Jump to content
Orygun

Pgf Royalities

Recommended Posts

Bigfoothunter
30 minutes ago, kitakaze said:

 

 

11:00...
 

 

 

Heironimus's opinion is worthless as stating that the sand at the film site was white as snow and because of the lies he has told - Patricia has no desire in selling the film rights to those who are talking to Heironimus. That doesn't preclude Producers who call into question of whether or not the film is a hoax. Their money is still good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

So we see Roger's arrest warrant being paraded all over the BFF. We hear how Roger never paid his bills.

 

We all agree it would be proper to pay for the rented camera. Roger kept it too long but eventually made good on this or at least returned it.

 

Many of the usual suspects on the BFF continue to seem outraged Mrs. Patterson has the nerve to wish to paid for the use of her film.  This is no different than a rental company might want to be paid for the use of their camera.

 

Nearly anyone on the BFF who thinks Roger is a crook would be the first to call the copyright police if they had the rights to this film.

 

I say, since this long suffering person inherited the right to a film she should get paid for it.  If it is genuine it is one in a million.  Also, I can imagine Roger put here through much stress in their marriage trying to get the film in the first place. 

 

BD

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, kitakaze said:

I think it's perfectly normal and understandable human behaviour for Patricia Patterson to not allow the film to be used in any production implicating a hoax. 

 

Why throw her own decades ago deceased husband under the bus and their family legacy along with it?

 

Claims of the PGF being a hoax have come and gone as well as documentaries questioning such and yet the PGF is still sought and has stood the test of time.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin
2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

So we see Roger's arrest warrant being paraded all over the BFF. We hear how Roger never paid his billsTrue on all accounts. Roger not only had a warrant he was arrested. Roger didn't spend much time paying bills. 

 

We all agree it would be proper to pay for the rented camera. Roger kept it too long but eventually made good on this or at least returned it. True again. Roger should have kept to the terms of his rental agreement. It should be noted that Roger only "made good" after he was arrested. 

 

Many of the usual suspects on the BFF continue to seem outraged Mrs. Patterson has the nerve to wish to paid for the use of her film.  This is no different than a rental company might want to be paid for the use of their camera. I can think of no reason Mrs P. Shouldn't receive a royalty when the film is used even though I think Roger hoaxed the entire event.

 

Nearly anyone on the BFF who thinks Roger is a crook would be the first to call the copyright police if they had the rights to this film.  What? People have been to court over this very film. Agreements have been made and rights have been won by those deemed worthy. 

 

I say, since this long suffering person inherited the right to a film she should get paid for it.  If it is genuine it is one in a million.  Also, I can imagine Roger put here through much stress in their marriage trying to get the film in the first place.  Agreement again.... Many women are put thru much stress when their husbands refuse to maintain a regular job, have legal issues and are generally of little account .... The need for a payoff was very strong.... too strong? I think yes.

 

BD

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, Martin said:

Many women are put thru much stress when their husbands refuse to maintain a regular job, have legal issues and are generally of little account .... The need for a payoff was very strong.... too strong? I think yes.

 

That has happened a lot throughout history.  However, Roger had a home and he made enough money to scrape get by on. And if he needed a helping hand once in a while, then who among his critics can say they have never found themselves in a similar situation from time to time. Most people I know are living the same way and I would not be surprised that several posters who hang out all day on Bigfoot sites are not too much different. But living poor does not make one a crook.

 

Then there are people who have decided that there are things in life that give them purpose. Some people may find that having lots of money is the most important thing there is to them. This could be said about DeAtley and yet he and his family have made headlines for criminal activities involving ill-gotten wealth. From CEO's of Insurance Companies to Banks Institutions there have been people found guilty of money fraud and sent to prison. Those people purposely set out to do what ever it takes to get rich regardless of what they had to do.  On the other hand, I have never heard it proven that Roger went around stealing from people. The debts he owed seems to have been gotten with good intentions. He asked people if they would like to invest in a documentary project that could make money to which people chose to get involved with it. I watch court shows all the time that deal with people wanting their money back from an individual(s) and they lose in court because the person who accepted the money was relying on their project being successful or when completed it would be bought by an interested party.  In other words - certain things had to happen to allow Patterson to be able to pay those people back. In Roger's case it appears that his film documentary was never completed once he got the film in Bluff Creek ... so it was placed on hold.

 

I point out these things because its been said the need for a pay-off gets strong - very strong. Robbery - embezzlement - tax evasion - running scams are results of someone in need of a strong payday. Winning the lottery - looking for gold - or stumbling across a Sasquatch and filming it are things brought about by luck and happenstance. I look at it this way - if Patterson was so darn talented, then he would have created a Sasquatch a long time ago and not had to go all the way to California in hopes of tracks still being there to film for his documentary weeks later. I have tried to think of every way possible to figure out not only how no-money Patterson who couldn't pay his camera rent was able to build a suit in 1967 that no one has duplicated to date. And not just create a realistic suit, but to make tracks that would sink far deeper into the ground that other men could not to and manage to pull it off without disturbing the ground around those tracks. Richard Henry said that once the creature reached the gravel laying atop of the soil - the foot pressed the stones into the ground enough that the outline of each tracks could be seen. And when I hear some joker say they don't have to explain how Patterson was able to do it - he somehow  did it .......... then I say to myself "There is a person who is looking for an easy answer because they are too lazy or incapable of finding the answer". Instead they look to on the sand fairies to figure it out and when that doesn't work - they give Roger super intelligence that no one else has had then or since. I for one do not believe Roger was any smarter than anyone else or he would have pulled off his film years before the PGF was taken.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

BFH,

 

You did a great job putting the whole thing in perspective.  

 

BD

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...