I've been bothered by this question for a long time, though it may have a ridiculously simple answer: Why hasn't Pat Patterson written the true definitive book about her husband Roger? I know she has adopted an extremely low profile since his death insofar as publicity goes and she does not do interviews (so I have read). But it's also well known that she fully supports all Rogers' efforts, and endorses the P/G film as the real deal (does she not own the copyright? Actual question, not rhetorical.)

Especially now, after the comically unconvincing tome put out by Mr. Long, it seems to me this book would meet with an enthusiastic audience. She wouldn't get rich off it, but I think it stands to reason that there is a good deal of money waiting for her to claim if and when she decides to shed much needed light on the life and times of one of the most mis-understood characters in American folklore (and Roger Patterson, whether hero or faker, has certainly attained that level of fame).

There are SO many questions that I can't help but feel Roger's widow could answer, or at least offer information to help the rest of us fill in the blanks.

For that matter, I think Bob Gimlin could give the world a fantastic insight on this whole matter if he ever feels like doing a book (maybe with a ghost writer if he doesn't feel up to authorship). Then again, I understand that Bob is actually quite a private person and has by now become a little tired of the rancor surrounding the sighting and the film.

I seems to me, furthermore, that Pat Patterson would be eager to remove all this stigma from the memory of her late husband, if he truly was innocent (as I believe he is/was) of the charges that are regularly flung his way -- charges that have been amplified lately by Greg Long's wickedly one-sided, mean spirited hatchet job.

If anyone out there has the rare ability to contact and influence Pat Patterson, those of us who are inclined to believe in the veracity of the film would celebrate the chance to get her unique side of things. I can't think of too many things that would be more tragic than to see everyone eventually die off whose personal lives were part of this epic mystery without getting their valuable input.

This is a subject that will not go away, and there's good reason. The P/G film is still the best visual evidence for the existence of Sasquatch and it has risen to the level of being iconic. The Bigfoot world deserves to know as many FACTS about the events surrounding the making of the film as humanly possible (facts that are demonstrable and verifiable, as opposed to the mishmash offered in the Greg Long fiasco -- much of it self contradicting).

Though it would not prove Sasquatches do not exist even if the film turned out to be a hoax, the P/G film, if more solid evidence can be gathered from people like Mrs. Patterson to help convince fence-sitters that it is authentic, would be a very powerful tool in furthering this investigation.

Anyway, that's how I see it. Anyone wish to comment?

cochise: I too think it would be a good thing for Pat Patterson and Bob Gimlin to speak to some news organization. But let's look at a few things about this from their point of view...

Below is Mrs. Gimlin being accosted at her own home by a reporter who was doing the Heironimus story. He's giving her the old "60 minutes surprise" treatment. Not very nice. She told him to turn off the camera and leave them alone, then shut the door.

When edited into a story about how good ol' boy Heironimus was cheated out of his $1000 and now has decided that too many others are making money and he wants his fair share, it looks bad. The fact that Gimlin isn't making any money is never mentioned.

What if Bob Gimlin came to the door? A few quick snide questions and then cut to the hero of the story "Mr. Heironimus, the retired Pepsi bottler" and that's it. I'm sure Gimlin has seen this kind of thing go on for far too long now. He has spoken out and put his words on film and tape for all to hear. And he's responded to Heironimus by stating that no one wore any gorilla suit. What more can he do really? He's not a rich man with team of lawyers ready to attack.

As far as I know Roger went to his grave telling his wife that it was true. She's got her husband's word and that's it. Unless she was involved in a scam of some sort with Bob Gimlin.

Yet Bob Gimlin actually went to court against her after Roger died when he saw the film being sold and knew he was cut out of everything. He could have really slammed the lid on the thing by being a Heironimus back then. He didn't. It has only caused him grief for years. He could have stopped it all along by just saying it was a joke that got out of hand or even that Roger did it all and he was furious about being dragged into it. Anything like that. He didn't. He simply says they saw it and that's it.

While Patterson was alive he sure didn't make much off the film and both he and Gimlin suffered the outrageous comments from the neighbors and the public. I can't really blame him for wanting nothing to do with the whole thing.

Greg Long's tabloid-style attack book on Patterson should have sold well. The public loves to get the nasty "inside story" on things like this. Problem is it didn't sell well. So who the hell is going to pay Patricia Patterson to write about her husband chasing bigfoot and being a nice guy?

