Roger’s Own Words
When I visited with Roger’s widow, Patricia Patterson, in May of this year, she allowed me to view personal artifacts and photo albums belonging to her late husband.
Note to the reader: Patricia Patterson has been referred to as Pat and Patty. The subject in the P-G film IS NOT named after her. “Patty” is the nickname ascribed to the filmed subject by the Russian researcher Dmitri Bayanov and is a take off on Roger’s surname, “Patterson,” mix in the female aspects of the filmed subject and you have “Patty.”
Noted Bayanov, “It seemed inappropriate for a star to remain nameless, so I fondly nicknamed her Patty (Patty Bigfoot) after the surname of the brave and gallant man who captured and presented to viewers her image on film.”
Knowing the details of the P-G film probably better than anyone, viewing Roger’s stuff made an immediate connection and filled in blank spaces in my mind. One item, in particular, a nitty gritty, made a lot of sense to me. Here is what that documentation stated, from Roger Patterson talking to his wife, Patricia, while her sister typed, and this was either late 1967 or early 1968. The typewritten original sheet did not appear to have a date on it.
Roger Patterson: “As we rounded a bend in the trail I caught a glimpse of something huge crouched down by the creek.”
The key word: crouched. And it is from a primary source.
When that subject was first sighted it is seen crouched or squatting.
Some early confirmation of this comes from Peter Byrne’s long defunct newsletter, Bigfoot News, January 1975, page 4: “According to the photographers the creature was squatting in the water at the edge of the stream, when first seen.”
Still more confirmation of that nitty gritty point comes from John Green’s computer questionnaire prepared in the early 1970s. The subject’s first movement, according to Bob Gimlin, was “getting up,” which might imply “crouched” or “squatting,” but can’t be interpreted as standing.
Curiously, in an October 2007 interview with me, Bob Gimlin has no memory of that, stating, “Did you say getting up? You see, Daniel, I don’t recall ever saying that. In my mind now, the way I think - I could be wrong, after this many years [40] - it was just standing there beside the creek. I’m not sure...I don’t recall ever saying that.”
What I suspect happened is Roger saw the subject get up while Bob Gimlin may have been distracted by the pack horse. He may have never seen the subject get up, only “just standing there.” It takes less than a second to miss that action.
Let me explain in sporting terms. You are at a game, and a touchdown is scored with a short pass and you tell your buddy, ‘did you see that?’ And he says ‘no.”
What happened? It only takes less than a second to take your eye off the ball to miss the action.
Roger may have told Bob what happened and he may have temporarily remembered it that way, which might explain why it is found in early testimony but not later.
Regardless, in recent years Bob Gimlin has repeatedly stated he saw the subject just standing when first noted. Personally, I don’t consider it a serious discrepancy as it can - I firmly believe - be easily explained.

Adapted from the current Bigfoot Times (July 2009) newsletter, published continuously since January 1998. Visit www.bigfoottimes.net to get a membership ($14/yr).

Thank you Daniel,

Your totally correct about it only taking an instant to miss something monumental. Were you able to learn anything else from Mrs. Patterson and your visit?

There are so many discrepencies in their stories, that you just have to assume it was all made up.

Did Roger fall off of his horse?, Did the horse fall on him crushing the stirrup (which he took to Al Hodgeson to show)?, Did he do a reverse Legolas and grab the camera out of the bag as he spun from the saddle, landing spryly on the sand?

Did they really track the beast for 3.5 miles before going to get the Plaster? that adds a lot to the timeline...

Did they mail the film?, take it to an airport? which?

Mr. Perez, can you answer this question? or perhaps contact Bob Gimlin to find the answer?

Did Bob Gimlin wear his Indian Tracker wig to NEW YORK for publicity? or Did he refuse, and was this why he was cut out of the film?

