Jump to content
Orygun

Pgf Royalities

Recommended Posts

Orygun

Where I was going is that when there is money to be made there is a reason to keep the money flowing. And to keep secrets secret...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urkelbot

Just googling pgf licensing this guy claims Patterson made over $200,000 in the first year from the film.  Is this true?

 

 His theory is Patterson did the film to provide for his wife after his death and go out with a bang.  

 

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

From the article linked-to above...

 

"You've seen it a hundred times: the iconic picture of Bigfoot striding heavily through the clearing, arms swinging, head and shoulders turned slightly toward the camera...

 

 RUG-Bob-FunnyPants_zpsb1c47523.jpg

 

 

This famous image is frame 352 of a 16mm silent color film shot in 1967 in northern California by rancher Roger Patterson, accompanied by his friend, Bob Gimlin...

 

BBC-FurryFunnyThing_zps8bc1cb85.jpg

 

 

 

The impact that this film has had on Bigfoot mythology is inestimable...

 

BlevinsBeast11.jpg

 

 

....and correspondingly, so has its impact upon paranormal, cryptozoological, and pop culture mythologies in general. I might well not be doing the Skeptoid podcast today if the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film had not turned legend and fancy into concrete, tangible, see-it-with-your-own-eyes reality"...

 

BVB2_zpsae840b47.jpg

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Urkelbot

Yes it's hilarious the few attempts to recreate the pgf have not been satisfactory. What does that have to do with the revenue the film has generated and continues to do?

The pgf demands a price because it's iconic at this point and held up by believers, the people watching Bigfoot shows, as the ultimate proof. The average person, who doesn't believe in Bigfoot, probably sees little difference between recreations and the pgf there all fake to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

The PGF demands a price, Urkel....simply because it's 'head and shoulders...and elbows' above all the rest....which was the main point of my previous post.  Fact is....when you put the accolades given to the PGF together with any of those 'monkey suits'...the results are hilarious/ridiculous. :)

 

 

And, it hasn't been just since the Film has become 'iconic', that it's gotten such high praise....it has been from DAY 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape

Just googling pgf licensing this guy claims Patterson made over $200,000 in the first year from the film.  Is this true?

 

 His theory is Patterson did the film to provide for his wife after his death and go out with a bang.  

 

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

You'd have to wonder why a guy who made $200,000 wouldn't pay Heironimous $1000 to keep him quiet.

Edited by Rockape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I'll go with Bill's comments.

 

No kidding ...me too!  Things like 'I heard that ....' is just rumor and hearsay. Munns, who has personally dealt with the film and Mrs. Patterson, stated the facts pertaining to how the film generates income and to whom. The truth be known .... Mrs. Patterson would earn fifty times more income in selling a story that the film is a hoax than she could ever hope to earn for the rest of life and probably that of her children's on what little is made on the marketing of the film's use. In fact, I know of one film crew that merely filmed the P/G film while it was playing on TV monitor so they would not have to pay for the use of the film.

 

Bigfoothunter

You'd have to wonder why a guy who made $200,000 wouldn't pay Heironimous $1000 to keep him quiet.

 

I think the enormous amount of contradictions that Heironimus has made to date compared to his previous statements answers that question.

 

Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Just googling pgf licensing this guy claims Patterson made over $200,000 in the first year from the film. Is this true?

His theory is Patterson did the film to provide for his wife after his death and go out with a bang.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

Anyone can claim anything. Did this guy separate the net earnings from the gross after expenses? I tried to start reading the piece seen on the link, but it didn't appear precise upon coming out of the gate IMO, so I stopped reading it.

Patterson died 5 years after he had gotten the film. And aside from Patterson wanting to remain in the area for another week or so to try tracking the creature ... he spent money having others look for the creature which in one such occurrence if I remember correctly - Roger paid to send a guy to go check on a story he had received about someone having caught one of these creatures.

The skeptic writer said that Roger never offered any proof of the film being real other than the film itself, but did not Roger agree to take a polygraph and did he not pass it. And did not Roger call for a tracking dog to be brought down ... and did not Roger make the film site known for others to research it - of course he did. And had it not been for the rains coming by the next morning, as previously stated - Roger had wanted to stay in the area and look for the creature. And when Roger wasn't making the big profits for himself that he had hoped for ... did he shoot another film of his alleged suit in action to perk up interest once again - no he didn't. So for the writer to infer that Patterson was a 'stonewall' is a misrepresentation of the facts as I have come to know them.

