Jump to content

Is It Really Almost Identical To The William Roe Encounter?


Guest Kerchak

Recommended Posts

kitakaze

Welcome to the BFF, Sweaty.

jerry wayne wrote:

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

There's no shortage of Bigfoot/human interbreeding stories. Zana, of course. But more pointedly, your sarcasm is lost. How many reports feature a Bigfoot running or walking towards a witness? Just oodles and oodles. Reams of them. Sweet Mother, a Bigfoot is chasing me! Surely, you haven't forgotten these.

There's even video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIIgGtpcG94

Holy guacamole, look at that Bigfoot go. Easy, man. You could break you neck with stunts like that. You may want to use that video to try and say how realistic Patty looks, but as the proof shows, Patty looking realistic is a subjective opinion, and not the majority, including amongst professional observers.

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.

I won't speak for others, but for myself personally, the similarities are much more than oops, wow, they encountered nearly the exact same sort of creature. What is of key importance is the significance of the Roe story to Patterson - that story and the illustration of it was the first thing that jumped out at Patterson in the True magazine article by the uber-credulous Ivan Sanderson that started Patterson's obsession. It is of significance to me that just the year before, Patterson was showing he had no problems whatsoever in copying the work of others to portray the story.

What is really of interest is that we have film from Patterson's camera of him being in Northern California in 1967 prior to the trip which was said to produce the film in which we see what looks for all the world like Patterson scouting open logging areas in the mountains.

But maybe there really was some astronomical luck happening. Maybe Patterson really did have the mind-numbing serendipity to encounter just such a creature as that featured in his book the year before. One would then think that encountering Bigfoots matching Patty's description would not be so rare. So how many reports feature female Bigfoots that match the descriptions of Roe/Patterson?

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ "...including amongst professional observers." Wow! That would be a cool job to have: "Professional Observer". I wonder if I could do that working from home?? : )

Very few "reports feature female Bigfoots that match the descriptions of Roe/Patterson" because why? drum roll please... because we don't generally get that much detail in the first place. Yes, one Bigfoot could have at least some similarity in appearance and behavior to another different Bigfoot, that sort of goes without saying...

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Welcome to the BFF, Sweaty.

Thanks, kit. It's nice to be able to post here, again....this Board seems to be the busiest Bigfoot Forum, by far. My 'Elbow Reach' analysis, of Patty, should get some very good visibility here. ;)

While I'm on the subject...I'd like to say thanks, to the Administrators, for allowing us banned members to re-join the Board. Thank you!! :)

There's no shortage of Bigfoot/human interbreeding stories. Zana, of course. But more pointedly, your sarcasm is lost. How many reports feature a Bigfoot running or walking towards a witness? Just oodles and oodles. Reams of them. Sweet Mother, a Bigfoot is chasing me! Surely, you haven't forgotten these.

The majority of the reports I've heard, or read about, say that the creature walked away from them.

Patty looking realistic is a subjective opinion, ...

No, it isn't completely, or even predominately, a subjective evaluation.

There is a way of scientifically, and objectively, analyzing the many various aspects of Patty's body.

I just posted a couple of examples of details which can be objectively analyzed, in the 'PGF for Skeptics' thread...(the 'folds', or the lack thereof, on a subject's legs...and the contour of the back of the knee joint.)

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Very few "reports feature female Bigfoots that match the descriptions of Roe/Patterson" because why? drum roll please... because we don't generally get that much detail in the first place. Yes, one Bigfoot could have at least some similarity in appearance and behavior to another different Bigfoot, that sort of goes without saying...

Very good point xspider.

I chuckle when folks like Kitakaze seem to suggest that a Roe like creature was the only kind of drawing of bigfoot in Patterson's book. Well at least an uninformed casual reader of BFF would probably think that if they listened to Kitakaze's biased and totally unbalanced misinformation.

As Rick Noll pointed out there are almost 20 drawings of bigfoot creatures in Patterson's book. Only one of them looks even remotely like Patty and even that isn't all that close, with much more spindly limbs and even what looks like a small beer belly LOL.

If you take an unbiased look at Roger Patterson's drawings of bigfoot (and even his sculptured bust) he seemed to feel these creatures were far more manlike in appearance than Patty and also quite different to the original drawing which Roe's daughter made. If Patterson was really so obsessed with the Roe creature's appearance then it should have followed that Patterson's 'general' take on bigfoot would be closer to Roe's than anything else. However, that wasn't the case. Not at all. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Roe creature's appearance made any more impression on Patterson than, say, the Ostman creatures appearance. In actual fact if you look at Patterson's drawings I would say the latter made the bigger impression in general because Patterson seemed to think they were human.

One image in Patterson's book looks somewhat like Patty while 99% of the other images in his book don't look like Patty. I think that's a reasonable, balanced and unbiased observation

Edited by Kerchak
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

jerry wayne wrote:

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.

To me, kitz post above yours is a huge red flag as to tje legitamacy of the film.

The stories arent exactly the same but the encounters in themselves almost are. i would agree with you if say, a mother of 4 on her way to work with no history of interest in bigfoot saw a female bigfoot in similar circumstances, but the fact that patterson was a bigfoot hunter, was making a movie, and blatantly stole a picture to describe his encounter shows that it is most probably a huge hoax. Just to many red flags.