Drew,

I'm not sure the relavince of the question. But if he was involved in a hoax(as some suggest) an then was left without a penny for his troubles, wouldn't it be likely he woulda blown the whistle ?
As for descrepencies, between the excitement an how fast it all occured, not to mention how many years have past, a number of factors come into play here. If they told the exact same thing over an over without a change, then it would sound rehearsed. Try an recall somethin' from your past, are the details 100% true, or what ya can recall to the best of your knowledge.

Pat...

QUOTE

....I'm not sure the relevance of the question.

The relevance, is that it was asked in a thread that someone else started, about another apparent contradiction..



On the other hand, the OP looks more like a rhetorical dissertation, to stir up interest in a newsletter that is for sale, rather than to actually discuss the contradiction .. ( ... not implying that there is anything wrong with that )

Skeptical Greg,

No worries, I've already addressed descrepincies an or contradictions regardin' ones ability to recall events of the past.
An I reckon I can see what you're sayin' regardin' Daniels post. As someone who subscribes to that fine newsletter BIGFOOT TIMES, an looks forward to it each month, for only 15 bucks CDN, 14 bucks US, filled with the latest up to date info. on what's goin' on in research, findin's, up comin' BF meets etc. A great monthly read for those interested in the subject...
Oooops...I think I may be ramblin'...

Pat...

I would be worried if the stories were seamless. And I would worry if, over time, a remembrance didn't take different dimensions.

I have interviewed police officers involved in traumatic events (partners) and come away with the thought they were on different planets at the time of the event. I have been involved in similar events and seen things that, in retrospect, I couldn't possibly have seen. Other officers present at the same event saw and remembered things that placed them each in a different reality.

I have to say that this forum seems to weigh cases based on narrative coming from people who had no idea their words would be examined 40 years later with such fine appreciation for semantic precision and disregard for how human witnesses recalls stressful events. Examination of the evidence is fine, but people are very different in perceptual skills, the ability to remember things and the ability to verbalize what they remember. I have a difficult time with some of the issues surrounding the PGF, but I have no concern with discrepancies in statements made to different journalists and radio-show hosts over the course of four decades. The time for taking a statement was 1967.

Punniest line ever!! Good job HMB!

Having questioned a few thousand criminals in my lifetime, many of whom had accomplices who were present for the entire chain of events, I simply cannot rely on a few inconsistencies to cement in my mind that lies are being told. Perceptions differ from different perspectives. While I may or may not believe the Patterson affair is legitimate, I'd prefer the arguments pro or con be based on more than the weak supposition that if two stories differ - either at the time or as time passes - that it must therefore be a lie. Those who rely on such supposition to form the basis of their belief, are way too easily distracted from elements that may contain complete truth, or complete refutation.

I am now 54 years old. I have many stories to tell. At the same time, I wonder if my telling now, is as accurate as my telling when I was 14? For that matter, if my telling at 16 or 17, would be the same as some of my friends who were present for the events at 14 or 15. If the "bopsy twins" were not identically dressed from head to toe as I claim - and my friend denies - does it mean I didn't see their intimate apparel?

K

Or shillin' ?

I used to belong to a professional organization. One of the members was a decorated WWII fighter pilot who became an attorney after the war. He had one very harrowing episode where his P-51 lost its engine shortly after takeoff. He managed to land safely but only barely. His telling of the event was something he liked to do especially in conversation with new people so the story got told many times and I heard it at least 4 times maybe more. The thing is each and every time he told the story it was EXACTLY the same, VERBATIUM!! Then after finishing his tale he would add a postscript that went, "This story is true, and one of the way you can tell if a person is lying is if they tell a story and then retell it EXACTLY the same each and every time they tell it." Which was exactly the way he told his "true story" yet somehow failed to grasp his telling of his war story was presented in the very same way that he claimed makes something a lie. Personally after I got to know him I came to think that he was full of hot air much of the time.

But, the two biggest uncertainties/inconsistencies I have problems with didn't happen 40, 20, or even 10 years later, they happened between 2 days and 4 months later. And, it's not what they witnessed that has me it's what they did (or didn't do).

