Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread
Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 10:40am
As some of you know, I recently purchased an original copy of Roger Patterson’s 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? This was written and published before the famous Patterson-Gimlin film.

The book is a collection of newspaper stories and a few other accounts of Bigfoot. The famous Ape Canyon story is in there. However, what I found really interesting, since it could be the basis of “Patty” in the P-G film, is William Roe’s sworn affidavit is also in the book. For those of you that don’t know, Roe had an encounter with a female BF in 1955. His daughter made a drawing of the creature that is remarkably similar to Patty. You can read the affidavit and see the drawing here. So obviously he was aware of the story and most likely saw the drawing. Patterson also has a few drawings of female BF in the book.
82 views
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 10:58am
One more from the book:
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 12:14pm
Thank you for posting the drawings from the Roger Patterson book. One of these days I intend to buy my own copy of this artifact. I always felt that the William Roe testimony served as a model for what was to play out a year later in the Patterson film-it terms of the creature's look and it's behavior while retreating. Interesting also is the fact that Patterson had artistic talent-something that never got reported by the early Sasquatch "investigators", John Green, Dahinden, etc. Very interesting post.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 12:30pm
With some scientists unable to prove the Patty film a hoax, and this to indicate preconceived ideas for female-breasted BF, then you aren't left with likelihood of hoaxing on Patterson's part anymore than you are left with evidence for "tulpas."
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 1:21pm
But....there are drawing of male sasquatch as well in the book, including the one fighting a grizzly bear. Anyway, Patterson was a great artist, his drawings were really good. I read somewhere that Patterson was also an inventor.

cheers,
shen
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 10:19pm
Hmmm...artist,inventor...closet genius? Suit maker?
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 1:44am
I have this to say... if dishonest someone made a video like this today and touted it as real then they would be a millionaire within a year. So, if it is easy for a talented artist/inventor to make a suit and video like Patty's then it would have been done, at least, one more time during the past 40 years.

I only believe in the video because of this one reason, that no one with Patterson's technology has re-produced one like or as convincing as Patterson's. I think many take this for granted. I strongly believe if one could produce the same today and tell everyone it is a hoax, they would still make money. Because some media outlet would buy it for another documentary.

So, until it is copied with same technology and know-how, it is real in my mind.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 2:23am
So, if it is easy for a talented artist/inventor to make a suit and video like Patty's then it would have been done, at least, one more time during the past 40 years.

I tend to agree with you having made similliar statements before here. This is especially true about claims that it was made by Hollywood SFX people. I do recall watching an analisys by someone from that community who was also acquainted with John Chambers who has often been cited as the suit maker. First he stated that it wasn't a good suit by his standards and second that had chambers made it he wasn't the type of person not to take credit for it. In fact I believe totally that had a professional been involved then that person would have wanted it on his resume considering how many people do believe it's real.

I do believe that it should be recreatable given similiar materials and budget available at the time to Patterson. However I don't know what is to be gained nessicarily since recreating the film may not be appealing to those with the know how who already believe it to be fake.

So in general I tend to agree with you but I can't go with the logic that "since it has not been copied it must be real." A trip to U-tube will yield many examples of those trying to make new films and pass them but nothing really on par with the Patterson film. One feature which may lend to it's reality is the bad filming where modern cameras are so much clearer and stable.

goon- who would like Patty to be real but really wants to know the truth...
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 10:12am
I do believe that it should be recreatable given similiar materials and budget available at the time to Patterson.

Shoots, Paul, no one has been able to recreate it with ANY materials or budget. If ANYBODY recreates a suit as convincing as this one with ANY materials on ANY budget, then I'll gladly dismiss the PG film as a hoax and credit Patterson as a genius beyond his years for perpetrating one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of mankind. Until then, and only then, it is just as likely a real critter as a hoax as far as I'm concerned.

Ivan
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 7:56pm
Hey Ivan nice to hear from you!

