Jan 112012
 

With the publication of Greg Long’s book The Making of Bigfoot in 2004, a great deal of damning information came out about Roger Patterson. A clear picture emerges of a swindler and a con man, one who wrote bad checks and was even arrested for failing to pay the rental charges on the movie camera he used at Bluff Creek.

Not surprisingly Bigfoot advocates shot back, claiming that these accusations were about a dead man who could not defend himself, that they were personal attacks that has no bearing on what was seen in his film, and even that he was broke because of medical bills and more or less had to write bad checks!

The following images are intended to demonstrate that Patterson was unequivocally engaged in Bigfoot related fraud before he made his famous film. These images obviously have nothing to do with writing bad checks.

The individual credited with discovering these images posts on various internet forums as “Kitakaze.” I find it rather surprising that it wasn’t until well into the 21st Century that this was discovered, though the magazines and books have been around since the mid 1960’s.

The first montage includes an illustration by Mort Künstler, and appeared in the December 1959 issue of True Magazine. The illustration accompanied the essay entitled “The Strange Story of America’s Abominable Snowman”… by Ivan Sanderson. Beneath is the drawing Patterson plagiarized which appeared in his 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?

The second montage includes an image by artist Louis S. Glanzman, and appeared in another True Magazine article written by Ivan Sanderson, this one from March 1960 issue entitled A New Look At America’s Mystery Giant. The lower drawing is again from Patterson’s book.

 Posted by on 01/11/2012 Bigfoot

  7 Responses to “Roger Patterson’s Plagiarism”

  1. The “…he was broke because of medical bills and more or less had to write bad checks” defense is self-defeating, isn’t it? if Patterson felt strongly enough about money that he had to break the law by writing bad checks, isn’t it reasonable to assume he would also be likely to engage in a legal act ie the Patterson film “…because of medical bills and more or less had to…”?

  2. I seriously doubt Roger Patterson was sophisticated enough to know what the word Plagiarism meant or that using someone else’s work was a no-no.

    While I think the Patty creature is the real deal, the story behind how it all went down is a much bigger fraud than any petty plagiarism by Patterson.

  3. The dogs are barking at the elephant

  4. So, he did sketch copies of popular images. This is not really damning, but is very similar to including newspaper accounts of sightings, which he also did.

    Bigfoot Bookman
    Willow Creek

  5. My goodness, I reported that Patterson copied the Kunstler drawing over ten years ago. I also reference that he copied at least one drawing in my book THE BIGFOOT FILM JOURNAL. Nevertheless, I did not know about the True Magazine article.

    However, let’s learn a little something about artwork. Some of the most famous artworks in history are copies. Artists have been doing this since man started scratching images on cave walls. If you want to know more about this, then go to the library and read the first few chapters of HISTORY OF ART, by M.W, Janson.

    There is nothing wrong with this, unless one tries to pass off (sell) his copy as an original. We don’t even know if the original artwork copied by Patterson was “original.” Artists have to get ideas from somewhere, so they search around and essentially “copy” (either in whole or in part) what others have done. You will note that Patterson’s drawings are a bit different, so he sort of “did his own thing,” as it were.

    As an artist, Patterson was really very good. That he used his talent to illustrate his book was a real “plus.” To say that this was an indication of his dishonesty is quite absurd.

    At this time, I am attempting to create a sasquatch sculpture based on painting by another artist. The painting has everything I need sort of thing (proper proportions, good stance, perfect detail and so forth). Why should I reinvent the wheel? That’s the way it goes with artwork. Ask any artist.

    Chris Murphy

  6. Chris, I regret that I missed your work in your re-printed Patterson book. Thanks for the updated information. As far as art goes, I like fine art and illustration myself. The degree to which Patterson copied other artists speaks for itself, which is why I included the visual examples. It’s not a not, it’s not an homage, it’s obvious plagiarism, which is why I used that word.

    I know it’s an uphill battle to convince the world that Patterson wasn’t a con man, a lying, thieving, horse-dragging, plagiarist, but I wish you luck in fighting the good fight!

  7. Chris Murphy writes,

    At this time, I am attempting to create a sasquatch sculpture based on painting by another artist. The painting has everything I need sort of thing (proper proportions, good stance, perfect detail and so forth). Why should I reinvent the wheel? That’s the way it goes with artwork. Ask any artist.

    As a working artist, I quite agree that every artist’s work is in some sense derivative—we learn from art, just as filmmakers learn from film. It’s also true that many artists keep “scrap” files of reference images that may inspire or assist us in our work, in exactly the same way that writers keep books for reference.

    Nonetheless, outright copying without credit (and more important, without permission) as Patterson did for his illustrations is not acceptable for artists any more than it is for writers. An instructive case referred to often in art circles is Rogers v. Koons, in which a well known professional sculptor used another artist’s photograph as the basis for a sculpture. Koons was successfully sued for copyright infringement on the basis that his sculpture was not parody and was “substantially similar” to the original two-dimensional photograph “to the extent that, under the ordinary observer test, we conclude that no reasonable jury could have differed on the issue of substantial similarity. For this reason, the district court properly held that Koons ‘copied’ the original.”

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.