The skeptic writer may have also been wrong about no record(s) one anyone having possessed the original film other than Patterson. I'd have to do some digging, but I believe that both Green and Dahinden had possession of the film at one point and it seems that one of the outdoor adventure companies Roger had been affiliated with had possessed the film at some point. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny this?

In another thread about the foot prints left on the sandbar, I witnessed a weak attempt at debate in order to try and make it appear that Roger was nothing short of a prodigy when it came to suit making, hand sculpting footprints in sand, and being able to use a trowel to put back the natural appearance of what only nature could create so to hide he and Gimlin's endeavors in creating a believable trackway for the creature. There was no theory far fetched enough before considering that maybe Roger and Bob actually encountered a Sasquatch just as they had claimed. Let us not forget that Roger was invited to California to film the tracks seen there by Green and Dahinden. One might ask themselves why if Roger had the ability to hand dig each footprint with such precision and detail that the film-site trackway presented, then why would he need to go to California to see the BCM tracks, which by the way were virtual mud by the time Roger and Bob managed to get down there.

So the point being is to consider the possibilities thoroughly. Roger didn't make $200Gs by a long shot.

Bigfoothunter

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockape
I think the enormous amount of contradictions that Heironimus has made to date compared to his previous statements answers that question.

 

 

Very true. He has made his own story irrelevant.

 

I just can't see, if this was some sort of cabal between Patterson, Gimlin and Heironimous, why Patterson, especially if he was worried about his wife receiving money from the PGF, would risk it by pissing off the two people who would supposedly know it is a hoax (Heironimous and Gimlin).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Assume Patty is real for a minute.  It has to be one of the most important films in science.

I tried...can't do it.

"The skeptic writer said that Roger never offered any proof of the film being real other than the film itself, but did not Roger agree to take a polygraph and did he not pass it." Bigfoothunter

 

So did Bob H....correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Not necessarily....the show 'Lie Detector' employed a test examiner who was working under false credentials... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

^^ Do you have references for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

For starters? What else do you have? I'm a bit tired of web forum threads opinions being offered as concrete evidence of anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I tried...can't do it.

"The skeptic writer said that Roger never offered any proof of the film being real other than the film itself, but did not Roger agree to take a polygraph and did he not pass it." Bigfoothunter

 

So did Bob H....correct?

 

Glad you asked that. Yes - both men were said to pass their polygraphs. I have looked into polygraphs and I found out about a couple things that may be worth mentioning when two men giving opposing accounts of an event have both passed a polygraph.

 

One is there is a consideration of whether the person being examined has anything of substance to lose by failing. For instance, if Roger failed his polygraph, then the chances were that he and his film would die on the operating table and any hopes of making money on the film's authenticity would be shot all to pieces. So in other words - Roger had a lot riding on his success and would have had a very difficult, if not impossible, time controlling his breathing and heart rate when giving a deceptive response. I know of this because I had a polygraph examiner tell me that if someone lies during the exam and they have nothing riding on whether they pass or fail the test, then a lie could be given and not show a deception. The more at stake - the harder to control a reaction. I also discovered that if someone is found beforehand to be on heart or blood pressure meds, then the test won't be given for the meds could effect the test readings and allow a deceptive response to not be accurately recorded. I recall that Kitakaze was going to check with Bob H on his RX history at the time, but a year or two has gone by since and no info on that matter was forthcoming .... least ways by Kitakaze.

 

So even in someone's mind that the two men passing a lie detector test had somehow canceled each other out, then we are back to whether Roger was an artistic prodigy at making Sasquatch suits and hand digging precise and accurate footprints, while covering up any signs on a natural looking littered sandy substrate ... and accomplish all this during hunting season near an old road that someone like Laverty had 'been up and down all that summer'. I find it unimaginable that Roger was that talented and had never made those abilities known both before and/or after the film. The income he could have generated with those talents would have made him far wealthier in my mind than did what little he got out of the film after expenses.

 

These are certainly things to consider and weigh against each other.

 

Bigfoothunter

 I'm a bit tired of web forum threads opinions being offered as concrete evidence of anything. 

 

Sometimes a web forum thread and what gets posted into it can go a lot further than relying on 'a gut feeling'.

 

Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...