Jump to content
norseman

Pgf Recreation Proposal

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

In a single day at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City DeAtley and Patterson made $84,000 showing the PGF on two king size sheets sewn together by a maid from the Holiday Inn they stayed at. In today's money that is $520491.59. Three thousand for over half a million in a single day. That's not including the hundreds of thousand of dollars they made in total which would be millions now. I'm talking about a single day projecting on blankets - half a million. DeAtley knew what he was doing.

So what does this have to do with the intial money it costs? You're referring to something that took place well after the fact. How much money they took in afterwards has nothing to do with anything that happened beforehand. This same scenario would have happened whether there was a costume involved or not.

What Norseman stated above is correct- no amount of storytelling is going to increase the amount of money that was supposedly spent on any costume or funds that were available.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So what does this have to do with the intial money it costs? You're referring to something that took place well after the fact. How much money they took in afterwards has nothing to do with anything that happened beforehand. This same scenario would have happened whether there was a costume involved or not.

What Norseman stated above is correct- no amount of storytelling is going to increase the amount of money that was supposedly spent on any costume or funds that were available.

You're just completely failing to think like a hoaxer. The argument is bunk because the notion is that $435 for a suit in 1967 would have been a prohibitive cost for investing in a hoax. Within 10 days of that film being shot, DeAtley was in Hollywood forming Bigfoot Enterprises with Patterson and Gimlin. Before he and Roger set out to barnstorm the film, he cuts Roger a check for $75,000. That's $484,243.06 now. The man has the money to invest in a hoax. More so, he knew exactly what to do to go out and make that hoax make money. He did all the promotional work, arranged all the venues, dealt with all logistics. Patterson was the showman. Gimlin didn't want to do anything so they hired an impostor and pushed him out (and Gimlin pushed himself back in before Roger was even in the ground).

DeAtley was a shrewd businessman, and whether you think he was or was not orchestral in a cashgrab hoax, by his own admission he saw a cashgrab that he said was a hoax and he treated it as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Who said that, Long? It looks like that place held what 2-3 thousand people, max?

post-131-095598900 1306117058_thumb.jpg

So.. They charged $5 and filled that place 6 times that day?? Just wondering where you got those figures... ??

"They even gave us the parking concession at the Salt Palace. We played two weeks after Simon and Garfunkel. We took more money out of the building in one day than they did. We took $84,000 out of the building. Three showings in one day! Unbelievable! Now we thought, 'This is good!' A lot of expenses, 'though. Television ain't cheap. But it was rollin'... Really starting to make money."

p. 264, MoB

The Salt Palace in 1969 had 10,725 seats. Construction was pushed for Salt Lak City's bid for the 1972 Winter Olympics. DeAtley was a shrewd businessman. Ironically, his efforts to make more money barnstorming the PGF were hampered by the promotion of Frank Hansen's Minnesota Iceman hoax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Palace

A palace isn't much of a palace if you can only fit 2000-3000 people.

Salt Palace at the time...

UT_ES46,124117.jpg

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fister Crunchman

You're just completely failing to think like a hoaxer. The argument is bunk because the notion is that $435 for a suit in 1967 would have been a prohibitive cost for investing in a hoax. Within 10 days of that film being shot, DeAtley was in Hollywood forming Bigfoot Enterprises with Patterson and Gimlin. Before he and Roger set out to barnstorm the film, he cuts Roger a check for $75,000. That's $484,243.06 now. The man has the money to invest in a hoax. More so, he knew exactly what to do to go out and make that hoax make money. He did all the promotional work, arranged all the venues, dealt with all logistics. Patterson was the showman. Gimlin didn't want to do anything so they hired an impostor and pushed him out (and Gimlin pushed himself back in before Roger was even in the ground).

DeAtley was a shrewd businessman, and whether you think he was or was not orchestral in a cashgrab hoax, by his own admission he saw a cashgrab that he said was a hoax and he treated it as such.

These figures seem like a fantasy. 12,000 --18,000 people show up in a single day and pay $5 each for this show? One minute of actual Bigfoot footage, some other unremarkable 'outdoors' footage and some talk? Six shows in a day and the folks show up at the right times to fill all six? That would take publicity, communication and organisation on some scale. And lots of people with $5 to throw at a non -mainstream new-category entertainment.

