• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Hey, I found an answer, finally:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

Right ... As they say: "Follow the money." (Or other profit / payoff)

Under my most cynical interpretation of this matter, I suspect the one party best positioned to shed light on this affair (Al DeAtley) has remained curiously evasive / silent because as an experienced businessman he doesn't want to (a) disrupt potential income to his widowed sister Patty and / or (b) he fears possible legal jeopardy if the film were admitted to be a hoax.
 
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

It seems ironic that the author of this article goes to such lengths to paint Patterson and DeAtley as fraudsters when he himself was sentenced to 15 months in prison for wire fraud to the tune of $200,000 - $400,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(author)#Wire_fraud_case

He doesn't seem to be highly regarded by sceptics either:
https://skepchick.org/2014/08/brian-dunning-sentenced-to-15-months-in-prison-for-fraud/

https://skepchick.org/2014/02/the-worst-thing-brian-dunning-has-done-for-skepticism/

Why mention this? It seems to have become the official narrative that Patterson was a highly untrustworthy individual, a con-man. From what I've read, he sounded more like an unsuccessful entrepreneur who often found it difficult to repay his debts. But 'con-man' or 'fraudster' are useful terms to use if you want to cast doubt on someone's reliability and close down the discussion.

If I wanted to be really uncharitable to Mr. Dunning, I'd suggest searching youtube for 'Joe Rogan vs. Brian Dunning'. But I won't do that.
 
It seems ironic that the author of this article goes to such lengths to paint Patterson and DeAtley as fraudsters when he himself was sentenced to 15 months in prison for wire fraud to the tune of $200,000 - $400,000.
I've learnt in Fortean subjects that the ones saying "hoax" are not necessarily the ones telling the truth.

Although it's human nature to automatically side with them, because no-one likes feeling duped.
 
... It seems ironic that the author of this article goes to such lengths to paint Patterson and DeAtley as fraudsters when he himself was sentenced to 15 months in prison for wire fraud to the tune of $200,000 - $400,000. ...

True, but ... Any implications linking Dunning's and Patterson's misbehaviors are weak at best, and the irony only extends skin-deep.

Dunning's legal woes derive from a business enterprise unrelated to his fortean-related activities, meaning that any aspersions cast on these activities are cast based on presumptuous ad hominem generalization rather than direct evidence of misdeeds or missteps in the context of those separate and distinct activities.

In contrast, any possible misdeeds attributed to Patterson are attributed based on hard facts surrounding the very same activities (promoting the Bigfoot phenomenon generally; the documentary film project specifically) for which his integrity has been called into question. The two major non-family (i.e., non-DeAtley) underwriters of Patterson's film project were never repaid their basic investments, much less any of the promised additional proceeds from the product they were told they were supporting. Gimlin never received a penny from the share of such proceeds Patterson had promised him, and after years of being consistently evaded about it he finally gave up and signed away his seemingly worthless rights for a pittance.


... It seems to have become the official narrative that Patterson was a highly untrustworthy individual, a con-man. From what I've read, he sounded more like an unsuccessful entrepreneur who often found it difficult to repay his debts. ...

It's more accurate to say the narrative is the "most defensible one given the available facts" rather than "official" in any sense.

In any case, there's a thin line between being remembered as a con artist versus an entrepreneurial visionary, and whichever side of that line a person is assigned to ends up being a matter of whether his / her proposals or promises panned out in the eyes of others.

Every con artist is an entrepreneur who profits from misleading his audience about the real beneficiary of a proposal, and every entrepreneur risks being painted as a con artist until he / she delivers a success or a reasonable explanation for failure to deliver. Under the most benign interpretation of available evidence Patterson is an example of this latter case whose own actions and broken promises gave critics more than enough reason to assign him to the less respectable side of the dividing line.
 