As far as the public goes, they only know that "it's been proven" that some guy wore a gorilla suit in that film. Just another hoax like all the rest. Bigfoot never existed and they always knew it anyway. So goes the general consensus.

Maybe someone here who knows them can convince them to both do interviews on record with MSNBC as Heironimus and Morris did.

Then again, maybe they don't need the grief and prefer to keep their faces off the television screens. After the way they've been treated in the past, who can blame them?

- Dfoot

Some valid points to be sure, and no one could blame any of them for not wanting to invite the kind of publicity that is apt to follow. Mainly, putting myself in the position theoretically, I know I would ache to "clear" my mate's name if I had something, even just background information, that would counter the kind of crap that's been said about Pat's deceased husband. I guess it's possible she just doesn't have much to add -- that would make sense if Roger did most of this stuff on his own and without aid or encouragement from her.

That's just it -- we don't even know that much. His life story would be good reading for anyone who's been following this 37 year old epic, but only if it came from someone who truly knew him. That would be Pat Patterson.

Heck, maybe she's already written it and plans to have it published after she dies.

I would love to see a book written by Mrs. Patterson detailing her late husband's life, with a large part dedicated to his quest for BF. I would buy the book. Heck, I might even buy two copies.

Even imagining what the remaining people have dealt with over the years is impossible for you and I. They would just as soon wish it never happened, I assume. I mean, look at how we treat each other on this site....I would hate to have to constantly defend myself against media and non-believers. Et tu Brute?

good idea, Cochise.

You're right...

I wonder what her take on it would be...Mrs. Patterson, that is. Would she just want it to be left alone....take the attitude, "why do I have to defend Roger? because of people like Mr. Long? No thanks.." ? Hmmm?
or welcome the chance to tell her story of Roger's life?

Let's see what people here would want....

and that photo of Bob Gimlin's wife being harassed like that just turns my stomach...that is some slimy, sleezy, tabloid 'journalism' (sic)...

my opinion of this "it's a guy in a suit" debate is SCREW IT!! what the F&%$ is there to debate? You've seen the videos of "people in gorilla suits" (e.g. Marx) and this isn't it one of them. Bob Gimlin has told us so. Many others have examined the film and the site.....THE SITE.....that's a key element in all this....
Go to the damn site for yourselves...you tell me someone drove ALL THE WAY IN THERE to pull a hoax....why not just do it two miles in or along the Klamath ? there's plenty of isolated spots esp. back then...

it's a waste of time, IMO...but I do appreciate reading the debate here esp. the responses from DDA, Bipto, BFtracker (? not sure...)...I realize, in time, this debate will be one to undertake...
oh, that is a pisser to think freaking Bob Hair-on-my-ass is stirring up that kind of crap for the Gimlins....arrrrgghhhh!

what was this thread about? oh, yeah....Pat Patterson....good thread. don't mind me...just ranting and raving....see I guess we're asking Pat Patterson to get involved in this debate and what for? either you accept it or you don't...
the key is to try and gather more 'evidence'...hopefully something as convincing...and keep on the track...

My thought's exactly, BigfootDad..........

Dude! I was just venting....it was the pic of Bob's wife that got me...

It's still a good thought, Cochise. She (Mrs. Patterson) could answer some of these questions re: Roger...it'd be interesting.

What do the rest of you think?

Hehe.
I meant about some of the other stuff you were venting about. A Book by Mrs P would be great! If she would even want too....Or need too. IMHO, the film speaks for itself...

I don't blame you for being pissed, Tom. I would be too if it was a good friend of mine being harassed. The reporter was Ed Teachout from KATU-2 from Portland, Oregon who was responsible for the harassment of these fine people. With the way the media thinks of Bigfoot, I don't blame Mrs. Patterson or Bob Gimlin for not speaking to the media. Still, it would be nice to see perhaps a book from either Mrs. Patterson or Bob Gimlin, just to shut people up. Unfortunately, the Greg Longs and Bob Heironimuses of the world seem to always get more prominence than the Roger Pattersons or Bob Gimlins, and that's a real shame. To quote John Green, (and I'm probably paraphrasing, so bear with me) "The fact that people are hunting for Bigfoot is not news, nor are the hunters themselves, but when someone comes forward with a crazy story about faking tracks or the film, that's news." How right he is.