Well if it was a suit, as many still claim including SFX people, then it should be repeatable. I would love to see some of the people who call it a bad suit do the recreation and do it better even.

Of course there is an answer for everything as well as a disclaimer. And I believe the disclaimer from hollywood is that there is nothing to be gained by spending a large sum of money and investing time and effort to recreate a hoax. But again reality is part of an individuals perspective and so it has always gone with this film. Some people see it as a suit others find details that they claim can't be explained.

To me the film is one facet of this phenomenon and there is other evidence that makes further investigation into this matter worthy of time and effort. When a better film is taken it will still be labled as a hoax immediately by some but finding a dead body or live specimen seals the deal on proof.

goon
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 10:26pm
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Recreating the suit will prove nothing, since the Patterson film already exists as a template.

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 12:02am
Hi Paul, hi Gerry.

I disagree with you there, Gerry. One of the main contentions of supporters of the footage is that the suit has not been recreated, and therefore it has to be a real BF in the footage. Another suit of equal quality would prove that it is possible to create a believable replica of a bipedal hominid. The PG film would no longer be the "smoking gun" that staunch believers continue to claim it is. As long as the PG film remains uncontested, there will be a faction that declares that we don't need a body. At some point anyone who believes that BF exists must realize that photos and film footage will never be sufficient to prove the existence of the creature. I see the PG film as a major obstacle to that awakening.

In terms of proving the existence of BF, I agree with you that recreating the PG footage will neither prove nor disprove the existence of BF. As for what will settle the question of BF's existence, well, you both have seen my position on that matter before. I've never been shy about posting it.

I'm pro-kill.

Ivan
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 2:15am
Ivan, all recreating the suit would do is prove that someone can model the original. You're right in that it won't prove or disprove the existence of bigfoot. I also don't think it would prove or disprove the possibility of a hoax. The film is public knowledge and the pros and cons have already been discussed ad nauseum. Anyone attempting to recreate the suit knows what must and what must not be done to affect a copy of the P/G film. That's my opinion, anyway.

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 10:22pm
With some scientists unable to prove the Patty film a hoax, and this to indicate preconceived ideas for female-breasted BF, then you aren't left with likelihood of hoaxing on Patterson's part anymore than you are left with evidence for "tulpas."

Interesting. Some are still unable to prove Patty is real to the majority who dismiss it outright as a hoax.

While Tulpas are an interesting theory Hoaxes of all sorts have been genuinely proven to exist with greater frequency than any cryptid has.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 12:44am
OK, I'm not saying the P-G film is a hoax. I've been down that road many times in the past and it has led to a dead end every time. There's just no way to prove or disprove the film, short of another film showing a hoax being set up (a "behind the scenes" film). In fact, the P-G film is one of the reasons I waste so much of my time with this. There is just some evidence that can't be explained away.

My point in posting is many people think the fact Patty was a female proves it was real. I'm showing that Patterson was aware of previous female BF sightings and even had some drawings in his book. In no way am I saying this proves the film was a hoax. It just adds an element of doubt. In my opinion, if you combine features from Roe's drawing with features of Patterson's drawings, you get a pretty good Patty.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 5:48am
Road is correct, in as far, that Patterson must have been and was aware of Female bigfoot. It was general knowledge and serious topic - way back when!!

One of my FIRST memories of Bigfoot was when Loren Coleman and Ivan T. Sanderson commented about female bigfoot’s huge mammary glands (young boys don't forget such talk). They would talk about female bigfoot’s throwing the mammary glands over their shoulders when running down hill - so as not to fall.

This is really nothing new to us older folk that lived the event.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 3:09pm
So,

Patterson had a hand with a pen, this book appears to be worth owning. I was unaware of it.

I don't think it is further evidence of a hoax, as some suggest. At this point, either the apes are real, or there is a huge organisation of people hoaxing their existance for no particular reason.

