Jump to content
Guest Kerchak

Is It Really Almost Identical To The William Roe Encounter?

Recommended Posts

xspider1

...To me, the "sagittal crest" of the costume looks suspiciously like the P. Bigfoot, as well as the arms...

I understand what you are saying but, I just have to disagree on that. The arms of the PGF subject have always been a 'wow' factor for me. They are 'scary' real. I honestly see no comparison between those arms and the arms of ANY costume I have ever seen. I might consider arm wrestling many of the mimes that have appeared in Ape suits over the years but, no way in heck would I EVER arm wrestle Patty!

It really seems like the differences (and similarities) we are talking about between the PGF subject and other notable reports are exactly the kinds of differences that exist among other real world animals. Just sayin' :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In "Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?", written and illustrated by Roger Patterson, there are about 18 hand drawn images of Bigfoot inside it. 5 of them are too indistinct to tell if they are male or female. 8 are male and 6 are female. Only the female ones have what looks like a sagittal crest. The one image detractors take note of is found on page 91, illustrated for the William Roe incident, but another image on page 9 shows a male in a very similar stance and drawing style.

IMHO, The PG film subject and the Roe illustration have only a cursory similarity. The drawing shows a creature of less bulk, a very distinct hairless hand, hardly any gluteus maximus, hanging breasts and more of an ape-like facial profile. What is similar is the downed long in the foreground, the wooded scene it is in and the splay of the legs and outward swing of the arms.

So Patterson illustrated his book more with male Bigfoot than female, and of those female images, most were older looking, with a misshapen head. So why would he choose to emulate Roe's description over the others? He would have had to add even more problematic details to a suit (crest and breasts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

damndirtyape,

Patterson would choose the Roe account to build his film scenario and creature design for the simple reason that Roe had signed an affidavit attesting to the truthfulness of his report. In fact, Roe's account IS his signed affidavit. As I previously noted, Roe's account was unadorned and seemed very naturalistic. Also, if you were a Bigfoot enthusiast in the day, Roe's sober account was THE account that gave the whole sasquatch business needed credibility.

(The Ostman story seemed like a tall tale; the Ruby Creek incident involved native Americans, seen back then as perhaps too influenced by superstition; Roe was both white and apparently levelheaded).

Perhaps I have a different edition of Patterson's book, because your page numbers do not match up. Interestingly, you argue that two images drawn by Patterson give Bigfoot a stooped posture. If you are referring to Roger's illustration of the Kerr-Breazele encounter (page 19 in my edition), it should be noted that this is Patterson's rendering of a previously published artist's interpretation accompanying an article by Ivan Sanderson (just like the Roe picture in Patterson's book). This is suggestive, but of course does not prove, that Patterson may have incorporated the imagination of artists in his hoaxed encounter (if it IS a hoax) and not relied solely on "real" Bigfoot encounters.

roguefooter,

Actually, linking Patterson's Bigfoot to Roe's sasquatch is not original with me or Kit. It's not based on our imagination. We know Patterson was very well aware of the Roe account. The Roe account was impressive and straightforward. We know both encounters had similar features. You may say those similarities are due to actual encounters with Bigfoot if you take them at face value ; I might suggest the similarities are by design, if I am deconstructing the Patterson film as a hoax.

Suggesting that deconstructing the film along this line of reasoning is on par with M.K. Davis flights of fancy is an erroneous assumption, I think. (My own thoughts concerning Davis' claims: since he has no evidence for a "massacre", I'm thinking he must have been told by someone who claims to know of this alleged event, and Davis is trying to find clues in the P. film that confirm the story).

Kerchak,

The dissimilar elements you initially posted are a too literal rebuttal to taken too literally comments by Kit. Connecting Patterson's version of Bigfoot, via his film, to Roe's report need not imply every aspect of the two encounters mirror each other. What is actually argued here, as I've stated previously, is that if we want to consider the P. film a hoax (and, like it or not, the hoax hypothesis is a live option), then we may consider where Patterson got his ideas about how a Bigfoot would look and behave. If we look at it from this point of view, the Roe encounter and an artist rendering of the Roe account have marked similarities to what Patterson put on film.

The stern resistance here to the suggested link between Patterson's Bigfoot (if a hoax) and Roe's account seem to rest on two assumptions: 1. The Roe account appears to be just another sighting report and its importance to the early days of Bigfootery is ignored, forgotten or never known to begin with; 2. it is illegitimate to even consider the Patterson film a hoax, so any proposed deconstruction along those lines for the sake of argument must be illegitimate on its face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Kerchak,

The dissimilar elements you initially posted are a too literal rebuttal to taken too literally comments by Kit.

