Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,678
Likes
16,006
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
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.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
5,815
Likes
7,544
Points
294
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.
 

sherbetbizarre

Special Branch
Joined
Sep 4, 2004
Messages
3,879
Likes
2,246
Points
184
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.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
13,678
Likes
16,006
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
... 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.
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
501
Likes
961
Points
94
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
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".
 

Naughty_Felid

No longer interesting
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
6,171
Likes
6,811
Points
294
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.
 

Eponastill

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
650
Likes
731
Points
124
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 :)
 
Top