Some one find me eviedence that Roger Patterson was inducted into Skull and Bones, and I will talk about conspiracies...

Maybe it was Bigfoot who shot Jack Kennedy from the grassy knoll...
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 10:30pm
this book appears to be worth owning

That's very true indeed. But I do think Road has demonstrated that if Patterson did fake "Patty" then he certainly had Roe's sketch to use as a template. He could always refer back to Roe ,who was fairly credible,in order to try to coroborate his story.

It does leave us with the question wether Roe's picture and Patty are similliar because it describes a real creature or because one is the other brought to life.

Perhaps we should revisit the patterson/gimlin interview done after the filming and some of the details there.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 5:52pm
No offense Road but near as I can see, Roe's daugther's drawing looks NOTHING like Patty. Looks very generic.

Anyway, it IS obvious that Patterson was well aware of female sasquatch and IF his film is a hoax, then the breasts make sense. I still can't put it off as a hoax though. But I can proclaim it the real deal, either.

So the mystery winds on...

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 6:13pm
All breeding communities of primates will have females, just a fact of life. Then with the assumption that BF are human-like in build, just hairy, then the females having hair covered breasts is only common sense, and no way evidence for a hoax, IMO.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 9:57pm
You are correct, of course Rex, but one of the big questions that has been spun regarding a possible hoax is, why would anyone make the hoax with breasts? While this observation by Road doesn not point to haox necessarily, it certainly answers at least one question. Patterson was well aware of breasted bigfoot and so Patty's breasts no longer seem to me to be an issue as regards hoax/no hoax.

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 10:17pm
Gerry,

Looking again at roe's sketch I observe that it also shows a typically non human IM ratio with the arms. If we all go back and look at the dead horse threads regarding "patty" that was a much touted detail about why the creature was not a guy in a suit.

Road's posting does demonstrate that at least two details were present in Roe's sketch which he could have included in "Patty".

Or it could just be that they saw the same thing?

goon
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 11:30pm
the upper body does look similar, but Patty's arm aren't that long, the Roe drawing has the hands almost down near the knees, and Patty's arm, when straightened reach just below "her" hip. Also the drawing depicts a creature with relatively short legs, while Patty's legs are more proportioned.But as always, one mans proof of existence is another mans proof of a hoax, so the search continues until we have captured a Bigfoot, dead or alive.

Another reason that most clear videos/sightings are of females is, they may not be as aggressive, or as territorial as males, and therefor more apt to be seen out in the open, like Patty, Roe's sighting and the one from the Memorial day footage (supposedly carrying a baby).
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 12:27am
so the search continues until we have captured a Bigfoot, dead or alive.

We're on the same page there rex. Proof resides in the"body of evidence" which doesn't nessicarily include films or tracks.

and Patty's arm, when straightened reach just below "her" hip.

Which would mean that; contrary to the BFRO,John Green,Jeff Meldrum and many from this foum have said is that Patty has an IM ratio within human norms. That IM Ratio,ratio of the upper arm to fore arm length, has been used as a cardinal point for believers attempting to demonstrate that it isn't a suit. The inconclusive nature of the film and the controversy tends to make me avoid all threads about it in general but Road bringing out Patterson's book is new to the discussion here.

goon
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 1:14am
I don't know Rex. Watching the film and even looking at the picture you've submitted in your post, I see the hands as very near the knees. Perhaps not quite as long as in Roe's drawing but certainly longer, at least to me, than a human.

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 1:12am
That's true but again, outside of a couple of anatomical details, I don't see a lot of resemblance between Patty and the Roe drawing, especially in the face/head area.

And yes, at this point, we can not rule out that Roe and Patterson simply saw the same thing. IF saquatch exist, we can rightfully assume that there are going to be anatomical characteristics common to the species. Therefore, two different witnesses seeing two different members of the same species will likely report characteristics common to both animals.

