Jump to content
Guest Kerchak

Is It Really Almost Identical To The William Roe Encounter?

Recommended Posts

Guest Kerchak

I read Crows comments and I read kitakaze's and even though kit makes a frikken mess out of his answers I don't think his intent was to say that Patterson was making an exact replication of the Roe account.

I started off this thread by saying I have heard plenty of talk that the Patterson and Roe encounters were 'almost' identical and 'almost' carbon copy. I made no claim that anyone said they were 'exactly' the same.

The facts are they aren't even 'almost' identical. Far from it.

I think he made that quite clear dispute that goofy quote.

In his post he says Patterson places it in a set up just like Roes (not true) and that Patterson describes it near verbatim (not true).

There are other similar claims and accusations elsewhere and no I'm not going looking for them again.

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, right or wrong. Isn't that right?

Well you aren't entitled to say I started this thread to rip apart a specific quote or that I started this thread to bash a certain member. I mentioned no members and no specific quotes when I started this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man

I read Crows comments and I read kitakaze's and even though kit makes a frikken mess out of his answers I don't think his intent was to say that Patterson was making an exact replication of the Roe account. I think he made that quite clear dispite that goofy quote.

Maybe he makes his statements ambiguous enough to cause confusion, but that's the way I read it. That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, right or wrong. Isn't that right?

When someone says "He describes it near verbatim as Roe and he places it in a setup just like Roe's story. Trust me, Crow. I know what I'm talking about." you should probably take that as literal. I know, and you know, that his post are a freken' mess, but capping on someone else for calling kitakaze out for his own mess doesn't suit you. Blackdogs have teeth when needed, but this an't that situation....

Edited by HairyMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

......... I am very glad you started the thread because it is a great comparison. Roe and Patterson are not at all similar, and that is a great point to make. Thank you!

The similarity seems to be the female sasquatch, though Roe says his was 6ft tall with a head like a -you-know-what (can't even write the word here) and Patterson seems to think his female was taller and the head is different. Also the other thing would be the sasquatch walking away and looking back. Beyond that though the two encounters are very very different.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man

They are clearly different stories - other than them both being female. What is that? 50-50 chance? There has to be females in order to have a breeding population. So I'm not getting it? What are the comparisons on the scientific level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

A female...walking away after discovering a human encroaching on her territory.......and looking back. Sounds like perfectly acceptable and normal animal behaviour to me and nothing 'suspicious' even though it was similar (though not identical) behaviour being observed in two different encounters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blackdog

When someone says "He describes it near verbatim as Roe and he places it in a setup just like Roe's story. Trust me, Crow. I know what I'm talking about." you should probably take that as literal. I know, and you know, that his post are a freken' mess, but capping on someone else for calling kitakaze out for his own mess doesn't suit you. Blackdogs have teeth when needed, but this an't that situation....

I assume you'll let me know what suits me and when my opinion is welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

So Black Dog. Do you agree that the actual encounters/set ups etc are quite disimilar in the Roe and Patterson sightings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

When Patterson made his film there were very few apparently solid eyewitness accounts of a yeti like ape in North America. John Green and Ivan Sanderson were the first to popularize the idea of an American Abominable Snowman and they both relied heavily on three accounts they investigated: the Ruby Creek Incident, the Roe account, and the story told by Ostman. Anyone interested in the Bigfoot phenomena in the late 50's and 60's would have been well versed in these accounts, especially because the reports were given legitimacy by a journalist and a well known writer and zoologist.

The question is: IF the Patterson film was a deliberate hoax created and planned by Roger, where did he get his ideas concerning the look and behavior of his Bigfoot? Patterson was a believer and he believed the Roe account was factual.

Unlike the more sensational Ostman story, Roe's statement was mundane seeming, unadorned, and not on its face too fantastic (if you believed in Bigfoot/sasquatch). Also, unlike some reports, Roe apparently had a long, hard look at the animal and he was obviously observant.

In this context, we can see how some folks have come to the (necessarily provisional) conclusion that Patterson patterned his film subject after Roe's sasquatch, because Roger obviously believed Roe had observed the real thing and would be the perfect model. Roe famously gave (or observed) his sasquatch's human-like female breast, even though nothing like this had been suggested in yeti accounts. Roger copied this feature, perhaps, because it seemed to give a confirming attribute to the film subject, and making Bigfoot a female gave cover to a smaller, doable film subject. Patterson also presented a GENERALIZED scenario cribbed from the Roe story, including the hurried but not concerned flight of the animal, as well as the almost casual look back (now iconic).

However, since this was a real world hoax, the argument goes, Patterson did not or could not exactly replicate the Roe encounter as presented on the page. In Roe's story and sketch, we do not find a somewhat stooped, bent kneed sasquatch. Roe's was an upright, "straight" standing sasquatch. In Patterson's Bigfoot, this stooped, bent legged gait seems to have been inspired more by the True Magazine artist's INTERPRETATION of the Roe story instead of the "real" account itself.

