Jump to content

Thoughts About Munns' Book - " When Roger Met Patty "


kitakaze
 Share

Recommended Posts

It jives perfectly with a hoaxer who wanted his share, but was manipulated by another who agreed to do the work to get it in exchange for half the profits.

 

Dahinden manipulated Gimlin's desire for film profits along with his apathy to do the legal grunt work to get it. He arranged a 50/50 split of profits with Gimlin and a sharing of the legal costs. Selling the rights to Dahinden for the token sum of $10.00 was a buyout because the court case became mired in legal wrangling and Gimlin could no longer keep up his end of the effort to get the profits. Dahinden had Gimlin sell his rights for nothing and then took over the legal costs and continued the battle which went on a further four years.

 

 

Rene Dahinden allowed Gimlin to tap out for nothing more than his rights for $10.00 in a signed agreement of sale and transfer done at the Sportsman Cafe in Yakima on September 29, 1978. The battle was only half way there and they had no way of knowing it would be a further four years of wrangling in courts and through lawyers. There's no "about to make bank whatsoever." Dahinden used Gimlin's greed against him, and when Gimlin could no longer keep his end of the agreement with legal fees to get that piece of the pie he had been after for eleven years since the filming and four years in court. Dahinden had Gimlin thinking they would swoop through court and emerge victorius against Patricia and ANE. Dahinden had played Gimlin perfectly. Many people are totally failing to grasp his level of cunning and tactical manipulation. Dahinden was simply far more cunning than Gimlin and knew how to manipulate various parties and companies to support him. He didn't have large demands and he was happy to live like a hermit while inpursuit of his prize - Bigfoot and the PGF. 

 

 

 

1) I would say people who don't understand why Gimlin would sell his rights to Dahinden for $10.00 fail to understand both the cunning of Dahinden and the greed combined with apathy of Bob Gimlin at the time. The history is clear. Dahinden manipulated Gimlin's desire for money from the PGF and his lethargy to do anything about it. Dahinden was far more tactical than almost everyone realizes. He was on the level of Al DeAtley. The difference was that all Dahinden wanted to do was live in a trailer and hunt Bigfoot and Al wanted to live in a palatial mansion. Dahinden had the Bigfoot bug, whereas DeAtley only manipulated and pretended to have the Bigfoot bug for as long as it took him to get his company out of the red. Rene played a long game and was a patient predator. He was the moray eel to DeAtley's great white shark. The PGF rights were his quarry. It took him years of playing greed for the PGF money by individuals and companies against each other. Gimlin signing off for $10.00 is essentially a buyout by Dahinden. Gimlin was tapped out and could no longer invest the money in legal fees to get the piece of the PGF pie that he wanted. He wanted it so much, but was so blaise to do anything about it, that he agreed to split half of his pie with Dahinden if Dahinden did all the work in getting it.

Dahinden did all the grunt work and masterminding while Gimlin just waited for pie. This is clear in the history and the public record.

2) Judge Hanson's Feb. 6th, 1976 ruling is not proof Gimlin originally had a legally binding agreement with Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson. Hanson ruled that Roger and Bob were good friends prior to October 1967, that Gimlin's horses (Chico!), camping equipment, and tracking abilities (he didn't track Patty until after she was filmed by their story!). But the most important part is that Roger on numerous occasions acknowledged the three way partnership and Gimlin's ownership to various third parties. DeAtley had transferred his rights in writing on Aug. 5th, 1970. Patricia took this to mean all the rights were hers and she rebuffed Gimlin's claim on it. She essentially said, "Show me the contract," and Bob didn't have it. Al had made sure Bob didn't have it when he and Roger edged him out. What they did have is the Radford contract that Dahinden paid Vilma $100 for. Dahinden and Gimlin's entire leverage went on that footing.