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 2:05am
Gerry,

Check out my post down below to road where I copied in some excerpts from Roe's story. It may or not mean anything but there are some striking similarities between Roe's account and Patties behaviors and details,even to the color of the soles of the feet.

Again we may never know if patterson simply was recreating Roe's sighting or if he just observed recurring behaviors from two different specimens.

goon- Who has noted from detailed study of human female anatomy and movements that there are many similliar behaviors and details in common among specimens(wink-wink)
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
sw
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 5:36am
Roe's daugther's drawing looks NOTHING like Patty. Looks very generic.


Maybe it's because the drawing was done BEFORE the film.

I would bet, that if the drawing was done after the famous film, this wouldn't be an issue.

It would be so much easier to produce a drawing of the subject(Paddy) rather that create the illusion from a drawing.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 8:04am
No offense Road but near as I can see, Roe's daugther's drawing looks NOTHING like Patty. Looks very generic.

Hey Gerry, you can offend me anytime you like! Seriously, if I was offended by someone disagreeing or even those making personal attacks, I wouldn't have lasted this long LOL! I think if you take some of the characteristics of the Roe drawing and combine them with different characteristics from the Patterson drawing, you can reach something similar to Pattty.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 8:14am
Hey Gerry, you can offend me anytime you like!

Wait a minute, that doesn't sound right now that I see it in print...
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 9:22pm
LMAO!

Anyway, I agree with you as far as Roe's sighting possibly being a template for a Patty hoax. But I still think there are enough differences that it's inconclusive.

Your observations do, however, address some of the anti-hoax arguments.

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 7:42pm
Tis a shame that Patterson didn't have the fore thought to have his partner walk along the strides of the phenomena while filming from the original vantage point. That would have given the viewers of both films a comparison of scale. Since BF's are supposed to be so much larger than humans, that would have helped support the claim of the original film footage if the scale of the beast was noticeably larger than the man stand in the same space. A thought for future film takers, if they can muster the presence of mind to do so after the initial shock of an encounter like this. I mean if 'we' are going to are go to go looking for these things 'we' need a way to support photographic evidence, if it presents itself. Scale comparisons might help.
(My first posting. So perhaps this is an old thought and already beat to death)

Mark
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 12:31am
You know Mark, you're absolutely right. Having Gimlin walk that line immediately after would answer a few questions. The need for scale comparisons has been addressed on this site before but needs to be reinforced so your horse is alive and kicking!

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 10:31pm
Nice post Road. Any idea where I can get a copy of that book?

goon
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 11:37pm
Is anyone saying that it being female is the deciding factor of hoax or no hoax---there was a 50-50 shot; perhaps the next one would've been male.

As for hoaxes being proven to be more numerous than cryptids...yes, the wording you use is true, but I don't think there have been thousands of proven BF hoaxes, whereas there have over hundreds of years been probably thousands of individual sightings.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 1:07am
I don't find the gender of the subject to be indicitive of a hoax per se myself.
It was stated in the past that the breasts were an odd feature for patterson to have included, were he to have produced a hoax/suit. However I think Road may have shown us where he could havegained inspiration from for a suit design if indeed that was the case.

The issue of Patty being a hoax or not doesn't in any way negate the possibility of reality when viewing the matter. If Roe's sighting was real then patterson would have modeled his hoax after a real female sasquatch.

There is another possibility that the concept of "hairy wildmen" is an Archetype within the human brain and human's simply have a propensity to halucinate such beings or even want them to be real. It would not be out of the question to suggest that being confronted by something strikingly similliar to us yet which is far larger,stronger and better adapted to survival is a primal terror. Perhaps such encounters were common in our ancestors struggle for survival and memories are passed by way of mtDNA,many things are possible including sasquatch being real.

Again what I find most interesting is the existence of Patterson's book which has never been included in any of the "let's beat the dead horse to a pulp" Patterson film threads which I have participated in previously (ad nauseum) and now tend to avoid.