Dear mods, this is all my opinion, and not meant to offend, troll or insult anyone living or dead in the bigfoot community. Please do not raise my warning level or suspend me again simply because im on the fence about bigfoot and skeptical of the pgf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear mods, this is all my opinion, and not meant to offend, troll or insult anyone living or dead in the bigfoot community. Please do not raise my warning level or suspend me again simply because im on the fence about bigfoot and skeptical of the pgf.

You have never been suspended or had your warning level raised simply because you are on the fence in reference to bigfoot or skeptical of the legitimacy of the PGF. Not once, and to suggest to the board that you have is highly misleading.

You've created your own bed here through your posts.

I've received numerous PM's in reference to you and I'm heartened to be able to say several of them came from obvious/noted skeptics who wanted to make it clear that they wished to distance themselves from you and that you didn't speak for them.

Those who are in the *proponent* camp need to be aware that there is an effort at some self-policing among the skeptics here. At least in this case.

You were asked to either substantiate your unambiguous assertions, make it clear that your definitive, inflammatory, and conclusive posts were your opinion as opposed to statements of recognized fact, refrain from offensive references towards *proponents*, and conduct yourself within the rules/guidelines of the forum.

Doesn't sound too hard to me.

Your answer to that seems to be to make the same conclusive statements but add a caveat at the end of your posts directed at Mods/staff. I've noted this pattern for some time.

That is perceived by me as disrespectful of the forum's rules and those members of staff that effort to enforce them in a fair and unbiased manner.

It appears as if you are trying to play yourself off as the victim here when that isn't the case at all.

I find myself in the *whatever* camp with you. Abide by the rules and conduct yourself in a manner that others of a similar mindset as you have do with no problem and all is good. Continue as you are and you will be handled in accordance with your actions.

The ball is squarely in your court at this point.

This is the only post I will make on the board in reference to this and I apologize to all for the momentary de-rail. However, your assertion that you had been punished because you were on the fence about BF and skeptical of the PGF on the board for all to see warranted a response on the board for all to see.

If you have a response or problem then shoot me a PM as opposed to responding on the board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SweatyYeti,

I feel honored. You're posting again and in all the posts of all the threads of all the comments you potentially may have remarked on, you chose my modest remarks to ridicule. :)

Well, of course I was commenting on such foundational encounters as Roe, Ruby Creek, and Ostman and, if my memory serves me right, the Ruby Creek incident involved an advancing sasquatch. Ostman's sasquatch may have as well said, "You're taken....you're going to belong to my little girl!" as he spirited his captive over hill and dale. Patterson almost surely thought that these encounters supported by Green and Sanderson were true, and if he created a hoax, Roe's story would be the most logical choice to recreate (loosely, by necessity).

Your take on my comments: "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."

I'm glad you acknowledge "similarities" between Patterson's film and Roe's account. But, please reread my posts---I think you've missed the nuance of my argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Guest Crowlogic

Its been tauted by skeptics that Patterson was recreating the Row encounter and decided to make his attempt into the Patty encounter that we know of historically now. However if Patterson had at all tried to recreate the Row encounter why film it in such a turbulent fashion. The Roe account is very calm and Row observed the creature from a hiding place. The PGF rightly screams of a camera person caught unaware and struggling to get film of a retreating animal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thepattywagon

Its been tauted by skeptics that Patterson was recreating the Row encounter and decided to make his attempt into the Patty encounter that we know of historically now. However if Patterson had at all tried to recreate the Row encounter why film it in such a turbulent fashion. The Roe account is very calm and Row observed the creature from a hiding place. The PGF rightly screams of a camera person caught unaware and struggling to get film of a retreating animal.

Yes, and from what I've read on Bill's analysis of the camera 'starts and stops' during the Patterson filming, it lends more circumstantial evidence to support the stories by both Roger and Bob G; that is that they were taken by surprise at the appearance of the creature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

I think the "taken by surprise" thing is almost a "must do" when hoaxing, it serves 2 basic functions... To create a sense of reality, as it admittedly is a reaction most would have... And, its a great excuse to make a blurry, out focus, rocking back n forth or whatever video.

I think a hoaxer, not just bigfoot hoaxers but any paranormal hoaxers would know to pretend to be shaken.

Also you wouldnt want anything to clear... Look at the sylvanic hoax, the perfect, closeup photo of a bigfoot face can be spotted as a fake by a child, literally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Yes, and from what I've read on Bill's analysis of the camera 'starts and stops' during the Patterson filming, it lends more circumstantial evidence to support the stories by both Roger and Bob G; that is that they were taken by surprise at the appearance of the creature.

Maybe im out of line here, but how can they be taken by surprise by a creature they were actively hunting and stalking? Its weird they were convinced that bigfoot existed, where to find it, mounted a rather big expedition, traveled, "borrowed" a movie camera to film the bigfoot... And got completely taken by surprise when they saw one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be this misconception that Patterson set out to film BF. I forget the source and would take me a while to find it but to my recollection Patterson did not have his sights set that high but was looking to find tracks to film. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

The third drawing down is in reference to the Ostman story and not the Roe story.

And Roe was on a hunting trip. And Mica Mountain is about 80 miles north of Kamloops BC. And only about a couple of hundreds miles north of my house.

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