesn't differentiate those scientist who don't believe the film to be real from those who don't believe the film proves that it is indeed what we know as a Sasquatch that is seen on the film. In fact, this is where scientist have gone a step further and asked that a body be produced so to prove the creatures existence one way or the other. So as I said, "Typical ... reference debunked tabloid type sources so to get a good overview of the facts."

 

It is also typical that a source you gave for a subject that you claim to not wish to waste your time and forum bandwidth on took just a moment to find this absurd statement that has no factual basis in its opening lines. But maybe you have some specific info to share with us, so please cite the study showing the ratio of scientist who believe the film to be a fake ... I am thinking that you have nothing on that little piece of dis-information, but let us see as we await to be be-dazzled.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

So your just expressing your opnion there's nothing in the source that's untrue?

You could really help with the bandwidth issue by not repeating things and using less words..just a suggestion :)

Edited by Cervelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

So your just expressing your opnion there's nothing in the source that's untrue?

 

I just pointed out that the statement about what most scientist think was not factual. Do you want more and how many more do you want before the point has been proven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Where can you direct me to that data?

Sure refute it point by point if you feel like it!

Edited by Cervelo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Where can you direct me to that data?

Sure refute it point by point if you feel like it!

 

That is just my point - there is no data and your not offering any proves my point that the article made a statement as factual when they had no data to support such a reckless statement.

 

Here is another error .... "According to Grover Krantz[6] years later, Patterson and Gimlin agreed they should have tried to shoot the creature, both for financial gain and to silence naysayers."  I knew Grover and spoke to him on many occasions. Shooting a Sasquatch for financial gain were Grover's words and no one elses. Grover responded that what he implied was the obvious. I reminded him that Roger believed the film would be accepted as proof that the creature existed and that it was only years later of Roger coming to grips with so many people doubting their actually encountering a real Sasquatch that he vented his frustrations by saying that they probably should have shot the creature so there would have been no more doubts about what really happened.

 

As far as Gimlin's concern for financial gain - more hogwash! It was Dahinden that kept going on about how Bob should go after his rights to the film by suing Mrs. Patterson and this led to Gimlin turning over his rights to the film to Rene. Gimlin wanted no part of it and to those who knew both men and have spoken to them both about those days - there was no doubt that Gimlin wanted nothing to do with going after anyone. What later occurred was typical Rene Dahinden and he alone sought the rights to the film. The page you referenced left many details out, but isn't that how such skeptical web pages operate. Make general references about what most people think - general references to events based on second information through hearsay?

 

Here is another error, "At that point, the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees". The film shows that Patterson fell to his knees well before the famous glance back in the direction of the camera.

 

Another:  "Next, Gimlin rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off before the filming began, and "the men then tracked it for three miles (5 km), but lost it in the heavy undergrowth."[14] They returned to the initial site, measured the creature's stride, made two plaster casts (of the best-quality right and left prints), and covered the other prints to protect them. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes."  What is the reference for this story as it is not the one written about in so many other articles, nor in any of the talks I have been present for with Gimlin.

 

Lavertty came across the track on the following Monday after the film was taken - not the next day. How can someone miss these errors unless they are ignorant of the history of the event so to know better.

 

 

 

Again, "Typical ... reference debunked tabloid type sources so to get a good overview of the facts."

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...