Jump to content

Is It Really Almost Identical To The William Roe Encounter?


Guest Kerchak

Recommended Posts

I didn't say the 3rd drawing was the Ostman story.

I said the 4th drawing was the Roe story however.

The subtitles are above the pics.

Edited by Drew
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I didn't say the 3rd drawing was the Ostman story.

Exactly.....but I AM.

I said the 4th drawing was the Roe story however.

Correct.

The subtitles are above the pics.

And:

1,2,4 are drawings in reference to the Roe story, but number 3 is in reference to the Ostman story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I enjoy hunting every year for deer (bucks). I spend the year honing my shooting skills, improving my equipment, and scouting the next potential hunting camp. When I’m actively hunting, I expect to see a buck at the very next turn. However, no matter how prepared I feel I am, the instant a buck appears, my heart rate spikes and it is all I can do to control my fine motor skills (“buck feverâ€).

The same holds true when I initiate a pursuit at work-it’s all I can do to concentrate on my driving and to talk clearly on the radio. My voice goes up three octaves and every muscle in my body clenches. The same held true when I was fired upon a couple of years ago. I’ve trained for 16 years for all sorts of critical events. None the less, my physiological reactions are always the same. It’s not that my reactions are from surprise, rather, it’s handling the lightning bolt of energy which explodes through my body the instant an event presents.

The point is, Patterson may have been well prepared for a potential Bigfoot encounter, however, the instant an encounter happened, I assure you, it would have been all he could do to make sure the camera was on and pointed in the right direction. Even something as simple as holding a camera still would be near impossible. Personally, I don’t know how I would react if I encountered a Bigfoot. Likely I would drop the camera and need to change my under garments soon afterward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Thepattywagon

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?

My understanding is, according to Bob Gimlin's testimony, they were traveling to an area away from the main camp to spend a night or two before Gimlin had to return home. This was the compromise he and Roger worked out instead of leaving Roger at Bluff Creek and having to return to pick him up in a few weeks.

The fact that they both assumed they were in an area that had seen prior alleged BF activity doesn't mean they'd be any more prepared to actually SEE one. How in the world COULD one expect to be completely calm in a situation like that? Had they heard it growl, howl, or make any strange noises before the actual sighting, perhaps they would have been more prepared, ie, Roger could have had the camera out and ready, having been forewarned that something unusual was around the bend.

But according to their testimony, that is not the way it went down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I enjoy hunting every year for deer (bucks). I spend the year honing my shooting skills, improving my equipment, and scouting the next potential hunting camp. When I’m actively hunting, I expect to see a buck at the very next turn. However, no matter how prepared I feel I am, the instant a buck appears, my heart rate spikes and it is all I can do to control my fine motor skills (“buck feverâ€).

The same holds true when I initiate a pursuit at work-it’s all I can do to concentrate on my driving and to talk clearly on the radio. My voice goes up three octaves and every muscle in my body clenches. The same held true when I was fired upon a couple of years ago. I’ve trained for 16 years for all sorts of critical events. None the less, my physiological reactions are always the same. It’s not that my reactions are from surprise, rather, it’s handling the lightning bolt of energy which explodes through my body the instant an event presents.

The point is, Patterson may have been well prepared for a potential Bigfoot encounter, however, the instant an encounter happened, I assure you, it would have been all he could do to make sure the camera was on and pointed in the right direction. Even something as simple as holding a camera still would be near impossible. Personally, I don’t know how I would react if I encountered a Bigfoot. Likely I would drop the camera and need to change my under garments soon afterward.

As I fire fighter I agree, being toned out on a structure fire and fully knowing that in a few short moments your going to be running into a burning building is exciting in it's own right. I hate to use that word, because it's not a pleasant event unlike a roller coaster ride, but it's the same sort of reaction within my body.

But once you get on scene and you begin to fight the fire, that excitement goes away and training and methodical thinking takes over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crowlogic

BTW even if P&G had been forewarned of Patty's presence it doubtful if the PGF would have been much more than it is. Roger only had that last bit of film in the camera. So maybe it would have been steadier but I doubt if it would have contained significantly more image information than it actually has now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

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.

Beautifully, and thoughtfully stated.

The old argument that of course Patty looked like the drawings and reports of real sasquatch, because the film depicts a real sasquatch, which fits the descriptions of real sasquatches, is erroneous at best. I've seen Lord of the Rings, and you know what, those Hobbits look like the drawings of Hobbits I've seen for years and years. Is it a case where the film captured real Hobbits, or simply mirrored what we all have come to accept as the Hobbit appearance? Are there real Hobbits to film? Whether or not there are real bigfoots, there is still a convergence of descriptions, otherwise the subject would lack credibility. So, if someone is planning on making an acceptable report they need to make sure their subject fits within the acceptable parameters of what bigfoot lore defines. Finmding Bigfoot is a perfect example of just this. Everyone says nearly the same thing, admittedly not exactly the same thing, but close enough. "It was big, 8 feet tall," Bobo raises his hand over his head until the witness says "yeah, right there", it was twice as wide as they were, "broader than any human I've ever seen...", they take giant strides, "it crossed the road in only three steps, easily, without jumping". And so on throughout the description. They fit the mold. Now are those reports of real bigfoots, or are they made up stories? They fit the accepted criteria for acceptable real bigfoot encounters, they get certified by the BFRO members, and they forever have their bigfoot badge saying they had a real sighting. Nobody gets their badge of authenticity if they say they saw a fire red haired 3 footer swinging through the trees like a screaming gibbon.