I can't take them any other way. The claim was made that the two encounters are almost identical. As I have shown, that most certainly is not the case beyond the fact that both encounters featured female sasquatches so it's quite wrong to claim as if it were a fact. It isn't.

Connecting Patterson's version of Bigfoot, via his film, to Roe's report need not imply every aspect of the two encounters mirror each other.

Yes but this particular thread is about refuting the claim that the two encounters are almost identical and not that they share 'nothing' in common.

Patterson did not describe his encounter 'near verbatim' to Roe's and the set up was not 'just like Roes'. There are vast vast differences between the two encounters, which I have very clearly pointed out.

What is actually argued here, as I've stated previously, is that if we want to consider the P. film a hoax (and, like it or not, the hoax hypothesis is a live option), then we may consider where Patterson got his ideas about how a Bigfoot would look and behave.

Which is completely different to claiming they are almost identical/near verbatim etc.

The stern resistance here to the suggested link between Patterson's Bigfoot

There is no resistance from me to a 'link'. Just resistance to the claim that they are near identical/near verbatim.

I think you are disagreeing with something that I'm not even arguing. I've even poined out some of the similarities myself. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

roguefooter,

Actually, linking Patterson's Bigfoot to Roe's sasquatch is not original with me or Kit. It's not based on our imagination. We know Patterson was very well aware of the Roe account. The Roe account was impressive and straightforward. We know both encounters had similar features. You may say those similarities are due to actual encounters with Bigfoot if you take them at face value ; I might suggest the similarities are by design, if I am deconstructing the Patterson film as a hoax.

Suggesting that deconstructing the film along this line of reasoning is on par with M.K. Davis flights of fancy is an erroneous assumption, I think. (My own thoughts concerning Davis' claims: since he has no evidence for a "massacre", I'm thinking he must have been told by someone who claims to know of this alleged event, and Davis is trying to find clues in the P. film that confirm the story).

The PG account and the Blue Creek Mountain account both had similar connections like being in the Bluff area, the people involved knew each other, and guns were involved- but it doesn't say anything about them being linked by a massacre. Just like any connections between the PG and Roe accounts doesn't say anything at all about any hoax or patterning of one. This is where your imagination kicks in to fill in the blanks.

The same can be done with just about any combination of events given you have enough details.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was looking at a reproduction of the book. I could have looked in the original book but it is very delicate. Page numbers may be different.

Maybe someone should make a time line for the subject. Haven't really seen one yet. It would show what information was available before the film was made. It would show that the PG film was pivotal and escalated reported sightings and track finds. Of course it could be argued for both sides of the coin; everyone venturing into the woods would now see a Bigfoot after seeing the film... or it might entice people who, in the past, questioned what they saw in the woods, to finally come forward.

Why would someone (Patterson) who is being accused of disregarding anything lawful (camera rental, loans, suit creation, etc) be worried about Roe's account having an affidavit accompany it? So did Albert Ostman's, who Patterson actually interviewed on audio tape. Seems like you should either argue with a piece of information for or against it, not both ways. Patterson is accused of doing things either criminally or on the verge of it his whole life. Yet here you think a lawful and legal piece of paper influenced the man to mimic the account for a filmed hoax. Yes, he did put a copy of the affidavit in his book, but does this mean he thought it proof in everyones eyes? Does it mean he thought everyone else who saw his film would see the similarities between the two accounts and draw the conclusion that it was real? Or that they would just look at it as more a recreation of a generic Sasquatch encounter, seeing it as being faked and kind of copied from printed accounts?

Was Patterson masterful at hoaxing and conning but thought it would go unnoticed that he copied a well known account to lend his film legitimacy?

Here lay the problem... no one here, on this board has ever actually talked with the man. The people who did get to talk with the man are not being listened too. P. Byrne, J. Green, G. Krantz, R. Dahinden, B. Titmus,. Two are still with us. Not one of them found a smoking gun. All the evidence was laid out for them. They saw the film, talked with the man, visited the area, saw and some even touched the tracks and casts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Kerchak,

Your rebuttal to Kit would make sense if you thought Kit thought the Patterson film was made in B.C., that Patterson was hiking alone, that he first thought he was looking at a bear, that he wasn't looking for a Bigfoot but just stumbled across one, that he didn't have a camera, etc., etc. Such assumptions would be entirely wrong as your rebuttal would show.