Yeah, I would love to see a book by Patty Patterson or Bob Gimlin. Now there are a couple of people with lots to say about Bigfoot

What I really want to see is Gimlin and Heironimus talk to each other over beers. To be a fly on that wall, hoo boy.

I have a feeling Roger Patterson will be 100% vindicated one day. His name will live for a long, long time.

It's the Roger Pattersons of this world that are my heroes. The man went out there and got the job done. Nobody else had been able to do it since. Then he had to live through decades of bullspit until death relieved him. Fame and fortune? It ain't what it's cracked up to be. In some cases, it can be hell on earth.

What will make me sick are the 180 degree "I knew it all the time" backtracks from the folks who should have been working on this for the past 40 years.

I can well imagine when the Squatch is brought into the light of reality and looks remarkably similar to the Patterson creature, somebody will probably say, "Obviously Patterson had at one time seen a real Sasquatch and modeled his costume based upon that!"

Even bigfoot researchers have called Patterson a suspicious charactor. The public record has shown that he was in fact a con artist and I don't care if you flame me for it but it is true. He stole from anybody he could and he even cheated his good friend Gimlin who helped him. Gimlin had to sue to get one third of the rights to the movie and he won. If I borrowed money from you to make a bigfoot film I would pay you back and not ignore you like you never exsisted. Can we please get over this Patterson was a saint garbage?


As far as the media going to the Gimlin's home that was a complete waste of time as anybody who knows knows you cannot get past Mrs Gimlin.

As loathe as I may have been to come to Geno's defense in the past, I think he's right about Patterson. He did cheat Bob Gimlin out of all the rights and money made from the film. I'm glad you brought that up, Geno. And I did not come to that conclusion because of Greg Long's book, I came to it because it is well-known that Gimlin was cheated. It is true. You guys can flame me too if you want, but truth is truth.

Sainthood? That's not what I suggest.

Demonic? I truly don't know.

Cheat? Maybe. Apparently you folks know more about it than I.

The only sasquatch hunter who got film footage of the quarry?

I think so, and haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise.

If he is a cheat he isn't any worse than the folks who are waiting in the shadows for somebody else to do the proving so that they can do the profiteering.

I honestly can't recall anyone here referring to Patterson as a saint. In fact, most agree he was on the seedy side and had a penchant for trying to make the quick buck.

It's also well known that he cheated Gimlin -- of the two of them, Bob was definitely the one with all the integrity.

So we're in agreement, at least until we have more information (which is what this thread is all about -- I know, I started it), that he had plenty of motive to create a fancy hoax and rip everyone off.

Problem is, the facts do not support his having done so -- not if you use common sense.

First off, as I understand it, it was well known that he had a passionate interest in(and a belief in the existence of) bigfoot. He poured his soul into looking for it, used what little money he had to outfit personal trips into the wildnerness, and even wrote a not-so-good book about it. So can we agree that his interest in the subject was genuine? I think so.

Second, he was certainly not secretive about his plans to do some kind of filmed documentary about the subject (a curious thing to spread around if you were thinking of pulling off a filmed hoax within a few weeks), and MAY even have purchased a gorilla costume for that purpose (a pure conjecture at this point). I've written elsewhere in another thread that I think it's entirely possible he even hired Bob Hairyass to play the part of the bigfoot in a sequence he may have had in mind for the future -- that is before running into the real thing on a long and exhaustive (and expensive) trip to northern California, down into an impossibly rugged and remote area, where anyone would have had to be a complete idiot to go in order to stage a ten minute film that could have done in virtually any wooded area.

Third, most of us here seem to agree that he did not have the skill, the experience, or the funds to create a bigfoot costume that was capable of fooling scientisits both then and now -- a suit that in 1967 would even have been beyond the capabilities of most Hollywood studios with mega-budgets.

Fourth, even if we assume he somehow pulled off such a fantastic stunt, it is all but inconceivable (to me, at least) that the participants simply lost track of or destroyed such a one-of-a-kind treasure. He may have been shady but I doubt if he was that stupid.