First, surely you'd remember tracking it for 3.5 miles; that's something that would take more than a few minutes to accomplish, and add significantly to the timeline of events. Bob, after chasing up and down for a little while, managed to gather up the spooked horses, and scouted around the area while Roger packed up their stuff. Then they tracked Patty (7 mile round trip), returned to the truck (nearly a 4 mile round trip) to get plaster, made casts, tried to duplicate the depth of the tracks, etc. etc.

Patterson's story differs greatly from the evidence that Titmus supposedly found at the film site. Patterson mentions the 3.5 mile tracking attempt in February 1968, while Titmus claims Patty walked to a spot where she could observe the men from only about 125 yards away (page 91 of Big Footprints, by Dr. Grover Krantz, and page 121 of Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us, by John Green). That's also a significant difference in distance.

Second, questions regarding the processing of the film have never been adequately addressed. Who, where, how, when?

RayG

Well there you go Ray why not launch an investigation into that issue and settle it once and for all. If you consider it a damning issue then do something about it. Mentioning it does nothing to settle it but sluthing out the who , what where and when will. Can you deliver the goods on solving that issue?

Hell,,after 40 years, I'm still waiting on a Patty action figure.

Just for you, Grazhopprr.

HOLY %!@^^#@ !! I'm gonna order up a dozen of those and give em out to the people who smirk at me, lol. Too cool,,,,,,,,,

A damning issue? No, as I said, there are questions regarding the processing of the film that have never been adequately addressed. I don't find that damning, but I do find it puzzling. Don't you? Since the only people that can answer those questions aren't talking, and it's 40+ years after the fact, I doubt we'll ever know the answers.

RayG

I think RayG offered some valid questions, not the first time I've heard them. But to be honest, again it comes down to recallin' the past RayG...? I know an understand what it is you're askin', but if I recall, from what I understand...the answer is lost in time. I'm not makin' excuses or anythin', but just the same, lets face it...sometimes we're not goin' to find answers. Doesn't meen thin's are amiss...simply overlooked an lost in/with time. It's been 40 years, even back in the day, if it was me...it wouldn't be the how thin's were done, it would be....what did I get !? It's easy to question thin's logically after the fact...but when you've got hold of the devil by the tail, I think it's another story. Long story short, I think people have the right to question this an that, but at the same time...I think it only fair, propper an responsible of us...to think that question through. Back in the day, it was a hell of alote different, in many ways !


Pat...

I've wondered about the developing timeline but I've never lost sleep over the matter. Bottom line the film was shot, the film was developed and the film went public. We don't have a single smoking gun in the form of a lab tech stating that the film was developed long before Oct 20-21 1967. Nor do we have a secret developer who did it on the side coming forward and saying the timeline is false. Now we have a guy/guys from time to time claiming to have worn the suit so why haven't we ever had a film lab tech claiming to have done the developing? Just about everything else that can be milked from the film has been so why not someone as important as the person who developed the film? That person/lab would have had 40 years to cash in but P&G's timeline has held.

Sure we'll never know when the film was developed so the proof will have to be come from other means.

As far as memory and accuracy goes here's one. Two years ago I mailed my car registration renewal from one of 3 small post offices in my area. I couldn't tell you which one of the 3 it was and yet I pass all 3 every day on my way to my business.

Do you think if you stopped to take a film of the mail slot when you dropped it in, you would remember it ?

What if there was no evidence that a post office even existed, and you happened to catch it on film ?
Do you think you might remember some details, like if it was one story tall or ten ?

I think remembering something has a lot to do with what's was going on at the time. But even that has its limits. I can tell the story of where I was and what I was doing when 9-11 happened, and the story would remain the same, but to ask me for minute details, I don't think I'd remember. Doesn't mean I'm lying, just that I remember the larger details and not the smaller ones.
Actually, even the larger details could be suspect now that I think about it.