You make a good point about the historical sasquatch reports and their importence in the grand scheme of things. After reading many reports from online databases I definitely question the validity of most but tend to think that if maybe 1% are valid then something is really happening. Of particular interest is the older,dare I say it,pre-internet reports.

But again as someone else stated here before; even with 10,000 reports on the books we are only sampling a minute cross section of the population and it is not impossible that we have hit only upon the crazy and the mistaken.

For myself I do sit on the fence and wonder,and sometimes I sit in the woods and watch, for what ever may come and have a blast doing it.

goon
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 8:12am
As I'm sure you know, some animals seem to have an instinctual fear of certain things, such as hawks. I've read articles where certain primates react instinctively to a hawk shadow or certain warning cries from their species, even if they have been raised separately from birth. Perhaps in our distant past, humans battled with larger, hairier hominids, such as Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalensis and we now have an instinctual fear of them. Who knows?
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 12:37am
I got mine on Amazon.com from a private seller. The price was the best for the quality listed (about $50 for a book that originally sold for less then $2 LOL!). They private seller only had an 80% positive rating, but I took a chance. The book is in as good or better condition than described (it was described as "very good") and arrived in about a week, so I have no complaints with my transaction on Amazon.com. Poorer examples were going for about the same money and the same to better quality examples were a lot more on the day I searched (up to $145).
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Tue, Mar 6 2007, 11:33pm
Excellent post Road, thank you.

I understand how Pattersons book could lead people to believe that Patterson hoaxed the film, however, there are inconsistancies between the drawings and the film.

None of the drawings have a butt. Pattys butt is definately THERE, so if Patterson hoaxed Patty, why would he make her appear so different from all the drawings?

Also, in the first pic you posted in this thread, the breasts sag somewhat, and in the second pic the breasts sag considerably, while in the film, the breasts are upright as they would be for a young female.

Even Roes daughters drawings hold these inconsistancies with the film.

To me, the idea that Patterson knew about Sasquatch before 1967 proves that Patty is a hoax is a completely ridiculous assumption.

Ive known about Sasquatch ever since kindergarten, and I actively search for them now. So if I ever manage to get film of one, is it an automatic hoax simply because I already knew they existed?
I make drawings of them too, so does that mean that any film I get of one is a hoax because I have drawn them before?

To me, Pattersons book shows that he was actively searching for them, and had the extreme good fortune of actually getting one on film after years of searching.

Gorillas were discovered the same way.
There were reports, people went looking for them, and eventually found them and filmed them. No one assumed that those films were hoaxed simply because the people who filmed them knew of their existence beforehand, it was considered to be good research leading to discovery.

Oh, by the way, this post is not directed at Road, it is directed to all who consider that just because Patterson made drawings before he got the film means that the film was hoaxed.

Which makes me wonder, if I ever do get a film of a Sasquatch, should I never make it public because I knew of their existence before hand?
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 12:24am
While I certainly agree the images of Bigfoot in Patterson's book are no smoking gun, it is to me just another small crack which casts doubt on the veracity of the film. From what I understand Patterson and Gimlin were not exactly stellar models of citizenship which also gives the impression they had motive to film a Bigfoot for financial gain. Although the image of Patty in the film is not a carbon copy of the book images (and I would not expect it to be) the obvious and prominent presence of breasts is a coincidence that cannot be ignored.

Coming from a position of strong belief since 1965 to leaning towards disbelief from about 4 years ago, I have run the full gauntlet. I have truly tried to remain objective on this subject and weigh in evidence from both sides. I will not be so presumptuous to state that Bigfoot does not exist but I am left with the decision that Patty was a man in a suit or it wasn't. What else could it be? A tulpa? Pleeease.

I may have strong doubts but there is still enough to keep me watching this forum and from my feet solidly touching ground on the skeptics side of the fence. Good observations are made but I doubt that if the mystery has lasted this long that it will be solved anytime soon. If Patterson and Gimlin did fake the film I could not but help admire them as much as if they truly did film the real thing.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 10:37pm
Another problem I have is this...

