Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

Guest

I havent attacked you at all Kit- everything I commented on was the substance of your post above...

The first part, I was mostly joking around about... I obviously know you havent shown the film to thousands of people.. and I may have been a little sarcastic... my bad.

You didnt catch me on a bad night, and I'm not angry...

The fact that I called into question why you drove the thread off topic into an attack on Patterson, is in my opinion a valid question for any member to ask.

It really had little to do with your initial question.

I personally dont really care either way, and more than anything I guess I'm curious why you are so persistent in your efforts to paint him in a bad light ?

You can tell me to "not read the thread" if it bothers me, but the title up top doesnt say "Roger Patterson the Plagiarist" does it ?

My comments werent about the subject/topic you started out with- aside from what I said about all the other physical features being present aside from breasts- its an "ok" question.

I stand by what I said- you asked a question, got some answers in relation to it- and then you spun the wheel and headed off in another direction.

Yes, I questioned the relevance of doing so.

Sorry if that troubles you, but your the one who drifted off course, I guess I was looking for an explanation.

I dont know Kit, I guess I'm kind of tired of the same old wars being waged, and re-waged on here- and it seems like that was/is the direction the thread's heading in- instead of the the topic you started out with.

Just seen it all so many times now, its too much of a repeating cycle for me.

Was not my intent to offend- apologies if I did so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I was not offended, just suprised by the level of anger that seemed to come across. If you're not angry, that's great.

The fact that I called into question why you drove the thread off topic into an attack on Patterson, is in my opinion a valid question for any member to ask.

It really had little to do with your initial question.

I personally dont really care either way, and more than anything I guess I'm curious why you are so persistent in your efforts to paint him in a bad light ?

Here's the short version, Art. Roger's plagiarism of Mort Kunstler's art is not off-topic. It's very much on-topic and here's why...

Can you post links to five alleged Bigfoot encounters featuring a creature description that matches Patty?

Details include large hairy breasts, pronounced sagittal crest, large posterior, horrible stench, short dark fur, and the appearance of bulkiness as opposed to skinnyness. In particular, the head shape and the hirsute breasts and the large bottom would be key elements

One stipulation, if I may - no William Roe encounter. Patterson featured this heavily in his 1966 book and there are many skeptics like myself who feel that the story was a template for a hoax by Patterson. Ivan T. Sanderson's articles in late '59 and early '60 were what got Patterson into Bigfoot, and it was in these articles that the encounter story of Roe and an illustration of it by artist Morton Kunstler (which he copied and presented in his book as his own) were presented.

It's just an interesting idea to me, and no one need take it up who is not genuinely interested. I have no interest in making anyone jump through hoops unnecessarily. Finding a Bigfoot body is a necessary hoop for Bigfoot proponents, but this is not.

Roger was so taken by the William Roe account that he yoinked Kunstler's depiction of it and put it in his book. The PGF plays out as if the William Roe encounter was its script and it a re-enactment. We have a thread on the subject of the extreme closeness of the encounters and descriptions here...

My breakdown of it is here...

/page__view__findpost__p__22640

Roger Patterson's keen interest in the William Roe encounter and his yoink of Kunstler's depiction of it is not non sequitur when someone here points to his account. There is a very good reason why they are so nearly exact. If you don't think they are so close to each other, we can certainly discuss it either there or here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Because I would have nothing to contribute since I don't think Roger Patterson was evil.

I am not Greg Long, Art. Please feel free to attack my argument and not me. I think and have written countless times that I don't think Roger was evil or should he be two-dimensionally villainized as Long did. He had all sorts of factors in his life that I have not had to personally deal with. I do not have cancer and I am not poor with a wife and three children to look after. I can be understanding of why Patterson would be motivated to do a hoax. Roger had both good and bad elements to his personality. Welcome to humanity.

This analysis of yours sounds rather harsh, regarding Roger's intentions/character....

"Roger walks out of Sheppard's Camera on the 13th of May. He's given him a bad cheque and he won't be dealing with that again till he gets charged for grand larceny in December.

See, Roger's logic is that he'll sail back into town and everything will be cool. He'll throw some of that $75,000 that Al gave him immediately after the film came out.

I don't think he expected to get arrested. He walked the line like that all the time.

So he walks into Vilma's on the 25th of May and does the pitch. He tells her he is going to film a Bigfoot in Bluff Creek and that he needs the dough for a camera. But he's got that camera and he's already not looking back about it. Now, he tells Vilma that he's going to go with a friend, whom she later assumes to be Gimlin. But no, it wasn't Gimlin. He went down with Jerry. Jerry decades later specifically remembered that Roger had scored the $700. Now, what is Roger heading down there for? What's down there? Nothing but Ray and his stompers. He started Bigfoot there in 1958. There is nothing before that there.