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4375

It seems ironic that the author of this article goes to such lengths to paint Patterson and DeAtley as fraudsters when he himself was sentenced to 15 months in prison for wire fraud to the tune of $200,000 - $400,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dunning_(author)#Wire_fraud_case

He doesn't seem to be highly regarded by sceptics either:
https://skepchick.org/2014/08/brian-dunning-sentenced-to-15-months-in-prison-for-fraud/

https://skepchick.org/2014/02/the-worst-thing-brian-dunning-has-done-for-skepticism/

Why mention this? It seems to have become the official narrative that Patterson was a highly untrustworthy individual, a con-man. From what I've read, he sounded more like an unsuccessful entrepreneur who often found it difficult to repay his debts. But 'con-man' or 'fraudster' are useful terms to use if you want to cast doubt on someone's reliability and close down the discussion.

If I wanted to be really uncharitable to Mr. Dunning, I'd suggest searching youtube for 'Joe Rogan vs. Brian Dunning'. But I won't do that.
This is ad hominem. And pointless. Check the facts, that's what counts.
Also, you'd do well to ignore anything from Skepchick... that is, if you seem so interested in those "highly regarded".
 
This is ad hominem. And pointless. Check the facts, that's what counts.
Also, you'd do well to ignore anything from Skepchick... that is, if you seem so interested in those "highly regarded".

If you are lording it over one of the posters here then best back it up.
 
I've just treated myself to (some might say wasted my money on) this: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/22971094-when-roger-met-patty - William Munns being one of the people on that Astonishing Legends podcast (just so you know which side he's coming down on). It looks very readable. He started his career about 1970 and has done 'creature' makeup and prosthetics, and also animatronics and computer graphics. He's basically focusing on the 'costume' angle and how feasible or otherwise that might be. It's rather thick through so I might be a while :)
 
The thing about the bottom of Patty's soles: even the ground looks too bright in all the extant copies I can find online... was that an error in the processing, or fading of the film due to everybody making copies from copies, rather than fresh copies from the negative? You can really manipulate the color in a film these days, and I can't seem to find a version of this that isn't being manipulated one way or another. Who has the negative, and has there been a modern 4K scan made of it any time recently?
 
Anyone that is walking around the backwoods in a monkey suit is a braver
man than me, or has no imagination, must be loads of hunters out there just
iching to be the first to bag a big foot.
 
Mr RING, naturally, the original has gone missing. It was held by American National Enterprises, who made the documentary 'Bigfoot - man or beast' using it. And then they went bankrupt and somebody ('generally not identified publicly') bought the film and put it in a film storage vault in Southern California. And then someone called Rene Dahinden was supposed to borrow it and return it. But it never got returned. That's what I gleaned from the book I mentioned above, anyway.
But there are various copies of the original film reels. And the author of that book has lots of scans of the frames of the various copies. (I'm not sure 'negatives' is the right technical word)
 
Based on the limitations of these dupes, we may be getting only part of the information we could have otherwise. The color is pretty terrible but typical of the era, and those prints would be aging pretty regularly. The negative, if kept properly in cold storage, won't degrade very fast and would have the least distortion due to the copying process...
 
Last edited:
Bill Munns would disagree. And he knows a lot about suits.
I've just found his website if anyone is interested. http://www.themunnsreport.com/
This is his discussion that focuses on the idea of a suit. http://www.themunnsreport.com/tmr release 1h part two.pdf
I don't know if there's enough clarity in the film to truly see. But you've got to respect his attention to detail. And he does know about suits :)
He knows a lot more than I do. While he was writing about Patty's flab, he didn't mention another way to simulate rolling fat in a fake body suit though although to be fair, the first time I'm aware of that it was used was by F/X artist Marc Shostrum for Evil Dead 2 in 1985: Shostrum made a 'fat suit' for skinny Ted Raimi to wear and faced the same problem trying to simulate rolling fat for the foam latex suit. Shostrum solved this problem by gluing and sewing bags of lentil beans inside the 'Henrietta' suit so it would move a lot more naturally. I don't know if he invented this low tech technique himself 16 years after the PGF was filmed or if he was copying it from earlier suit makers.

skip to 5:30 .. or 4:18 if you want to ponder further complications with this kind of suit ..