If Patterson and Gimlin perpetrated a hoax for financial gain, why continue to propogate the myth after it had pretty much run its course financially? Why not wring more dollars from it by proclaiming the hoax, reviving the film and make a few more dollars from the exposure? If I was after dollars, that's how I would have done it.

Gerry
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 12:50am
OK, I'm not saying the P-G film is a hoax. I've been down that road many times in the past and it has led to a dead end every time. There's just no way to prove or disprove the film, short of another film showing a hoax being set up (a "behind the scenes" film. In fact, the P-G film is one of the reasons I waste so much of my time with this. There is just some evidence that can't be explained away.

My point in posting is many people think the fact Patty was a female proves it was real. I'm showing that Patterson was aware of previous female BF sightings and even had some drawings in his book. In no way am I saying this proves the film was a hoax. It just adds an element of doubt. In my opinion, if you combine features from Roe's drawing with features of Patterson's drawings, you get a pretty good Patty.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 1:01am
Oops, double post. Sorry.
Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 1:53am
Road,

I think the resemblence between "Patty" and Roe's sighting can also be found in Roe's account and seen in Patterson's film. Patty's behaviors are very similiar to Roe's description.

1)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.

Remember the controversey about the coloration of the soles of "Pattie's" feet and the other explanations for it.

2)Finally the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an 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 short 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.

I levelled my rifle. The creature was still walking rapidly away, again turning its head to look in my direction. I lowered the rifle. Although I have called the creature "it", I felt now that it was a human being and I knew I would never forgive myself if I killed it.

Sounds alot like Patty here. But different from many other sightings that describe bursts of speed unrivaled by humans. Speed is a feature used to explain why they are so elusive to humans yet we have two examples of similliar specimens behaving almost identically,walking slowly away glancing back over it's shoulder. Similarity could describe actual recurring behaviors or it could further suggest that Patterson was recreating Roe's sighting.

IIRC neither Patterson nor Roe mention foul smells which are a feature in many reports as well. Of course it has also been suggested that that is a feature of male sasquatch.

Again including this in the discussion is long overdue imho. Thanks for posting this.

goon
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 3:10am
That's an interesting observation, Goon. It's one more thing that casts a little doubt on the film.
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 8:42am
But if the film is a hoax why go to the extra trouble of adding breasts to the suit for a brief sequence of a figure filmed walking away at a distance? And what of the bent leg gait? The forward-leaning upper body posture? The torso turn when the figure looks back at Patterson?
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 11:35am
To me the forward leaning posture is evidence for a hoax.
The skeletons of hominids previous to man show that they all stood upright.
We humans used to think (and many less educated still do) that hominid species prior to homo sapiens sapiens walked hunched over. Like the out of date drawings showing ape men more and more hunched over going back in time. This is not the case, it wastes too much energy to hold the upper body at that angle when walking.
So I think the guy in the suit was leaning forward for two reasons:
1) to try and appear as a non human hominid according to the knowledge of the day.
2) to see the ground out of the mask.
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 11:50am
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 12:35pm
There's theory that the breasts appear full and slow departure indicate pregnancy or that there's an offspring nearby...I feel pregnancy the more likely (apes have smaller babies than humans and are less obviously pregnant). The weight on the tread as the foot rolls was described as inverse to typical human's according to Green (inner heal rolling to outer toe). Disproportionally long, heavy arms with shorter stocky legs, with vigorous arm swinging. And, I've read there's some evidence in the enhancement of a specific knee injury, and that casts showed a a scar on the sole of the foot. Combine all of these things and you likely get exactly what you're looking at on the Patterson film. 'Does resemble a "love child" between the guy that played Chewbacca and Shirley from "What's Happenin' " though.
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 7:24am
My bioligist wife always tells me that even us humans are not completely upright yet. Yes, we do walk upright exclusively but, we endure pain and hardships to do this still. That is why we have a lot of back problems. We are still evolving to be completely upright without the pain and problems.
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 9:03pm
But someone wanting to fake an ape-man would come up with a walk that's got a side to side motion to the upper body in emulation of apes. We don't see that with Patty. What we see is a very fluid, natural looking walk featuring a gait and posture that is unnatural for a human being.
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 2:03am
But if the film is a hoax why go to the extra trouble of adding breasts to the suit for a brief sequence of a figure filmed walking away at a distance?