So Roger and Jerry have to go down to Hollywood and on the way, I think they have to set up the first part of the hoax - the tracks that would be their later impetus for going down. I think they hooked up with Ray on the way down and worked out doing the tracks, possibly together using Ray's stompers and some of Roger's casts to make it look like a group of individuals, like a family.

Remember, I've already shown you those tracks and they have different sizes and shapes. I think at least two sets are Wallace's. The other one I think may have been an addition by Roger. Maybe not. The only thing I am sure of is that there were two big sets of Wallace stompers used, with another smaller one that didn't look quite like his usual stuff."

How many of those specific characterizations/connections can you provide 'outside sources of confirmation' for, kit?

Link to thread

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

How about that guy up in Canada out chopping wood with a sighting that lasted for quite a while. He had a drawing....

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/01/08/16810596.html

... the radio interview is here...

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/sunspeaks/laurie_mustard/2011/01/07/16805241.html

His drawing does not match the look of Patty at all. His drawing features a higher set head, a very rounded head, nearly identical to the look of a person's outline. The arms are not long, they reach barely to the crotch, and in no way (other than the shaggy outline) look like anything other than a person. Like has already been stated, Patty has a massive butt. Who else reports a massive butt? That's one of her most central features, where does that show up in other reports?

Patty seems to have broad shoulders, but not particularly square shoulders. Her shoulders seem to droop somewhat more than people's shoulders do, which could mean huge trapezius muscles attached high on the neck, or it could indicate shoulder padding on a suit. Where is this characteristic slumping shoulder look on other hoaxes, other suspected real photos, or on other reports? Patty's humped and sloping shoulders is also an iconic feature she bears, so where is that look in any other report or image. The drawings made by eyewitnesses, or made from their descriptions, where are the sloping shoulders? Wide for sure, but I think most images I ever see have wide and square shoulders, not wide and sloping, ******* shoulders.

Descriptions are one thing, but images made form descriptions are yet another. A barrel chest is what? Barrel shaped. Like as thick from front to back as from side to side. Protruding hugely in front. As I mentioned elsewhere, most images tend to portray sasquatches as more heroically shaped, with broad, square shoulders, slim tapering waist, buffed out arms, and so on. But minus the barrel shaped torso, without the barrel shaped mid section. Patty clearly has a thick torso from front to back, which might be considered realistic for an apish creature eating a varied and crude diet. But it also lends credence to the suit theory where there is a lot of torso padding that not only expands the width of the body, but also the depth of it, like a thick pad of foam wrapped around the body to increase the appearance of bulk, leaving that curiously vast prairie of side flesh between the armpit and hipbone. No lats showing, no serratus showing, no detail or contour there at all, just a big blunt area of flesh or foam. Photos of gorillas show lats, show muscles defined. This is a critical area for a fit, wild creature, and yet there's no definition there. Other reports, or drawings form reports, show wide shoulders and the appearance of lats. Perhaps stylized, perhaps embellished, who knows. But where are the reports like Patty?

The standard descriptors aside, those such as broad, muscular, strong, and so on and so on, do not adequately describe Patty, and the descriptors that describe Patty are typically missing from other reports, and other videos as well. Big, thick butt, protruding out the back like a serious badonka butt, minus the jiggling. Where's the butt? Patty had one, shouldn't they all? Or at least some of them? Patty has a pointed head, but not the same sort of point that Jack Link has, nor Harry Henderson. Pointed to the rear, with a flattened slope from the brow to the peak at the rear. Where's that in other reports? Patty has a distinct lack of hair on her head, her head seems to have no more hair length to it than the rest of her body, fairly short hair on her head. Yet most other reports suggest theirs have big, shaggy manes of hair, long rocker or hippy hair, often covering the face so the face is conveniently not able to be seen. Can't verify details if there is a shaggy head of hair covering everything up. Also, Patty does not seem particularly buffed out, not a lot of definition of shoulder muscles, arm muscles, back muscles and so on. Kind of like how a normal person might look, not particularly fit, sporting some extra fat weight covering and smoothing all details. Big, bulky, yes, but showing a lot of muscles, no. Showing muscular development worthy of bulging? Nope. Patty does not show distinctive delts either, so the ones people see that sport rounded, pumped deltoids do not resemble her very much.

I have always been troubled by the uniqueness of the image of Patty as compared to the images other people draw for encounters. They don't look like her. Sexual dimorphism? Bah, humbug. Maybe Patty is simply not the same thing that other people are saying they see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

Reports of males outnumber females almost 40 to 1 . Patty is definately not what most people are seeing .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I burrowed this from Dale Drinnons blog,just in case you missed it in the CFZ feed.

Below is a Pre-Film drawing of a female Sasquatch after Ostman's account compared to the film Patty. Patty is like the traditional Sasquatch of the older reports, only now we have a more precise view of what those reports were describing.

post-3077-073450400 1327945714_thumb.jpg

Edited by JohnC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

... I guess I'm kind of tired of the same old wars being waged, and re-waged on here- ...