This other figure of $75,000 dollars supposedly given to Roger by DeAtley also sounds dubious. It was a figure printed on some of Roger's publicity material for his 'Bigfoot organisations', and seems like part of the spiel to 'big -up' the image and get punters to part with their money. Where is the evidence that Roger ever had or spent that kind of money? I mean, apart from a story that his friend or brother saw Roger with a big cheque? As I recall, DeAtley makes a rather off the cuff claim to have provided that money to Roger when Long questions him.

For me, these figures sound too high if what you have is one minute of jumpy film (no high tech stabilizations etc back then) and a new kind of untried show to market.

Fister

Edited by Fister Crunchman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

(referring to Al DeAtley)

"More so, he knew exactly what to do to go out and make that hoax make money. He did all the promotional work, arranged all the venues, dealt with all logistics."

Just out of curiosity, given he was in the road asphalt business, where did he get all this experience in hoaxing promotions and film distribution?

What hoax had he previously promoted? What film had he previously four-walled across America?

It seems like you are inventing his expertise to fit your vision of this hoax.

Also, Pat Mason on page 139 of MoB describes how he set up editing the film for presentation with Roger's other footage and set up the promotion, and Pat Mason had a lifelong career in Entertainment PR and promotion.

Could you clarify if you think Mason is wrong, and why you have so much confidence in DeAtley, who had no apparent film promotion experience, over Pat Mason who had decades of that exact experience?

Just curious. I can't quite figure this.

Thanks.

Bill

added as an afterthought:

If you keep saying we must 'think like a hoaxer" and you seem to feel DeAtley was doing all this hoax promotion, did it ever occur to you maybe DeAtley was hoaxing Greg Long in his remarks and just making bold claims of how much money he gave Roger, or how much money they made? Why do you take the words of someone you call a hoaxer as if those words were certifiably and percisely true?

I can't figure that part out. Why do you put so much confidence in the remarks of someone you say knows how to take a hoax and make money on it? That's the kind of person I would be most doubtful of their statements.

Thanks.

Bill

Edited by Bill
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

The argument is bunk because the notion is that $435 for a suit in 1967 would have been a prohibitive cost for investing in a hoax.

The argument is only bunk because it doesn't fit your hoax theory. What you're doing is filling in the blanks with things that are vital for your story to have legs.

DeAtley was a shrewd businessman, and whether you think he was or was not orchestral in a cashgrab hoax, by his own admission he saw a cashgrab that he said was a hoax and he treated it as such.

If DeAtley was such a shrewd businessman then why was his business in the red? He was in no position to jeopardize a lot of money at that point with an unsure thing. Giving Patterson a check after the fact is different, because it was already receiving a lot of attention and he saw the sure potential in getting a big return.

If Patterson had all of this financial backing then it would make no sense for him to default on his camera loan, and to the point of it going to court. Why not just buy a camera rather than rent one? Why was Gimlin spending everything out of his own pocket if there was all of this financial backing? It makes more sense for him to do that if he knew Patterson had no money.

You're just completely failing to think like a hoaxer.

I see no point in pushing it as a hoax when there are aspects to the story that don't fit the hoax theory. Patterson and Gimlin going through the trouble of travelling two states away with horses and spending several days deep in the bush just makes no sense for a hoax. They could just as easily have done it locally and it would have made a lot more sense to not waste all of that time and money. Patterson's actions after the fact of spending all his money on funding more research also makes no sense for a hoax- especially if his objective was to leave his wife financial security.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Just thinking out loud here.

What if we were able to put our heads together and recreate the PGF? Using the original camera/lens combination, 2 riding mounts and a pack animal, basically as close as we could get it.

What about the film subject? What suit should be used? Should we concern ourselves with recreating Bob H's testimony of the suit he supposedly used? Or something simply "store bought" that would be in the range of income of a out of work rodeo cowboy during the late 60's, that can be had today?

I would love to see someone try to recreate the PGF film. I don't care whether it is a low budget or a high budget film, it would still give everyone a new view on the PGF film. Of course it will all be different due to the changes in the environ, tree & bush sizes etc.

As far as a suit, get the D-something guy (or whatever his user name is) that claims to have found the original mask that was used. He says he has made a suit that looks as good as the one Patterson used. If anything get a couple different suits and do a few shoots. Once the crew is there a few extra shoots won't cost much more.

The suit that Blevins made would also be a good choice, challenge his crew to come out and do their version in their suit at the same time.

Too bad someone hadn't tried to recreate it a year or two after it happened.

Edited by Bogger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

In a single day at the Salt Palace in Salt Lake City DeAtley and Patterson made $84,000 showing the PGF on two king size sheets sewn together by a maid from the Holiday Inn they stayed at.