Well if Patterson did copy details from Roe's afidavit then he may have wanted something close to it so one would corroborate the other.
Re: Roe/patterson's similliar details
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 5:04am
Good points, thank you for them as many are new to me. Is it possible that the stench from Bigfoot was muffled due to their quick movements on horses or the stream that lay in between them?
In present times photographic evidence is almost worthless due to Photoshop and similar programs which make it pretty nearly impossible to come up with a foolproof real picture.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 4:07pm
Well, consider this.

Roe had his sighting in 1955, made his affidavit and drawing in 1957, Patterson's book was published 1966 (when exactly, does someone know?), and Patty was filmed in 1967 (October, right?).

Even if Patterson may not have seen Roe's affidavit straight away, but perhaps a few years afterwards, say in the early sixties (is there any information about this in the book, Road?), then still the chronology seems odd in the event Patterson DID set up a planned hoax.

Why would a broke cowboy who basically gets "the recipe" for making a lot of money in his hands, ie. the Roe drawing,

a) wait a couple of years to try to set up a hoax, when he is in dire need of cash?

b) FIRST write a book with only drawings in it, and THEN go out and film a guy in a suit, when the book would probably have sold much more if the film was made before and the book published afterwards, including stills from the film?

c) wait possibly more than a year after publication of his book to set up the film hoax, as this would have been the real cash cow?

IMO, if Patterson & Gimlin had done this with the intention to cash in on the gullibility of others, then all this would have happened MUCH quicker and in a different order of events.

Cheers,

Gondwana
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Wed, Mar 7 2007, 6:27pm
But I could be wrong, of course :-)
(Disclaimer statement, just to cover my b*tt, LOL!)
Gondwana
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 12:34am
The book is copyrighted in 1966, but no month is given. The Roe story in the book is a reprint of Ivan Sanderson's 1960 story about the encounter. Patterson thanks Ivan Sanderson under Acknowledgments. He says:

I wish to humbly thank Ivan Sanderson, who has worked long and hard in his search for the truth in this matter. Without his effort, this book would not have been written.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 11:16am
John Green, in his book "On the Track of the Sasquatch", has covered some early Roger patterson's activities in the the field of BF:
1. December 1959. Roger read an article by Ivan T. Sanderson in True.
2. 1964. Frist trip down to Willow Creek. Then went on to Bluff Creek. He met Pat Graves (the road contractor). Pat showed Roger fresh tracks. Roger casted a 16" BF track.
3. 1965. Roger met John Green for the first time. Roger asked Green for permission to use Green's material for his book.
3. 1966. Roger's book published. Roger also interviewed Fred Beck about the Ape Canyon incident. Apparently Roger was the first person followed up that story.
4. August 1967. John Green and Rene Dahinden went to Blue Creek Mountain and saw fresh tracks. They tried to contact Roger but failed.
5. September 1967. Roger and Bob went to Bluff Creek instead and were making daily patrols on horseback in hope of getting pictures of fresh footprints for his BF movie.
6. October 1967. Roger filmed a "BF".
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 1:41am
Thanks Shen.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 10:13pm
Gondwanda,

Patterson started with the book and was in the process of filming a bigfoot documentary when he "caught patty on film".

Here is an excerpt from a 1967 radio interview with patterson and gimlin. The entire transcript is on bigfootencounters.com under interviews.