Jerry, I like your reasoning. Not making a claim either way, so you express a neutral viewpoint on the matter of real versus hoax, yet can see the relevance between the Roe and Patterson events expressed by others without getting hung up on the nit-picky details. If Patterson was going to produce a hoax (or a documentary featuring a realistic bigfoot replica), then modeling it after both the Roe event, the Keunstler artowrk, would be a very good foundation to draw from. Identical? Not exactly, but possibly used as source material, absolutely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hobbit's are a noted work of fiction.IMO not a reasonable comparison.

I think the comparison is reasonable, that of the cultural convergence of a mystery element, whether real or fictional. There are numerous accounts throughout history of characters that have specific dimensions, appearances, behaviors and such, many of which have never been proven to be real or authentic. The truth is, bigfoot is one of a long list of mystery creatures or beings or objects or events that have not been certified as authentic, which also tends to have specific parameters that are acceptable to the culture that supports it, and parameters that are outside of those acceptable to the culture that supports it. fact is, there are multiple cultures that believe in bigfoot, a fairly sizable one that believes that they are psychic, communicate telepathically, produce infrasound which can be used to immobilize or disorient humans, have the capability to demonstrate bio-interference, effectively becoming invisible. I was reading a report the other day about a guy who heard a frozen pond cracking, so he turned to see what was going on, and he could see the pond cracking in a step by step fashion as if something invisible was walking across it, and he could see a faint cloaking blur, kind of like in the Predator movies. Everyone supported that as this bio-interference deal, where they can become invisible, bending light around them. Are you going to say that segment of the bigfoot culture is crazy for believing in something that can't be substantiated? They describe bigfoots as fitting the similar mold as everyone else, although they go so far as to add young ones, males and females, old ones, a whole host of expected ages and genders. Mainstream culture generally focuses on big "rogue" males, with the rare touch on the females, since Patty seems to be a female, and not so giant and not so scary.

Convergence in descriptions is normal, whether for real or fictitious entities. Aliens? Are they real? Everyone describes the same thing, the same characteristics, at least in the head and face. The clothing wanders around, possibly because nobody really focuses on that part, most people describe the faces, so the descriptions of the faces remain as a mental image, while they forget about clothing and so the clothing styles wander.

Like I said, ask anybody off the street to describe bigfoot. Most will have never seen one. Most will likely not seriously believe in them, yet they will be able to give a solid description of what they (should) look like. Doesn't mean they are matching their description to a real one. Just means that the visual identity of bigfoot and Yeti have been imprinted into the cultural fabric for eons.

Oh, and by the way, many, many bigfoot accounts are also "noted works of fiction". Every single hoax, is a work of fiction. I put on a suit, run across the road in front of a car, that's a fictitious depiction of a yet to be identified creature. Hoax equals fiction. Harry and the Hendersons, a noted work of fiction. Little Bigfoot, Bigfoot (the movie with the three kids), all the "Sasquatch..." movies, Jack Link jerky commercials, all works of fiction. All tending to converge with their creature effects, for the most part. Interestingly enough, have you looked at a lot of eyewitness reports? I haven't looked at a ton, but I have looked at plenty enough to see that plenty have adopted the tall conehead of Harry and Jack Link, both of which look nothing like the low, flatter sloped head of Patty. Introduce a new feature into the cultural soup, and it often gets adopted as a permanent feature of that cultural mold. Had John Green never come up with the inaccurate IM index characterization for Patty, chances are all the guys touting it now wouldn't have jumped on that band wagon either, since Patty doesn't demonstrate it in the film, but John Green decided it would be part of his bigfoot ideal, so he painted it onto Patty and it stuck, even though it didn't fit the filmed subject!

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

The old argument that of course Patty looked like the drawings and reports of real sasquatch, because the film depicts a real sasquatch, which fits the descriptions of real sasquatches, is erroneous at best.

Well, that 'old argument' makes perfect sense to me. Why would a real Bigfoot not look similar to the drawing of another real Bigfoot? That's a rhetorical question, of course, because I think the same old implied (if not spoken) answer would be: "because there are no Bigfoot". Round and round we go.

Suffice to say that real animals generally look similar to drawings of real animals of their same type. That happens all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Primate - If one considers the possibility of Bigfoot being real; would they not be inclined to think that artist renderings based on Bigfoot descriptions would be similar to said Bigfoot? :blink:

To say that Bigfoot are not real is one thing; to say that the Creature in a Bigfoot movie should not be similar to other descriptions of Bigfoot is a logic that I do not get.

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

What I was trying to say was that one can compare cultural representations to eyewitness reports.( How else is anyone going to talk about it anyway?)

But they are not the same thing . And any simularity doesn't disprove anything. Tolkian described Hobbits . Artists draw them . No one to my knowldge is reporting seeing them.

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