Jump to content

Roger Patterson: The Good & The Bad.


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Out of respect of the memorial thread, I am making a thread devoted to looking at both the positive and negative things Roger Patterson did in his life and continuing the OT discussion from there...

Since when did suspicions about copying inventions become "the truth"?

To be clear, I wasn't discussing Roger copying any inventions. Roger was an inventor that tended to take the ideas of others and put them in different applications. His Prop Lok was based on Floyd Paxton's Kwik Lok. His stick and hoop toy was from the hulahoop. What he also did is often take credit for the work of others, artists, inventors, etc. Hence John Green recounting Roger taking credit for the invention of the plastic bread bag clip when Rene and he visited him in Feb 1967. I don't think John misremembered that or made it up. It's very much the kind of person Roger was. He did good things and he did bad things as I mentioned earlier...

I'm one of the people that acknowledges both the good and the bad things Roger did, because I feel to do otherwise is to deny the truth. Roger was indeed a gifted individual and charismatic. He also swindled people and yoinked the work of others which he claimed as his own. He was faced with a disease that was taking his life and he had three children and a wife and pressures that most of us thankfully do not face. He had a all encompassing desire to strike it rich. He also was taken by the desire to prove to the world Bigfoot exists and produced a film that made him his riches at a place he never returned to, regardless of his film not being accepted by the scientific establishment.

Roger, like the rest of the world, was a person painted in shades of grey. He certainly did leave something behind that we can all agree has engendered much discussion and debate.

Here are some of the cool/notable things Roger did...

His Bigfootmobile...

39019e15.jpg

First book devoted to Bigfoot...

1032627887-766491.jpg

It was very sloppily done and he swindled Bob Swanson, Glen Koelling and others to get it out, as well as stealing copies unpaid for from Chinook Press, but he does deserve recognition for the first book devoted solely to Bigfoot. In this he was heavily inspired by Ivan Sanderson and his work on the subject, right down to the book title.

This is not the best example, but he was a gifted artist as well...

Lund-Patterson+with+Drawing.JPG

Of course we can not leave out his film, which, whether you believe it is a hoax or not, is a significant achievement in the measure of its fame or infamy, depending upon the perspective. Between Ray Wallace and Roger Patterson, the two of them can quite fairly claim to be the progenitors of mdern Bigfoot culture as we know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

I get the feeling he was looking for quick money. His motives were certainly questionable when it came to some things. But I don't believe it automatically makes him a hoaxer. The proof lies in the film itself.

Edited by OntarioSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

kitakaze wrote:

Out of respect of the memorial thread, I am making a thread devoted to looking at both the positive and negative things Roger Patterson did in his life and

I don't plan on posting anything further in this thread.....but, I have to say....given the impact Roger's Film has had across the globe....over the last 45 years.....(a.k.a...."Patty's realism").......I do not see any reason/purpose/value/virtue...in attacking Roger Patterson's character.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

To be clear, I wasn't discussing Roger copying any inventions. Roger was an inventor that tended to take the ideas of others and put them in different applications. His Prop Lok was based on Floyd Paxton's Kwik Lok. His stick and hoop toy was from the hulahoop. What he also did is often take credit for the work of others, artists, inventors, etc. Hence John Green recounting Roger taking credit for the invention of the plastic bread bag clip when Rene and he visited him in Feb 1967. I don't think John misremembered that or made it up. It's very much the kind of person Roger was. He did good things and he did bad things as I mentioned earlier...

Tangible evidence would be nice, because here you're just relaying suspicions.

Patterson knew Paxton, so it's just as plausible that Paxton tried to patent Patterson's ideas. He apparently tried to patent the bread clip multiple times but was turned down. Why? If you look into the man's background you'll see Paxton was not exactly an upstanding guy.

The stick and hoop toy predates the hulahoop- it's an ancient invention. That doesn't mean anybody had patented the idea when he thought of it. If you look at the patent dates somebody had just beaten Patterson to it by a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I do not see any reason/purpose/value/virtue...in attacking Roger Patterson's character.

This is Lord Byron...

Byron_1824.jpg

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lord_Byron

Byron is one of the most famous British poets and one of the progenitors of the Romantic movement. He wrote such poems as She Walks in Beauty and Don Juan. We all know who this is...

Bram-Stokers-Dracula-Dracula-Mina.jpg

The character of Dracula was based on Byron. You'll note a section in the wikipedia entry called "Affairs and scandals." This details things such as Byron's womanizing, adultery, abuse, as well as discussion about possible incest with his half-sister. In the section on his personal life, it begins with the fact that Byron incurred numerous debts and was described by his mother as having a "reckless disregard for money." It also notes that Byron went to the Mediterranean with the main motivation being described as looking to have liasons with another man. Abuse is immoral, adultery is immoral, incest is just wrong, and attraction to someone of the same sex is perfectly normal for many people.

Are the editors of Wikipedia immoral? Are they of poor character for reporting these things about Lord Byron? Are they character assassins?

The answer that should be understood by everyone is of course not. They are reporting the facts of someone's life and the context within which they are set. The purpose is understanding, the point is truth. We need not suffer Lord Byron supporters howling and fist-wringing over character assassination. The average poetry afficianado will understand that Byron was a complex individual with broad experiences who did amazing things as well as immoral things. They will seek to understand Byron wholely, not just in the lens of fawning over the good things he did while ignoring the bad or the crazy things he did.