Also, the prominent saggital crest, like that found on male gorillas, is on display in the Patterson film while reduced in the Roe sketch. Could this feature of the film Bigfoot be explained by Patterson building his Bigfoot with a gorilla costume foundation? Roe's sketch presents a sasquatch feature that would be almost impossible to duplicate in a recreation based on an ape suit: Roe's bipedal ape-woman had arms that reached to her knees. Patterson's "Patty" has far shorter arms. Roe wrote that his mysterious animal had feet that were broader in front and more narrow in heel. Patterson's Bigfoot had feet that matched the Bigfoot tracks found in the area, with its distinctive broad, rounded heel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Or, Roger filmed a real Sasquatch. I never understood the argument that because it resembles other reported Bigfoot, it must be a hoax. Just the opposite makes a lot more sense to me. Female apes can, and often do, have pronounced Sagittal crests:

post-131-024414900 1290665106_thumb.jpg

post-131-085640500 1290665140_thumb.jpg

And, since the size of their breasts is likely to vary significantly, I don't understand that argument either. : B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Or, Roger filmed a real Sasquatch. I never understood the argument that because it resembles other reported Bigfoot, it must be a hoax.

Me neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Please understand my point. The similarities between the Roe account and the Patterson film do not necessarily force us to conclude the P. film was a hoax. However, if we have other grounds to suspect a hoax then the Roe story is suggestive as the probable template on which Patterson built his hoax. (The presumed reasoning for Roger is straightforward: if he could recreate a "real" Bigfoot, based on the Roe description, then his hoax would at least convince others who also believed Roe's account was factual).

Of course there are the possibilities that the Roe account was also a hoax or that Roe and Patterson both encountered the same type of animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

morriscostume.jpg

Here is the Morris costume compared to the Patterson Bigfoot. While there are differences, there are similarities as well. To me, the "sagittal crest" of the costume looks suspiciously like the P. Bigfoot, as well as the arms.

My point about the crest is that it seems more pronounced than in the Roe sketch or in Patterson's drawings of Bigfoot based on other eyewitness accounts and that it may betray its origin as a gorilla suit, modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

You're basically just taking a broad assumption and trying to build something tangible around it. You can pretty much do the same with any two encounters given you have enough information.

MK Davis did the same with linking the PG incident and the Blue Creek Mountain expedition together for his massacre story. If you have enough details and a good imagination then linking them together isn't that hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Please understand my point. The similarities between the Roe account and the Patterson film do not necessarily force us to conclude the P. film was a hoax.

Escpecially when there are far more disimilarities than similarities. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

and making Bigfoot a female gave cover to a smaller, doable film subject.

Unless of course you believe the hoax claim by others which includes Patterson being a serial hoaxer and also behind the 'bigfoot hoaxes' around the Yakima and Richland areas in 1966. By consensus that was a tall 7ft to 8ft grey-white creature so if Patterson was behind that then he already had a tall 7ft to 8ft man well used to running around in a bigfoot costume so why not use the same extremely tall man instead of the much smaller inexperienced Bob H?

However, since this was a real world hoax, the argument goes, Patterson did not or could not exactly replicate the Roe encounter as presented on the page. In Roe's story and sketch, we do not find a somewhat stooped, bent kneed sasquatch. Roe's was an upright, "straight" standing sasquatch. In Patterson's Bigfoot, this stooped, bent legged gait seems to have been inspired more by the True Magazine artist's INTERPRETATION of the Roe story instead of the "real" account itself.

Keep in mind that Roe saw the creature once and didn't have the benefit of repeat viewings. Even most people who view the PGF aren't aware of any major differences between a normal human walk and the bent legged stooped over mode of locomotion that Patty uses until they watch it again and again. It's not readily apparant right away on one viewing. Patterson didn't make any special mention of the strange gait on his creature when he spoke to the newspaper guy that same day as far as I know.

Also, the prominent saggital crest, like that found on male gorillas, is on display in the Patterson film while reduced in the Roe sketch. Could this feature of the film Bigfoot be explained by Patterson building his Bigfoot with a gorilla costume foundation? Roe's sketch presents a sasquatch feature that would be almost impossible to duplicate in a recreation based on an ape suit

Or Patty is just bigger and heavier than Roe's creature (he said it was 6ft) and thus has the saggital crest that some big female gorillas have, as xspider has shown. The saggital crest is a result of size not gender or so I believe.

Roe's bipedal ape-woman had arms that reached to her knees. Patterson's "Patty" has far shorter arms.

Yes Roe did say that. On the other hand Roger Patterson also said Patty had arms almost down to her knees even though she didn't. Her arms do look very long.

Roe wrote that his mysterious animal had feet that were broader in front and more narrow in heel. Patterson's Bigfoot had feet that matched the Bigfoot tracks found in the area, with its distinctive broad, rounded heel.

I would say Patty's foot is also broad and the front and more narrow in the heel. Her foot is definitely not the same width at the heel as at the front. I don't think Roe said his creature's heel was pointy, just much narrower in the heel than the front of the foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...