Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Jacques Terreur

Patterson-Gimlin-Film, a promo stunt?

30 posts in this topic

Is this evidence the whole thing was a hoax or is it a hoax itself?

I just trawled this out of the internet, apologies if this was actually discussed before:

photo%20contract.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's the nail in the coffin for the argument that it couldn't be a movie costume (I recall someone trotting out the Bigfoot from Sixty Million Dollar Man and saying "look at what the best Hollywood can do").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easily faked. More easily than faking a Sasquatch film, that has stood up to years of scrutiny.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No notary seal either, could be a fake without some back ground on where it came from and it's chain of custody.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i found it after reading the wikipedia entry for the Patterson-Gimlin-Film, which says:

"Radford alone had corroborative evidence: a $700 promissory note "for expenses in connection with filming of 'Bigfoot: Americas Abominable Snowman.'"[4] Patterson agreed to repay her $850, plus 5 percent of any profits from the movie. The movie was supposed to be a pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig) and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. Since the film was to be a pseudo-documentary, Patterson and Gimlin would have needed actors. Lacking a real cooperative Bigfoot, Patterson and Gimlin would have needed a costume to present a reasonable representation of the creature supposedly encountered."

after that, i tried to find that mentioned promissory note and that's what i dug out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Convenient. Fake. IMO the patterson sasquatch footage is authentic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easily faked. More easily than faking a Sasquatch film, that has stood up to years of scrutiny.

Most experts don't believe it to be a real bigfoot. I'm not certain it has stood up very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this evidence the whole thing was a hoax or is it a hoax itself?

I just trawled this out of the internet, apologies if this was actually discussed before:

photo%20contract.jpg

Looks as real as the video to me.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested in seeing if Patterson characteristically misspells "adominable snowman" (as the author does twice here) elsewhere.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the main reason he was in those woods was to film a snowman film. He was even sued afterwards by the producers.

And lo and behold, he just happens to come across a bigfoot in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK,help me out here guys, but as anyone seen this mystical before? Certainly seems like it would have surfaced before now. Least it seems that way to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the wiki entry detailing the story at hand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film

Background

Patterson said he became interested in Bigfoot after reading an article about the creature by Ivan T. Sanderson in True magazine in December 1959.[2] Patterson's book, Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?, was self-published in 1966. The book has been characterized as "little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson's circus-poster style prose."[3] It did, however, also include 20 pages of previously unpublished interviews and letters, 17 drawings by Patterson of the encounters described in the text, 5 hand-drawn maps (rare in subsequent Bigfoot books), and almost 20 photos and illustrations from other sources. It was reprinted in 2005 under the title The Bigfoot Film Controversy, with additional material by Chris Murphy.

Some decades after the Patterson–Gimlin film's publicity, Greg Long interviewed people who described Patterson as a liar, a conman, and sometimes worse. One of the pictures in Roger's book (him sitting next to a campfire, drinking a cup of coffee with his horse in the background) was actually taken in his back yard, not in Northern California as the caption claims. Pat Mason, Glen Koelling, Bob Swanson and Vilma Radford claimed Patterson never repaid loans they made to him for a Bigfoot movie Roger was planning. Later, records show that Bob Gimlin sued DeAtley and Patterson's widow, Patricia, in 1975, claiming he was not receiving his share of the film's proceeds. Radford alone had corroborative evidence: a $700 promissory note "for expenses in connection with filming of 'Bigfoot: Americas Abominable Snowman.'"[4] Patterson agreed to repay her $850, plus 5 percent of any profits from the movie. The movie was supposed to be a pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig) and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. Since the film was to be a pseudo-documentary, Patterson and Gimlin would have needed actors. Lacking a real cooperative Bigfoot, Patterson and Gimlin would have needed a costume to present a reasonable representation of the creature supposedly encountered.

According to Jerry Merritt, both he and Roger tried to attract investors to help further fund his Bigfoot movie. They were not successful at this. Later, after Patterson died, Ron Olson (of ANE Studios) made a version of this and renamed it Sasquatch, the Legend of Bigfoot, while neglecting to give Patterson a co-writer credit. Roger drove to Hollywood often. He and Merritt visited various friends in the entertainment field including Gene Vincent and Ross Hagen (who starred on the late 1960s hit television show Daktari), and who worked with Patterson on his Bigfoot song they recorded in Hollywood.