Roger Patterson did good things. He did bad things. He even did some pretty crazy things. He has some similarities with Lord Byron though some might think an English aristocrat and American cowboy-type could not be more different. They both had great creative skill; both had flagrant disregard for money which affected greatly their lives; they were both thought of by people close to them to be womanizers; they both were said to have very volatile tempers.

The point is that acknowledging the whole, the good, the bad, all of it is right and normal. It's not immoral because the man is not alive. That's nonsense. A person will never have a full understanding of Roger Patterson and the things he did if one chooses to ignore the bad and the questionable things he did. Greg Long greatly failed in being able to understand Roger Patterson and his motivations because in his intolerant secular world view, he was looking only for bad things to villify Patterson with. This is how intransigent believers behave when people acknowledge the bad things Roger did. They label people who acknowledge these things as being of bad character themselves and being character assassins. It's the sort of thinking that produces things like these...

sylvia-browne.jpgGimlinJustSayKnow-737143.jpg

Is acknowledging the bad or questionable things a person has done along with the good character assassination or immoral? No. It's called being fair.

Welcome outside of Bigfootery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Are the editors of Wikipedia immoral? Are they of poor character for reporting these things about Lord Byron? Are they character assassins?

Do they have an agenda? Are they creating a documentary? No, but you are.

Wikipedia isn't out to plug a juicy story. It's like comparing an encyclopedia to a tabloid.

BTW- How many times are you going to post that Gimlim pic?

Edited by roguefooter
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Do they have an agenda?

Yes, same as me - the truth.

Are they creating a documentary?

That thing where you document factual events?

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Okay then, show us the truth behind these claims of yours:

-Patterson's Prop Lok was based on Floyd Paxton's Kwik Lok.

-His stick and hoop toy was from the hulahoop.

-He stole the bread bag clip idea from Paxton.

These are your claims of "the truth"- yet they're nothing more than speculation. If this is the kind of journalism that your documentary is based on then it's a far cry from "documenting factual events".

Hence John Green recounting Roger taking credit for the invention of the plastic bread bag clip when Rene and he visited him in Feb 1967.

Paxton filed for his patent on April 10, 1967- 2 months AFTER Patterson made the claim to Green and Rene. So you tell me- who stole from who?

http://www.google.co...tents/US3417912

Prop Lok was based on Floyd Paxton's Kwik Lok.

Patterson had 'Prop Lok' on his van in 1967, yet Paxton didn't trademark 'Kwik Lok' until 1969-

http://trademarks.ju...k-73108350.html

So again I ask you Kit, who stole from who?

Edited by roguefooter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

It very well could be that Patterson invented the Prop Lok, then Paxton saw an obvious connection to use the invention for bread bagging. If the invention or trademark doesn't broadly apply to all possible uses of the structure then the patent or trademark can be very narrow. Paxton made out with the Kwik Lok in a big market, Patterson had a small market by comparison. I've seen many an inventor get all excited about an invention without having a clue how much money can be made. They fail because they don't understand economies of scale. If you can sell millions of something you can make a lot more money than if you can only sell hundreds or thousands of something, especially when the cost of building molds etc for manufacturing are factored into the equation.

Thus Patterson can very well in this scenario claim to have invented the bread clip, if Paxton "borrowed" the idea from his Prop Lok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Patterson could have also bartered his invention with Paxton for helping with his book.

As Kit posted in another thread:

Swanson had originally come to his friend Paxton to seek advice what to do about Patterson's delinquency in pay his bill for the pressing of his book. Paxton vouched for Patterson. Patterson convinced Paxton to spend $850 to put an ad for Patterson's book in the magazine Boy's Life. Paxton in turn convinced Swanson to pay for promotion of Patterson's book. Swanson used cover art from Patterson's book and his typesetting machine to create an ad for Patterson, gratis.)

Paxton helped Patterson out with money. Paxton vouched for Patterson and tells Swanson to help him out. Paxton then has a brand new patent and trademark for what Patterson said he invented. Sounds pretty plausible to me and the likely scenario.

According to Kit: Patterson copied an invention prior to any record of Paxton inventing it? Patterson copied a company name that hadn't even existed yet? Kit calls this scenario "the truth". If it's the truth then there should be something tangible to back it up.

I'll gladly concede if he provides evidence to show that Patterson made a false claim about his invention and swiped a company name, but so far the evidence doesn't suggest that at all.

In relevance to this thread, we'll call the smear campaign against Patterson "The Ugly".

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BFSleuth

The OP staked a claim that Patterson is Bad because he "stole" inventions and "swindled" people to publish his book. Now it seems the OP itself is questionable for firing away without the facts. Thanks to the efforts of roguefooter we can see that the relationships of Patterson, Paxton, Swanson, etc. were friendly and cooperative. Bartering was likely part of the story and certainly time lines can be established with the inventions.

Not much mud here folks, move along. The wall looks pretty clean.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Darrell

No matter what you think about Roger Patterson, or his film, he did leave a mark on this phenomena and on general pop culture. So good for him! But he was only a man, and a flawed one at that, and you cant put so much faith in a flawed man as to elevate them to deification. I think its well documented Patterson would blur the lines of right and wrong for a buck and he did so on many occasions. Did he do that with his film? I have my opinions and others have theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

Your post #5, "This is how intransigent believers behave when people acknowledge the bad things Roger did. They label people..."

Really...again...still...

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...