Fifth, it's a recorded fact that he tried his best to get objective scientists into the area right after the sighting for the purpose of launching a large scale search, and to categorically study the tracks left by the film subject. Again, he'd have been crazy to invite this kind of scrutiny if he'd just filmed some big lubbox strolling down a sandbar in a fake monkey suit. Of record, too, is the fact that a highly experienced tracker did in fact make a study of the trackway (which was still in evidence even after a heavy rain, which seems to give credibility to their authenticity). He made a point that the tracks were extensive, dynamic and an in every way natural.

Sixth, it's clear to me that he DID spend the rest of his life trying to profit mightily from this incredible footage, true to his nature. And that he cheated Gimlin out of any share is consistent with this lack of morality -- but has NO BEARING on whether or not the subject in the film is real or not.

So to conclude that because Roger Patterson was (or may have been) a sleaze-ball automatically proves the film is a hoax is ludicrous -- and illogical.


Anyway -- back to my original point. Maybe if we knew more about Roger's true character, and had some insight into his personality (the one his own family was privy to, as opposed to the one he showed the outside world), we might have more evidence to make a conclusion one way or the other.

That depends on what you mean by integrity. Gimlin's tale of the event as told to Green in 1992 is very suspicious.



That depends on what you mean by common sense. To many, common sense tells you that Patterson would be likely to create a hoax even before you evaluate the facts themselves.



He may have been genuinely interested in making money off of those who might believe that Bigfoot exists. That kind of entrepreneurship still exists today.



"Impossibly rugged and remote area" Hmmm. Read Gimlin's interview with Green. He's got them driving up and down the washed-out roads with their truck looking for Bigfoot. He's got them tracking the figure for 3.5 miles and then casting tracks. He's got them going back and forth and somehow able to get the film to De Atley (on a weekend!) for viewing 2 days later.



Patterson didn't fool scientists, then or now. Read the story of the history of the film from my "Inconsistencies" thread. Scientists and institutions were immediately rejecting the film right from the start. He couldn't sell it to hardly anybody other than Argosy Magazine. Of course Bigfooters were mostly quite happy to accept it as genuine. Nothing has really changed in that respect after all these years.



Yeah, the smart thing to do is bring in people who already believe Bigfoot is real. Patterson was seemingly selective about the "scrutiny" given to the event.



He had to ditch Gimlin because they told the story of the event differently each time. They were already saying contradictory things in interviews very soon after the event. The credibility of the story collapses when the two people who were there say very different things. Patterson said he was thrown from his horse and even was fallen-on by it, bending a stirrup and injuring his foot. Gimlin says he was never thrown from the horse.

The problem is that Patterson and Gimlin had to invent a false sequence of events to explain the time that they were creating the film with Heironimus, and then again when they created the hoaxed trackway.

I second that motion.

I did not suggest that because Patterson was a crook that the film is fake. Instead I believe because Patterson was so shady it casts a very strong shadow of doubt on the authenticity of the film but I cannot prove it is a fake. No doubt at all that Patterson had an extreme, almost obsessive interest in Bigfoot.

A couple of early newspaper interviews with Patterson right after the filming, like the same or next day, have quoted him as saying some things that clearly do not jive with what Gimlin has said. Also the bent stirrup was shown to Hodgson who confirms that detail which means the horse would have had to fallen on Patterson.

As to Bob Titmus who went to the site 9 (i think) days later he said the tracks went in one direction but Patterson/Gimlin said another direction so there is a problem there also.

As to Patterson not being able to make a suit like that I would point out that Patterson was an excellent artist, check out his book if you can, his drawings are very good.

I would really like to see Gimlin write a book on his experiences.

In his 1992 interview with Green, Gimlin flatly denies that Patterson's horse threw him. He said it reared-up then Roger dismounted. Patterson claimed the horse fell right onto him bending the stirrup and injuring his foot. He even talks about the injured foot twice in an interview. It's easy to bend a stirrup then wave it around as evidence that things happened as you said.

I dare believers to try to reconcile the contradictory and changing stories and timelines of Patterson & Gimlin using the same standards that they apply to Heironimus! If you call Bob H. a liar or a fraud, you have to do the same for both Patterson & Gimlin.

BEH wrote:



A most excellent point and challenge.

Can we get an icon where the dead horse being beaten is red?