But do you really believe Kit believes such things, or was trying to convey such ideas, when he mentioned that Patterson's encounter was "almost identical" to Roe's?

You make a good point about the shape of foot described by Roe. Perhaps I got carried away recalling this interesting take on the Bigfoot/sasquatch mystery: My link

damndirtyape,

Patterson would base his hoax on Roe because he thought Roe gave a good description of a sasquatch. Roger was a believer. If he hoaxed his film, as a believer he thought that a real Bigfoot would be discovered or captured in the near future (as many advocates of the time also believed). He probably realized he best base his hoax on the real deal (Roe's sasquatch) as closely as possible in the event a real sasquatch was captured and was compared to his film subject.

Even con-men can be conned. If Patterson was dishonest, overly zealous, or desperate, this would not necessarily mitigate in him the romance of the (apparently) clean, clear honesty of the Roe affidavit.

Green requested affidavits from most of his early witnesses. However, Roe's account was publicized in an affidavit form which caused people to remember it as an affidavit. Since Patterson was not about to hoax a film including a family of sasquatch (Ostman), he relied on the solitary account of Roe's which gave a description of a sasquatch moving away from its witness. I've posted on the PGF for skeptics similarly, but also included possible tell-tale signs from the Ostman story that may have found their way into Roger's film as well (such as possible "up turned bangs" on the forehead -most advocates see a heavy, pronounced brow instead- or the heavy muscling on the back of the subject, below the neck, between the shoulders as also seen in Patterson's original sketches of the Ostman story).

All the sasquatch hunters you mentioned are/were certainly more qualified than I am. I'm simply speculating and am suggesting we keep an open mind about the spectrum of possible solutions to the bundle of mysteries known as Bigfoot phenomena.

roguefooter,

Perhaps making a reasonable inference is the same as using your imagination. Then again, maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Kerchak,

Your rebuttal to Kit would make sense if you thought Kit thought the Patterson film was made in B.C., that Patterson was hiking alone, that he first thought he was looking at a bear, that he wasn't looking for a Bigfoot but just stumbled across one, that he didn't have a camera, etc., etc. Such assumptions would be entirely wrong as your rebuttal would show.

But do you really believe Kit believes such things, or was trying to convey such ideas, when he mentioned that Patterson's encounter was "almost identical" to Roe's?

He repeatedly made sweaping satements that the enounters were almost identical/verbatim. To the casual readers not completely aware of the facts they might end up falling for his erroneous claim. This thread was an attempt to correct that.

I don't know why you are trying to defend him by the way. He is aware of this thread. He posts on this forum and is big enough to defend himself.

You make a good point about the shape of foot described by Roe. Perhaps I got carried away recalling this interesting take on the Bigfoot/sasquatch mystery: My link

Interesting. I'll read that later thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Here lay the problem... no one here, on this board has ever actually talked with the man. The people who did get to talk with the man are not being listened too. P. Byrne, J. Green, G. Krantz, R. Dahinden, B. Titmus,. Two are still with us. Not one of them found a smoking gun. All the evidence was laid out for them. They saw the film, talked with the man, visited the area, saw and some even touched the tracks and casts.

A very very excellent point DDA.

It seems pertinent that none of those above had reservations about Patterson being a hoaxer. They knew him.

How different compared to the wide ranging thoughts and opinions concerning the likes of Marx and Freeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Jerrywayne,

Further to my post I would like to point out that although there are plenty of us who are well informed/well versed in the sasquatch classics (especially us older farts) there are plenty of others who aren't and not everyone knows the ins and outs or can memorize the narrative of things like the Roe encounter off by heart. Hence this thread is performing a service in pointing out that just because somebody claims the PGF encounter is almost identical/near verbatim to the Roe encounter, and thus possibly persuading those with limited knowledge of the Roe encounter to accept that claim, it doesn't make it a fact........especially after the many vast differences of both 'set ups' and the actual encounters themselves are highlighted. I would say the set ups and the actual encounters are very very different to each other despite involving the same species of animal. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A very very excellent point DDA.

It seems pertinent that none of those above had reservations about Patterson being a hoaxer. They knew him.

How different compared to the wide ranging thoughts and opinions concerning the likes of Marx and Freeman.

Kerchak, you say they knew him but did they? Of the many books I have read that include references to the PGF or any shows on the subject I never saw/read anything about any of these men really defending Patterson. Certainly all of these men, Green, Byrne, Dahinden and Krantz thought the film was genuine but it was not because of Patterson's character. I do not believe any of these men knew him all that well with perhaps the exception of Dahinden.