 
Last edited:
That's interesting, Swifty. I think in one of Bill Munns' documents I read last night, he mentioned something similar (I think using bags of water, maybe). It's so much trouble to go to though? It would have to be a deliberate decision to make it look like that. Which seems a strange decision really. I think watching the film you do get the impression of a heavy, bulky creature, with bulk just under the skin. And without all-way stretch furcloth (which didn't exist at the time)... well it would need to be a very competently made suit to look like that? Obviously it's 'silly' to imply bigfoot really exists. But it's too simple to dismiss the subject by saying 'ah it's just a crappy outfit'. Because it doesn't seem to be very crappy.

(I liked the video! That poor chap - being in the suit is 'beyond your wildest nightmares'!! and having to be in that awful cast. The beans are evidently good. But what an experience. When I was a kid I had an idea to be in film special effects. I kind of wish I'd pursued that! But it's all dull old computer effects now anyway :)
 
Last edited:
I’m pretty sure one of the earlier links mentioned bags of marbles being sewn in as body ballast but admittedly, that may have been a follow-up link. Marbles in a costume wash better than beans and lentils.
 
This can't be answered accurately but roughly di you think you'd regard it in the same way if had been released recently?
I wouldn't be as convinced at all. Modern camera techniques and the easy understanding of a level of effects make-up would make me very suspicious of a modern film with the look. But knowing filmwork and film and effects history, the time it was made and the capabilities of film make me think that if it is a fake,, its an amazingly impressive one for that time, using a sophistication of technique not seen in film until years later
 
I wouldn't be as convinced at all. Modern camera techniques and the easy understanding of a level of effects make-up would make me very suspicious of a modern film with the look. But knowing filmwork and film and effects history, the time it was made and the capabilities of film make me think that if it is a fake,, its an amazingly impressive one for that time, using a sophistication of technique not seen in film until years later

I agree, If you look at other footage it is clear it's a guy in a suit.

The PG film outside the CGI era has not been bettered. and It won't be.

If it is fake I could never get how the "actor" moved. How they coached the guy on how to move. How they got the muscle-movement effect.
 
In some ways the PG film is the "ultimate fake" if it is one, as people say, it doesn't seem to have been bettered or even equalled/replicated. There's also only one of it, if you wanted to make money or create proof, surely you'd be tempted to make another? Also, why haven't the people who made the suit come forward with it? Wasn't there some story that it was created bespoke by a costume shop? If you were that person or people wouldn't you either come forward and make a load of money, or make a new in the same style if you had sold it?

I'm not sure what I think of the film and I don't think bigfoot is a straightforward biological animal like a gorilla etc, if it does exist but I wouldn't dismiss the footage as I would have in the past.

People very interested might like the Astonishing Legends podcast on it, be warned though, it's 6 episodes and maybe 15 hours long! People really into the footage may already know it all already and maybe some of what they cite is spurious, I'm a layman on this.

https://www.astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/2019/4/13/ep-139-the-patterson-gimlin-film-part-1
 
Not sure if previously highlighted - maybe of interest?

Bigfoot ruined this man’s life, then gave him a fresh start

8 August, 2020
Source: knkx.org

(This story originally aired on April 28, 2018).

If you close your eyes and picture Sasquatch, there’s a good chance you’ll conjure up a very specific image: a big, hairy humanoid, mid-stride, arms swinging, head turned to glance back over its right shoulder.

In that iconic picture, the thing Bigfoot was turning back to look at was Bob Gimlin.

https://www.knkx.org/post/bigfoot-ruined-man-s-life-then-gave-him-fresh-start
 
Browsing through the newspaper.com archives, I came across the following, contemporary article.

It's attached as a pdf file.
 

Attachments

  • clipping_58475626 (1).pdf
    907.5 KB · Views: 20
California 1967, Bigfoot related and featuring large hairy creatures...?

An eerie wailing sound...?

Found the very thing... see attached pdf file.

Edit: New copy - previous maybe not loading?
 

Attachments

  • clipping_58479372 (1).pdf
    698.5 KB · Views: 17
Last edited:
Edit: New copy - previous maybe not loading?

The linked PDF file has nothing substantial to do with Bigfoot - I don't see how an announcement of someone wearing a Bigfoot costume to be appearing in a parade counts for much ... :yellowc:
 
Back
Top