Roger: Well first of all, the reason that we were in this place was that I'd been filming a documentary on this thing for the past eight months or so and I'd been going to areas interviewing people that have seen these creatures, other than myself now, and we went to this
particular area because a month before this they had found three different sets of tracks up in that area.


goon- there are other points of interest in that interview as well
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Thu, Mar 8 2007, 12:33am
I'm fully aware of the timing of both the book and subsequent film, furthermore, I'm not 100% certain the film is genuine and I've met Bob Gimlin. Having said that, I think Bob G's a great guy and I'm about 80-20 in favor of it being real. I've heard the accusation before that Patterson modeled Patty after the drawings in his book. After receiving his book years ago, I can tell you it doesn't take a huge eye for artwork to determine that if Patterson had attempted to make "Patty" look anything like the drawing of a female bigfoot in his book the subject filmed wouldn't even look as good as Ivan Marx's ridiculous bigfoots. As for the Roe affadavit, there could be something to that, Roe's daughter's drawing definitely looks more like Patty and is much better done than Patterson's. But then, already having Roe's daughter's drawing as well as good sighting description info, why would Patterson draw such a ugly, pathetic, droopy-breasted, box-headed troll like female bigfoot for his book? Maybe, some people have it backwards and Patterson purposely drew that pic knowing he was making his hoax look totally different (more believable)than what he filmed since the film subject was a complete different intrepretation of what he thought a female bigfoot should look like. Instead, skeptics of the film have it backward and are foolishly trying to compare a picture and film from the same man that look nothing alike. Crazy? My point is so is the suggestion that his pathetic attempt at drawing a female bigfoot even closely resembles "Patty" and adds an element of doubt.There are other elements of doubt relating to the film, that's why I'm not 100% convinced (looks great for the most part)of it's authenticity, but comparing the pic with the film certainly isn't one of them.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 2:22am
Everything about the Patterson film (pretty much) speaks volumes to me on how a person should be searching....on horse-back, old growth forest not inhabited or often visited by people, repetitively going over the same areas where multiple recent sightings/tracks have occurred, etc. He didn't jump out of a Hummer with a movie camera rolling on a BF crossing the highway just outside of Miami, nor was he running through the woods with a bunch of crypto-groupies waving guns, or howling like a howler monkey and breaking boulders to see if anything signaled back. Of all of the well known BF "hunters" I would say that they had about the best chance at finding one.....yes, tracks show up well on beaches (Byrne), but how many sightings are on beaches????
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 3:42am
Everything about the Patterson film (pretty much) speaks volumes to me on how a person should be searching....on horse-back, old growth forest not inhabited or often visited by people, repetitively going over the same areas where multiple recent sightings/tracks have occurred, etc.

I think your right on. But plenty of people horseback hunt also. I seem to recall reading a few reports like that. Thom Powell wrote about at least one in "The Locals" where the bf seemed to be confused about the horse and rider.
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 3:39am
Did you ever go camping with Gimlin? Cause you just don't know someone till you go camping with them!

I have always thought that if Patterson faked the film then he duped Gimlin. The whole "not to shoot agreement" was curious. Patterson seperating from Gimlin prior to heading out to check a previously visited area could have been an opportunity to setup Gimlin.

Lot's of questions about the whole matter to be sure. I wouldn't mind if Patty was real of course though...
Re: Roger Patterson’s Book
posted Fri, Mar 9 2007, 4:34am
Not saying it's impossible Gimlin was duped, but...

How'd the BF-impersonator get there, and get gone before anyone caught up to him/her, and time it perfectly (rearing up of horses included---Hollywood could save alot of time and film if they got things perfect in one take), leave just BF tracks (including I have read a butt print back in the trees where it stopped to watch them) and no other tell tale signs of a fake, etc., all the while trusting the "no shoot agreement" to be followed.


Close Window