If I am wrong any additional info would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Kerchak, you say they knew him but did they? Of the many books I have read that include references to the PGF or any shows on the subject I never saw/read anything about any of these men really defending Patterson. Certainly all of these men, Green, Byrne, Dahinden and Krantz thought the film was genuine but it was not because of Patterson's character. I do not believe any of these men knew him all that well with perhaps the exception of Dahinden.

If I am wrong any additional info would be appreciated.

Thickfoot,

John Green knew Patterson reasonably well. Green knew him prior to the PGF. Green first met Roger in 1965. Krantz knew him also, as did Titmus. Titmus was there with Green and Dahinden when the footage was shown.

I'm not sure to what extent Byrne knew him but for sure Green, Dahinden, Titmus and Krantz all knew him personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I still question how well Green knew him. Yes they met in '65 but did they see each other on any kind of regular basis? Based on what I have read it did not seem they were much more than acquaitances. I guess what I am saying is I would like to have heard any of these say to the effect.."I don't think Roger would have hoaxed this and these are the reasons why..."

Though Krantz said it to some degree but I don't think he spent too much time with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Roe story...

I could just see the top of the animal's head and the top of one shoulder. A moment later it raised up and stepped out into the opening. Then I saw that it was not a bear.

This, to the best of my recollection, is what the creature looked like and how it acted as it came across the clearing directly towards me. My first impression was of a huge man, about six feet tall, almost three feet wide and probably weighing somewhere near 300 pounds. It was covered from head to foot with dark brown, silver-tipped hair. But as it came closer I saw by its breasts that it was a female.

And yet, its torso was not curved like a female's. Its broad frame was straight from shoulder to hip. Its arms were much thicker than a man's arms, and longer, reaching almost to its knees. Its feet were broader proportionately than a man's, about five inches wide at the front and tapering to much thinner heels. When it walked it placed the heel of its foot down first, and I could see the grey-brown skin or hide on the soles of its feet.

The shape of this creature's head some-what resembled a *****'s. The head was higher at the back than at the front. The nose was broad and flat. The lips and chin protruded farther than its nose. But the hair that covered it, leaving bare only the parts of the face around the mouth, nose and ears, made it resemble an animal as much as a human. None of its hair, even on the back of its head, was longer than an inch, and that on its face was much shorter. Its ears were shaped like a human's ears. But its eyes were small and black like a bear's. And its neck was unhuman. Thicker and shorter than any man as I had ever seen.
Finally, the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through on opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.

http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/william_roe.html

Patterson story (One of them - the first one)...

Patterson said the creature stood upright the entire time, reaching a height of about six and a half to seven feet and an estimated weight of between 350 and 400 pounds.

"I moved to take the pictures and told Bob to cover me. My gun was still in the scabbard. I'd grabbed the camera instead. Besides, we'd made a pact not to kill one if we saw one unless we had to."

Patterson said the creatures'(sic) head was much like a human's though considerably more slanted and with a large forehead and broad, wide nostrils.

"It's arms hung almost to its knees and when it walked, the arms swung at its sides."

- o -

PATTERSON said he is very much certain the creature was female "because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved." The creature had what he described as silvery brown hair all over its body except on its face around the nose and cheeks. The hair was two to four inches long and of a light tint on top with a deeper color underneath.

"She never made a sound. She wasn't hostile to us, but we don't think she was afraid of us either. She acted like she didn't want anything to do with us if she could avoid it." Patterson said the creature had an ambling gait as it made off over the some 200 yards he had it in sight. He said he lost sight of the creature, but Gimlin caught a brief glimpse of it afterward.

"But she stunk, like did you ever let in a dog out of the rain and he smelled like he'd been rolling in something dead. Her odor didn't last long where she'd been."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/firstpgf.htm

post-13-036332000 1291274251_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

jerry wayne wrote:

Since Patterson was not about to hoax a film including a family of sasquatch (Ostman), he relied on the solitary account of Roe's which gave a description of a sasquatch moving away from its witness.

And....how many reported Bigfoot sightings describe a Sasquatch running into the arms of the eyewitness??? "Take me....I'm yours!"

Skeptics like to use similarities between Roger's "Bigfoot" and Roe's "Bigfoot" as evidences of Roger's encounter being a hoax....when, the similarities could simply be due to both men having real encounters with a Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...