Does Long speculate what single day it was that Roger and Al supposedly made $84,000 showing the PGF at the Salt Palace, kitakaze?

Since the Salt Palace had just opened opened on 7-11-1969 at a cost in today's dollars of about (6.2 x $17 million) = $105,000,000 it's difficult for me to imagine anyone renting the entire brand new arena to show a 1 minute film projected on hotel room sheets. I'm not saying it didn't happen because I don't know but, that sounds very far-fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Have you tried it?

Yes I have.

It don't work so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

You're just completely failing to think like a hoaxer. The argument is bunk because the notion is that $435 for a suit in 1967 would have been a prohibitive cost for investing in a hoax. Within 10 days of that film being shot, DeAtley was in Hollywood forming Bigfoot Enterprises with Patterson and Gimlin. Before he and Roger set out to barnstorm the film, he cuts Roger a check for $75,000. That's $484,243.06 now. The man has the money to invest in a hoax. More so, he knew exactly what to do to go out and make that hoax make money. He did all the promotional work, arranged all the venues, dealt with all logistics. Patterson was the showman. Gimlin didn't want to do anything so they hired an impostor and pushed him out (and Gimlin pushed himself back in before Roger was even in the ground).

DeAtley was a shrewd businessman, and whether you think he was or was not orchestral in a cashgrab hoax, by his own admission he saw a cashgrab that he said was a hoax and he treated it as such.

In order to explain the elaborate "hoax", can you tie DeAtley and Patterson together BEFORE the PGF?

Right now your putting the cart in front of the horse. Roger didn't even own his own movie camera. The fact that some "used car salesman" picked up the broke cowboy and promoted him and his film...........doesn't prove that the film subject WAS a hoax. If you can show me where DeAtley was bank rolling Patterson before the film was ever made? That would be a horse of another color.

Also, kinda cut from the same cloth as those boys from central Washington? I've got a saddle, I've got a horse trailer, I've got horses and mules. But I don't have 3 grand to drop on a freakin gorilla suit. Hell.......I'll need that for fuel down and back from California. I've got a 300 dollar wal mart special movie camera though.......

In order for ANY hoax theory to hold any water with me, it needs to clearly show one thing........WHO was behind creating the film creature. I flatly reject three cowboys and a Morris gorilla suit was behind it. It's flat BS. If you can show some major movie producer and the kind of money your proposing they made on the film? Ok that's different.

But almost 50 years later and we have zip, zero, nada. Nobody has came forward and said, "It was my company". Why is that Kit?

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Kit:

I moved my AL DeAtley remarks over to here:

because it seemed off topic in this thread.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I do not think that Patty made the 12-18 tracks that Jim McClarin reported disappearing in gravel from wet sand, but just to show how Patty's tracks can be reproduced with fake suit feet, here is a comparison...

776647eaaddbe0f28.jpg776647eaadaf73724.jpg

On the far right is a fake suit foot (image flipped) made by Jeff Pruitt and on the far left a track made while wearing it. Inside left and right is a track that was said to be left by Patty and her foot seen on the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

'Static Sculptures' are not very meaningful....just about anything can be replicated, in the form of a sculpture.

Patty's 'strong points' go far beyond simple 'static' shapes. Here is Patty's "calf muscle" appearing to contract...

PattyCalfFlexAG3.gif

And, a man's calf-muscle contracting....as he bends his foot at the ankle-joint....in similar fashion to how Patty angles her foot, as she places it on the ground...

CalfflexAG4.gif

Replicate that... ;) .....D-Foot.

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

A lot of funky things happen when you watch Patty in motion. That thing you think is a calf muscle looks like bending material going the length of the leg. The butt is motionless while the legs move just like it's stuffed with padding. The right foot in particular looks like an absurd block foot. The elbow is clearly bending right where you don't want it to be. Yeah, Patty in motion is ruining the sale for a whole lot of people...

mk_davis_bigfoot.gif

Patty's lower leg does things that no living leg does...

abfoot.gif

BTW, Sweaty, that picture of the guy with the ripped calf is impressive and everything, but see if you can find someone with a ripped, super-developed calf and then a giant lardass with no buttcrack.

Edited by kitakaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

When I saw that kitakaze had replied....I figured that he probably just re-posted that 2-Frame animted-gif of Patty's foot bending... :lol:

Go ahead...kit...and D-foot.....replicate Patty's 'flexing calf muscle'... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...