Date of Death
18 February 1975, Wallasee, Namibia (killed by lions)

Greetings. I'm a reporter who took a couple of hours looking for reasons to believe/disbelieve the "Belgian man attacked by lions" film. It fooled me totally on first viewing, but since then I've come around. The film is almost certainly fake, and the only thing left is some kind of direct confirmation from people involved in staging it back in the 1970s. Reasons: 1) Start with the filmmaker, Antonio Climati, a "mondo" director who has made other fakes in the past. 2) Look at the names of the "characters" in this little scene. The victim's first name is spelled Pit and Pitt in different credits, and: Durnet, Dernitsch, and Dernitz. As a (non-native) Dutch speaker, I can tell you the name Pit and Pitt aren't normal. Nor are any of the versions of the last name (although Doenitz is known as the Nazi officer). 3) More on names. The park is called "Wallassee" and sometimes it's claimed to be in Angola, sometimes in Namibia. Well, as far as I can see, the only "Wallassee" known to man is a neighborhood in the British city of Liverpool(?). Anyhow, nothing resembling that name is on lists of parks in Angola or Namibia. 4) More on names: The names of his wife and apparently kids are also given, at least in some versions: Carol (wife) and Graham and Kim. Why do none of the family's names recur anywhere else on the Internet except for in this film in its many incarnations? 5) The internal inconsistencies and logic suggesting the film is bogus are there for all to see. Logic includes: a) why would anybody keep filming an attack AND cutting away to the victim's families? Either one is strange, but both together are crazy. Unless you consider cinematic motives. b) you never actually see clearly the man being bitten _ but lots of shots of lions eating meat of which the origin is unclear. c) lions don't attack that way. d) the wife's acting in the opening scene is melodramatic, cartoonesque. Unless you consider cinematic motives. e) it's awfully convenient that the cavalry arrives just a little too late, from the one angle where they can ride right up to the scene of the slaughter. Unless you consider cinematic motives. f) why does the lioness grab the camera when being scared off? Surely she'd take a leg instead. If you consider cinematic motives, you might think they were playing around filming shots for a long time and happened to get that cute one. It was too irresistable to use as a "fitting end" to this moral lesson. g) Why does nobody have guns on an African safari in 1970s? Notably the black man with the yellow shirt, who is presumably a guide. h) Why does everything take place just in front of an unmanned jeep? Where are the people who were in the jeep? I recommend watching that jeep for general placement problems. Internal inconsistencies include: a) the white man in the yellow shirt changes sides of his car halfway through b) camera angles don't match up. And there are a lot more of them than you would expect from two or even three cameras on a single event. c) the supposed "last shot" made by the victim is low and constant. This is clearly NOT shot by a man who is in motion, walking and crouching, as when he is tackled by the lion. If the voiceover/filmmaker is being misleading about that _ okay, OBVIOUSLY lying about it _ why believe the rest? To me, this is the clincher. d) the film is cut or obscured a moment before the attack begins. Highly suspicious. e) the "Wife" is wearing a black shirt at the start and a brown shirt at the finish. f) other people in the cars in the various shots don't match up. Watch it yourself carefully for many details. Just to name one, the guy with the khaki shirt and khaki hat changes to a blue shirt at the end. Who is the black-haired girl in the blue shirt near the end? Why is there yet another woman on hand to help the grief-stricken "wife" into the car at the end? Why did the filmer start filming her again in her moment of grief? It's all too far-fetched unless you consider cinematic motives... g) whatever the big thing (an elephant's leg? a log?) that is to the right of the lioness in the "victim's film", it disappears in later shots. h) the lions feasting on the corpse/mannequin are too far to the left in the "munching" scenes_ they were directly in front of the unmanned jeep when they are scattered by the arriving jeep. There are lots of these "placement" problems if you watch carefully. i) I would add that the corspe is shown being torn apart in some scenes, but pretty much whole when the calvary arrives. As an added bonus, there's an intriguing fragment of text floating around on the net _ I know it's non-verifiable, but I include it as relevant to the discussion: "Fake or real? The directors history is full of fakes, lions can be tame, etc. Go ask Carol Dernitz." ... "Yeap, that was a fake I actualy was there with my buddy Bnoxy who was my driver and shoecleaner (bytheway). Some proffessional studio (hm, what was their name ) was making that movie whole week." *Whatever* I would hold out the possibility that some parts of this film are "real" and were supplemented by staged scenes later. But I wouldn't even bother to guess which. Hope this reassures anybody out there who was losing sleep over this film, Regards, Toby Sterling