Patterson and his friend Gimlin set out for the Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, René Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967.[5] This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson.

Though Gimlin says he doubted the existence of Sasquatch-like creatures, he agreed to Patterson's suggestion that they should not attempt to shoot any such creatures they might see. According to Grover Krantz[6] years later, Patterson and Gimlin agreed they should have tried to shoot the creature, both for financial gain and to silence naysayers.

Patterson's expensive 16 mm camera had been rented on May 13, but he had kept it longer than the contract had stipulated, and an arrest warrant had been issued for him on October 17.[7] This charge was ultimately dismissed after Patterson returned the camera in working order.[8]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm familiar with all that, but this is the first time I've seen the alleged promissory note. Are the signatures real? does it check out?

Edited by keninsc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clue if what's posted above is legit. It seems to be fairly accepted that there was an agreement between the parties. Whether or not this is the actual note, I have no clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from my admittedly 30 second look around that paper does seem to be legit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think it's kind of funny that thousands of people are combing through the NA woodlands looking for Bigfoot every single weekend and never see anything, but yet this self admitted charlatan and con man goes afield ONE TIME for the sole purpose of making a bigfoot film and comes back with the holy grail of Bigfootery.

Sure, it could happen, but...........

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it could happen, but..............

And that is one big old but.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody able to make out the writing on the opposite side of the sheet? Might hold some info, if it's authentic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued by the atrocious spelling pointed out by PersonfromPorlock post #9.

So important an alleged legal and binding agreement was drawn up and yet 5 people missed the spelling error?

Could an error like this render the contract void if indeed the film was not Bigfoot America's Adominable Snowman but Bigfoot America's Abominable Snowman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's probably a "ghost" from the page being tri-folded for many years. The old typewriter print would bleed over time when kept like that. If you look real close you can some of it is upside down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued by the atrocious spelling pointed out by PersonfromPorlock post #9.

So important an alleged legal and binding agreement was drawn up and yet 5 people missed the spelling error?

Could an error like this render the contract void if indeed the film was not Bigfoot America's Adominable Snowman but Bigfoot America's Abominable Snowman?

They didn't have spell check back then and I hate to admit it but I'm the world's worse speller. Odds are they made an agreement.....but couldn't spell it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't have spell check back then and I hate to admit it but I'm the world's worse speller. Odds are they made an agreement.....but couldn't spell it.

Sure, anything could be the case, until proven to be the real deal. But it still makes me go "Hmmmm?"

We had spellcheck in 1967, it was called a dictionary :) . If it's an important document. Look it up. The word also titled books and articles and movies back then. Probably in their possession.

Edited by QuiteContrary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody able to make out the writing on the opposite side of the sheet? Might hold some info, if it's authentic.

I have no dog in this topic.. but DKO, your wish is my commend! I've adjusted the contrast/gamma and also reversed the document to show the 'background text', which is either showing through the document or has bled onto the page as per keninsc's suggestion.

gallery_95887_15_42947.jpg

There you go. Seems that some of it is legible.. Have fun! (Note - I only spent 30 seconds on that - if there is a better copy or you need selected areas adjusted individually, feel free to ask nicely.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued by the atrocious spelling pointed out by PersonfromPorlock post #9.

So important an alleged legal and binding agreement was drawn up and yet 5 people missed the spelling error?

Could an error like this render the contract void if indeed the film was not Bigfoot America's Adominable Snowman but Bigfoot America's Abominable Snowman?

Depends on the jurisdiction (no pun intended), but I think you'll find that such minor errors are not sufficient to render a document invalid - the intent is quite clear and would not be likely to be in dispute..

Edited by ChrLzs
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wikipedia articles cites the source for this note as Long, 300, which I assume is Greg Long's Book The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story.

I had reversed and adjust the contrast myself and some of the text seems to agree with that. I think the image is cropped from a larger page as some of the reverse text seems cut off near the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.