As has been demonstrated in this forum a zip-tillian times, we can endlessly quote and re-quote each other countering points ad-nauseum, but the main point of my thread stands: We don't have as much information about the REAL Patterson as we really ought to have, given his prominence in this field and the undeniable importance of his (and Gimlin's) claims. I'll even go so far as to stay that it perturbs me just a little that those who knew him best (family and associates) seem very reluctant to come to his defense, with a few notable exceptions.

It does (I grant you) cast suspicion on his motives. But here we go in the round-and-round again: his motives, in the end, cannot determine for us whether or not the very compelling film is a hoax (and to argue that it is not compelling would be totally fool-hardy, even arch skeptics have to agree that something easily dismissed does not hang around as "undetermined" for 37 years!)

But here goes anyway, as it seems to be the thing to do nowdays:



A completely subjective statement. Suspicious to whom? Obviously not to a great many people who don't seem to have a problem with Gimlin's accounts over the years.



I can't even believe anyone would seriously suggest that conclusions should come before evaluating the "facts themselves".



No argument here. I think Roger was motivated by greed before and after the event. In fact, if I thought there was a shadow of a chance that he had the means, the skill, and the money to pull the hoax off as many suspect, I'd be concluding the same as you. The whole reason that we don't agree is simply that I, and many many others, believe all this was well beyond his ability.



If I failed to make the point properly here, I apologize, but I am saying that the area was impossibly rugged and remote to have considered using it for the purpose of pulling off a hoax that could easily have been done in much LESS rugged and remote places.



Patterson's film, then and now, has had its supporters in the scientific field. Ironically, more so now than ever before, 37 years after the fact. Are you seriously suggesting that there are no scientists who have come out to say that some aspects of the film subject simply could not have been faked by a human in a suit? Naturally there are scads more who out and out refuse to even consider it, but their motivations are often based on fear of being panned by their peers. I think what happens here is that those objective scientists (experts in various fields) who do suggest that the film MIGHT be authentic are immediately branded by hardened skeptics as newby bigfooters, and therefore no longer credible.



Patterson knew full well that he would have better luck appealing to those who at least had an open mind with respect to the subject than he would trying to contact main stream scientists who typically have no time to even consider such a thing.



It is well known and universally understood that eye witnesses will nearly always differ in their accounts of an emotionally charged, quickly unfolding scenario -- and that goes double, I would think, when the parties are both personally involved in it and both at risk of their lives. It is usually more suspicious to investigators when two parties rattle off carbon-copy stories of the same event. Memory not only fades with time (even when the event being recalled was dramatic), but often undergoes transitions. The overall event is recalled with comparative fidelity, but details sometimes get hopelessly skewed. This is not my opinion, this is commonly understood.


Well, that was fun but absolutely a waste of time, since I now fully expect to see a response post with quotes of my quotes and maybe even quotes of my quotes of your quotes, and we are both able to type reasonably logical replies.

Roger Patterson, good guy or bad ass, is not well documented at all. There has been virtually no honest attempt to get inside this man's history (Long's attempt was laughably inferior as it was so obviously prejudiced right from the first stroke of his word processor keyboard).

The book about Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin is on the way in the next two years. It is currently in the beginning research stages and will include many photos and much information that has not been available to the public. Furthermore, this is not a bash Roger or Bob book, but a positive work. Family members will be involved in interviews as well as friends and associates from Roger and Bob's past. Please be patient in your wait, as I want this book to be a complete, quality work. It will have the blessing of those closest to Roger and Bob
so obviously, Greg Long will have nothing to do with it!

David

Looks like Roger Patterson quickly set himself up with a non-profit organization to finance his ongoing "search" for Bigfoot. Wow, $75K was a lot of money in 1968!



Reader's Digest 1969



National Wildlife Magazine April/May 1968

What's that? $75,000.00 for BF research in 1968? Today, that amount would equal to $394,979.13. That's a lot of dough to search for BF. If only the BFRO could catch something on film today like RP did in '67....

If you read between the lines, Patterson was being paid to search for Bigfoot regardless of the outcome. Maybe the image of a poor man spending his own money to hunt for Bigfoot is false.

Well it certainly shows that the film was in fact taken seriously by some very influential people who were not personally acquainted with him. Seems they had some confidence in his ability to do serious research, and it would seem unlikely that they would hand over money like that without doing at least some background on the guy they were handing it over to.

If they thought there was a good chance the film subject was a guy in a suit, I doubt they would have been so generous.