We can not only not prove that Gimlin had a written legally binding contrat from the beginning; he, like Roger, we can not even prove was present when Patty was filmed. Unless in the same shot that Patty is on do you see the camera turn and see Roger and Bob, you do not have proof. What your are forced to do then is rely on the same type of evidence that Greg Long and myself have used. The point is that I accept that Roger and Bob were partners and that I think they staged the hoax together. I would recognize Gimlin's claim whereas Patricia fought for years in court not to. It comes down to greed vs entitlement. Was Gimlin entitled to 1/3 of the PGF? Yes, I think so, if he was integral in the getting of the film. Was it greed that motivated him to approach Patricia in black at Roger's funeral before his casket is even in the ground? I think so. That is my opinion based on the facts. In my opinon and principles, if I had simply accompanied Roger, was the ride to Northern California, and had been there when he bumbled into a Bigfoot, and I had been cut out of the mad promotion of the film orchestrated by my best friend's brother-in-law, and I knew my best friend was dying, had a wife and three kids, and would not be around to take care of them and provide for them, I would back off of the film, leave it to his wife and kids to provide for them. I certainly would not take her to court to try and get money from the film and I would definitely not come to her at my best friend's funeral for it. Conversely, if I were to think like a hoaxer and was an integral part of pulling off a hoax for a cashgrab, and then I was cut out of the cash, I might be strongly choked to be cut out, and might even go to the lengths of a court battle to get that money. Remember, that film made what would be millions just in the first few years up to 1970 where DeAtley stopped driving the bull.

I very much recognize that to the contingent of people that now attend conferences where Bob Gimlin comes and feel very fond towards the man would be incensed that I would say that something he did in the past was based in greed. To that I would respond that we need to look at the historical events. Patricia stonewalled Bob. She did not recognize his claim and she fought legally to deny it. The rights to the PGF were made a legal mess by Roger Patterson selling them to so many people. I think he did this because he was motivated to get as much profit for him and his family as he could before he passed away. I think it was an error in judgement on his part to allow the rights to become a mess. That is why we had the resultant situation of Patricia and ANE/Olsons on one side and Gimlin, Dahinden, and various other interests and parties on the other side such as Pat Mason in Yakima with Northwest Research and M.J. Marchant and Edward McLoughlin of Artic Safari productions in Canada.

The PGF was a historical event that is part of the public record in the form of court cases. What I am saying is that the whole thing was a cashgrab and that the person at the center, Roger Patterson had four very good reasons to do a cashgrab: a wife, two sons, and a daughter. I believe he was funded by his brother-in-law who saw the hoax as an opportunity to cash in on a hot cultural phenomenon that at the time was being promoted by his wife's brother. I believe Al's motivation was his failing company he had just taken from his father and the welfare of his wife's brother's immediate family after he passed on from the cancer he was battling for years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger himself said that the reason the film developing was kept a secret is because it might cost somebody their job. This reason of course is not good enough for the conspiracy theorists- there always has to be something more.

 

It would not have been of any consequence or concern to DeAtley when approached by Long, Byrne and Dahinden. In each case he gives a different answer - draws a blank, it's a hoax, it's a secret. The one most pivotal detail, everything else he remembers vividly, and oops, can't remember that on crucial thing.

 

 

Hoaxers in the past have shown that they always try multiple attempts at hoaxing- so why is the PGF different?

 

 

No...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neq6nT3tksQ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TklgbIeTGEE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It jives perfectly with a hoaxer who wanted his share, but was manipulated by another who agreed to do the work to get it in exchange for half the profits.

 

 

Except that Gimlin never showed any interest in making money off the film, even dumping any participation in the movie tour. Then spending the next decade doing nothing.

 

For a hoaxer and a guy who wanted his share he sure never showed any real interest. I don't need to paint any picture to back that point either, it's all in his actions.

 

It would not have been of any consequence or concern to DeAtley when approached by Long, Byrne and Dahinden. In each case he gives a different answer - draws a blank, it's a hoax, it's a secret. The one most pivotal detail, everything else he remembers vividly, and oops, can't remember that on crucial thing.

 

 

Which exactly proves my point about the conspiracy theorists. Your previous post painted DeAtley as an intelligent hoaxer. Your next post he suddenly gets dumbed down like a bumbling stooge. Flip flop for the convenience of the argument and conspiracy theory.

 

 

No...

 

 

Do you know the people that made those two videos? Do you know for sure they haven't made other attempts? I'm also pretty sure that the footage in that Sequoia video was not all released as one video.

 

The known hoaxers of Bigfooting have a history of multiple attempts. No assumptions necessary.

