Jump to content
HOLDMYBEER

The Patterson Gimlin Film - On The Road

Recommended Posts

SWWASAS

Gimlin himself told me once he did not make much of anything from the film, unlike Roger who made quite a bit.   i sensed a lot of resentment for that.     .   I should have pinned him down as to what that meant.    Since they lived in Washington,  that has no income taxes,   you cannot go that route and find out much unless Roger had an LLC going related to the film promotion and exhibition.   . Even that would not apply to out of state viewings of the film.  .     Somehow I would expect most of the film income would be off the books as much as possible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
On 10/7/2017 at 2:13 PM, OkieFoot said:

Why couldn't Roger just have the suitmaker make another suit for a second hoax video? 

  ;)

 

If Roger was such a great suit maker, then he could have altered the alleged Bluff Creek suit by removing the breast so to make it a male. The logical answer is that Roger never had a suit and the encounter was just a fluke.

479f5ec3dc9832d2758b6feb9822b982.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
On ‎11‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 1:36 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Gimlin did indeed go to court.

 

He approached Patricia Patterson at Roger's funeral then lawyered up sometime after.

 

As far as anyone knows, the case details are not available to the public.

 

Kinda makes me wonder what was said in that courtroom.

 

How do we know Bob approached her at Roger's funeral ? I've heard the claim before, curious as to who originally came up with it ?

 

wikipedia: In 1974, Bob Gimlin, with René Dahinden's financial assistance, sued DeAtley and Patterson's widow, Patricia, claiming he had not received his one-third share of the film's proceeds. He won his case in 1976.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, PBeaton said:

 

 

wikipedia: In 1974, Bob Gimlin, with René Dahinden's financial assistance, sued DeAtley and Patterson's widow, Patricia, claiming he had not received his one-third share of the film's proceeds. He won his case in 1976.

 

^^

 

and this to me would be the only basis of knowing how much the PGF might have made as the profits might have to be revealed to the court.  Apart from that I am sure it made a lot of money but $250,000 in 1967?     Could be but just because someone stated that it could be the real numbers are less.

 

also, if the PGF was such an obvious hoax as somewhere contend I doubt it could have made much money.  The skeptic should at least admit it is an maxing piece of film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Absolutely.

 

It's an amazing piece of hoaxed film.

 

A great piece of Americana

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

It's funny, I believe there is only one other film studied more, the Zapruder film. Yet far as I recall, the PGF has yet to be found a hoax, Squatchy McSquatch knows this as well...I believe.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Absolutely.

 

It's an amazing piece of hoaxed film.

 

A great piece of Americana

 

It is an amazing piece of film.  If it is a hoax it is not just an average hoax but an amazing A+ hoax.  How do two cowboys do this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

He knows this Backdoc, if a suit was so easily created, he'd have finished what he claims to have started. Even if his garage collapsed, we're talkin' bout a simple suit that looks like a bloke in it, his own opinion repeated over an over, so how hard could it be for him to replicate somethin' similar ? ;);) 

 

He claims the tracks are easily replicated as well...stomper...wood...a rake...etc. etc., yet...he presents nothin'.

 

These aren't my claims...they're his... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
7 hours ago, PBeaton said:

 

How do we know Bob approached her at Roger's funeral ? I've heard the claim before, curious as to who originally came up with it ?

 

wikipedia: In 1974, Bob Gimlin, with René Dahinden's financial assistance, sued DeAtley and Patterson's widow, Patricia, claiming he had not received his one-third share of the film's proceeds. He won his case in 1976.

 

Gimlin did not approach Patricia at Roger's funeral.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
10 hours ago, PBeaton said:

He knows this Backdoc, if a suit was so easily created, he'd have finished what he claims to have started. Even if his garage collapsed, we're talkin' bout a simple suit that looks like a bloke in it, his own opinion repeated over an over, so how hard could it be for him to replicate somethin' similar ? ;);) 

 

He claims the tracks are easily replicated as well...stomper...wood...a rake...etc. etc., yet...he presents nothin'.

 

These aren't my claims...they're his... 

 

 

I had a flood in my basement 20 years ago.  I called the insurance. I also took pictures of the basement flood and the many flooded items.  back in the day developing that film cost money and the cost to develop the pics.   If I told you I was working on a goKart that was ruined in the basement workshop and I threw it out I could still easily show a pic of that not-yet-completed Gokart even 20 years later.  I would just pull up the pic that would be expected to be taken at times like that.  The pic would work since I would not be expected to produce the Gokart.

 

Now if I a building felll down documenting it would be 'free'.   Any phone nearly could take 100s of pics and video to give the insurance guy.   Pictures would be expected to be taken as part of the claim..  I would have at least 10, 20, 30 or so pics on my phone. These same pics would even be easy to post on a computer even years later.  Such pics could be posted in the Bigfoot suit scenario on the BFF easily to silence smartalec naysayers.

 

People make a lot of claims.  Usually after the crickets have chirped long enough, we are left to believe there was nothing there.

 

I have a lot of respect for those skeptic types who appear on TV and even when they think the PGF is a hoax they credit it as an amazing hoax.  Top notch. 

Again, Peter Brook does not pull any punches when he says, "If it is a hoax..."

 

I think some are just suffering from a case of Know-it-all- ism.  Few things can cloud ones judgement more once that sets in.

 

I also cannot say for sure a carpet replica bigfoot wasn't started in a garage that collapsed and thus was abandoned.  I would just say there is Zero evidence for this and such evidence would be expected to exist because insurance issues were not doubt involved.   Such evidence should be easy to produce even if one had to crop out stuff you dont want others to see.  Are we to believe no pics of this exist?   Does that really make any sense? Also, if such a suit was started it should be able to be started again since the circumstances that inspired its creation have probably not changed much.

 

If someone made a suit in a same or similar way I would be grateful to have the mystery solved.

 

I am really not trying to pick on anyone.  Just trying to have people back up what they claim.   Skeptics and believers alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

I guess Roger missed his calling as chief suit builder of Hollywood....

 

Imagine all the money he could have made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
2 hours ago, norseman said:

I guess Roger missed his calling as chief suit builder of Hollywood....

 

Imagine all the money he could have made.

 

In a hoax scenario either

 

1-Roger or someone like him made the suit 

2- a suit made by some company was obtained, maybe altered by someone skilled, and used in such a way that we don't recognize it as a store sold suit.

3- A skilled suit maker of the era not only made the pretty credible looking suit but has kept their mouth shut about it.  (<-----   Note:  Those who say this DID happened you can't also say it is impossible for a skilled person such as a Frank Ishihara to privately develop the film and keep quiet about it all these years)

 

There is no way Roger made some suit if it ever turned out to be a suit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

I had a flood in my basement 20 years ago.  I called the insurance. I also took pictures of the basement flood and the many flooded items.  back in the day developing that film cost money and the cost to develop the pics.   If I told you I was working on a goKart that was ruined in the basement workshop and I threw it out I could still easily show a pic of that not-yet-completed Gokart even 20 years later.  I would just pull up the pic that would be expected to be taken at times like that.  The pic would work since I would not be expected to produce the Gokart.

 

The thing is that you really had a Go-kart and a collapsed garage.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor
20 hours ago, PBeaton said:

It's funny, I believe there is only one other film studied more, the Zapruder film. Yet far as I recall, the PGF has yet to be found a hoax, Squatchy McSquatch knows this as well...I believe.    

 

I can't think of the right word to use but what is hard to reconcile is thinking the PGF is fake when there is no analysis or evidence that says it's fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×