Just seen it all so many times now, its too much of a repeating cycle for me.

Isn't that the nature of the bigfoot subject? What, 44 years now and still counting? The old arguments are really the basis for most discussion, since after all these years there are still no specimens, no better images or film or video. There are new stories, new reports, new theories to describe an old argument. But still no resolution because there is no specimen.

Asking questions about different aspects of an old subject may or may not shed a new light on things. Won't bring in a specimen, for sure, but it might shed some light on the big mystery.

Personally, focusing on the breasts primarily is what some might want to do, but a quick look at Patty reveals a basic shape, outline, proportion, that has not really been matched by most reports or drawings, regardless of whether breasts were seen or not. The butt is a hard to miss feature; it's there, it stands out, it sticks out, it does what it does and doesn't do what some think it should. I think two hoaxes have incorporated the butt feature into their costumes as far as I have seen, but where is it in others? Where's the gorilla-like short head hair? Why do some people stand so firmly on the ape appearance and ape lineage while others stand equally as firmly on the human appearance and human lineage side? More sexual dimorphism? Big males look like Olympic swimming, rocker haired ape-men, while females look like boxy butt, clean cut human women?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Isn't that the nature of the bigfoot subject?

That's not the nature of 'Patty'. New details have recently been found...and more are on the way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

That's not the nature of 'Patty'. New details have recently been found...and more are on the way...

Is this supposed to be some sort of teaser? By new details, are you referring to more animations describing vague, ambiguous blobs? Or are you referring to something more tangible, something with a higher level of legitimacy? Certainly you are not referring to details about "reports matching the Pgf?" The topic is about reports matching the PGF, so are you talking about this topic or something else altogether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Is this supposed to be some sort of teaser? By new details, are you referring to more......(snip!)...

It's the truth. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sweaty your not referring to some secrete evidence you will release in your own good time are you? Will it rock the PGF world and forever change our views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

Hi Folks,

After days of reading, re-reading, and un-reading many posts by a variety of colorful people, I would like to offer the following:

1) I think perhaps that the question posted has some interesting roadblocks. Imagine if there was an undiscovered tribe living in the jungles. Intelligent, yet primitive. Explorers, hunters, hikers, etc have caught fleeting glimpses of them as they fled. Then someone with a video camera records one. In the meantime, other people are seeing these tribesfolk, coming up with varied descriptions of height, weight, build, etc. To assume "they all look alike" may be innacurate and could lend a result that indeed, gives creedence to reports describing a being that does not look the same.

2) I would also like to say that I had viewed the PGF film dozens of times and didn't notice the breasts until they were pointed out. Could be my observation abilities are less than average, but FWIW, they went unnoticed by me.

3) I think we also need to consider, based on evaluation of the film by Mr. Munns, that, if indeed Patty is an older Sasquatch (perhaps slightly crippled) there may be body/physique attributes that are not found in the majority (younger) population. So she doesn't appear to be as muscular as some descriptions, we don't understand their social structure, perhaps older Sasquatch are revered and taken care of as an 'elder' - something that would require less hunting/running, thus leading to a more 'unfit' look.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Hi Folks,

After days of reading, re-reading, and un-reading many posts by a variety of colorful people, I would like to offer the following:

1) I think perhaps that the question posted has some interesting roadblocks. Imagine if there was an undiscovered tribe living in the jungles. Intelligent, yet primitive. Explorers, hunters, hikers, etc have caught fleeting glimpses of them as they fled. Then someone with a video camera records one. In the meantime, other people are seeing these tribesfolk, coming up with varied descriptions of height, weight, build, etc. To assume "they all look alike" may be innacurate and could lend a result that indeed, gives creedence to reports describing a being that does not look the same.

2) I would also like to say that I had viewed the PGF film dozens of times and didn't notice the breasts until they were pointed out. Could be my observation abilities are less than average, but FWIW, they went unnoticed by me.

3) I think we also need to consider, based on evaluation of the film by Mr. Munns, that, if indeed Patty is an older Sasquatch (perhaps slightly crippled) there may be body/physique attributes that are not found in the majority (younger) population. So she doesn't appear to be as muscular as some descriptions, we don't understand their social structure, perhaps older Sasquatch are revered and taken care of as an 'elder' - something that would require less hunting/running, thus leading to a more 'unfit' look.

Thank you.

Good speculation. Those are good and intriguing ideas. Problem is, I have asked myself those same questions, which then lead me to ask questions to test those ideas, and the debate internally begins. Sam,e thing happens here. One idea is presented, like perhaps Patty is elderly, and that conflicts with not simply skeptics, but other proponents ideas. Every idea posted gets examined, and tested by other people's questions, which might lead to arguments. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ethnocentrism rears its ugly head regularly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...