Edited by roguefooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This film was originally intended to go to the highest bidder, hence the hoaxers were anticipating far less promotional effort. When that one big sale didn't happen, DeAtley changed track and used his marketing experience to four-wall the film.

 

Gimlin wanted his money, he just didn't want to do the same work Patterson and DeAtley had to do to pimp the film. Wants to stay home and get a cheque in the mail? Boom, impostor Gimlin. He wanted his money when he approached Pat Patterson at Roger's funeral and he wanted his money when In 1974 Bob and Judy Gimlin retained the services of attorney David Crossland to file a lawsuit against Al DeAtley and Patricia Patterson to get 1/3 of the film profits. That was not Dahinden. Dahinden simply later after the fact manipulated Gimlin's desire for his profits combined with his apathy to broker a 50/50 split if Dahinden did all the work.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Gimlin's actions just show a passive guy who felt he owned part of the film. Not a hoaxer who set out to make money.

 

The simple threat of exposing the film could have gotten him his rights without any work at all, yet he opts for the public legal system like any other person who has no concern of secrets being outed. Years of no money yet he supposedly held a trump card in his hand. Years of no money making projects even after securing the rights. I guess Gimlin was determined to live a lifetime on a lie for no purpose whatsoever? Yeah okay.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnC wrote:

 

 

This is just another opportunity for Kit to attempt to, yet again, pitch his on going rehash of others ridiculous conspiracy theories. 

 

 

That's right, John... :) ....kitakaze is on another posting barrage....(after "losing interest in Bigfoot").....simply because of Bill's book, and the enthusiasm it's generating.

 

 

But, the effects of kitakaze's "analysis" lasts only for as long as he continues to post, and re-post it. As soon as he stops posting his meaningless arguments....they begin to fade away, into oblivion. 

 

Just like what has happened with Tontar's long-winded rants. They are gone....and Forgotten. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Roger not make another hoax film? The PGF was for profit and controlled in its marketing by someone far smarter than Roger - Al DeAtley. Al's goal was singular and he knew better than to push his luck - to generate enough capital to take over his father's paving company. Further film would have exponentially increased the odds of exposure.

 

How many times do you think you can make excuses and claim secret development when people try and look into the source of your film and how it was made?

 

Film 1 - where was it made? It's a secret. Film 2 - where was it made? It's a secret again...

 

Roger could have been foolish enough to try it, but DeAtley would never have allowed it, and he's the one in charge of making the money come in.

 

I thought you and I agreed without Q the PGF was filmed at Bluff Creek exactly where we all think it was.  Jim McClarin film and the landmarks prove that 100%.  You had agreed to that before so I must be missing something in your meaning of "where was it made?" One Film #2:  Is film #2 my proposed second hoax to shoot a bigfoot for even more money?   In that case it does not exist since they did not do that so we know know 'where it was made'      You might be referring to the second reel much of it seems lost.  Maybe that is film #2.  Any clarifications on 'where it was made?"

 

Backdoc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BD, I should have written developed instead of made. Where was the actual film processed, which was something denied to people trying to investigate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit,   I see. No problem.  And I will freely admit the development needs to be answered.  It may be a nothing deal or it may be a big deal.  Supporters of the PGF must admit though it is not something to just dismiss.

 

Backdoc

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit,   I see. No problem.  And I will freely admit the development needs to be answered.  It may be a nothing deal or it may be a big deal.  Supporters of the PGF must admit though it is not something to just dismiss.

 

Backdoc

 

 

Don't worry about it, Doc. The evidence favoring the Film is flowing in, at a nice steady pace.

 

Have you noticed that kit is the only skeptic left, vigorously trying to de-bunk it? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film subject through objective reasoned analysis stands alone. Everything else surrounding it is just meaningless white noise.

Edited by adam2323
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kit,

 

Have you seen the post of 'Patterson Gimlin film updates'?  Post #1 mentions a shipping label that may (or may not) have a clue on the film processing issue at the time.  The post is from Daniel Perez.  Maybe it's important and maybe not.  I don't think the rules allow me to repost it here so I will not.  Worth a look if you have not seen it.  Your thoughts?

 

Backdoc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Daniel Perez is a member here, why not ask him to clarify or post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor unlocked this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...