Sunday, March 27, 2011

LEROY BLEVINS: The Unfinished, Aborted INTERVIEW with Bigfooting's Blobsquatching Master. PART ONE

The Blevins "Patty" suit--about as realistic as our own
childhood wolfman get-up. They love it at JREF, though!
Late March, 2011, EDITION, PART ONE

well, an attempt at one, anyway....

Well, sometimes we worry about the cat walking on the keyboard and accidentally publishing our blog or sending an email for me, with crazy, messed-up cat content. That is how publishing this feels, at times; but we are doing it of our own accord. Last year a much-belabored process produced the wandering, incomplete, on-again-off-again interview with one Leroy Blevins, Sr., which follows. He is known for his, um, "interesting" ideas about the Patterson-Gimlin Film. Call it "alternative history," or perhaps "conspiracy theory," or maybe even "sheer imagination and pareidolia." We wanted to question him about it. He began to ramble, not following the direction or questions of the interview, and then finally coasted right off the tracks, crashing headlong into the JFK assassination. Not too surprising, this, when one considers Blevins also claims to have found the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, and that Bigfoot is actually an Edomite. We guess his attention span couldn't hold him, as the interview was actually going pretty well for a while. Rather than waste this material, we're just going to publish it here. Please forgive its fragmentary form. There are great humorous things and some fine PGF minutiae in here, if you know what you're looking for in it. If you thought that the ideas of MK Davis were "out there," then you may be surprised that MK is just a pretty normal guy in comparison. Read on....

Take it with a grain of salt. Blevins provided very little substantive proof for any of this theories. This interview took place a year or so ago, so his ideas and our own understanding have both changed somewhat since then.
Here it is, in the raw. BEWARE! This covers, with illustrations, about 113 pages in WORD. It covers about 70 single-spaced text only pages. Someone should  pay us for doing this!

NOTE: You are looking at PART ONE of the INTERVIEW.
 or just see below for the next blog entry.
Also... Read our previous blog entry touching on Blevins matters HERE.


What is Pareidolia, you ask? Read here:
But first....
"MKD" has informed us that his Theory, heretofore known as "The Bluff Creek Massacre," was not ever a "massacre" theory, and that he in any case never called it by that name. He does not want us or anyone to call it that any longer. There never was, we guess, a "massacre." We would therefore like to disavow all prior references on this blog's pages to this theory as such. We will now try to find a new name for it that will be acceptable to Mr. D., as well as recognizable to all in the Bigfoot Community, who should know what the heck we are talking about whenever we mention this particular set of ideas about what happened in Bluff Creek in 1967 (or was it 1964 now, MKD?). WE HAVE ASKED MKD FOR AN OFFICIAL NAME. He has not gotten back to us on this issue yet, though many emails were exchanged back and forth. 
Theory That Dare Not Speak Its Name
We could call it "THE-THEORY-FORMERLY-KNOWN-AS-MASSACRE," but he wouldn't like that either. We're trying to be accommodating here, really! Now, if YOU have a better name for the theory, please comment or drop us an email. For now we will just have to call it the "BLUFF CREEK 'BLEEP' THEORY." Any reference to this theoretical construct that may appear below is part of an interview conducted a long ways back now, and we cannot be held accountable for everything in it, especially if Mr. Blevins said it. We DO hope you understand. We just want to ask one thing here for now: IF IT WASN'T A "BLEEP," THEN WHAT WAS IT? A Bigfoot slaughter? A self-defensive aggression with collateral hairy-humanoid damage? The Titmus-Green-Dahinden-Patterson-Gimlin Illuminati Bury-the-Evidence Confab? The Theory that Dare Not Speak Its Name? WHAT DO WE CALL THE DARN THING????


Recently, Patterson-Gimlin Film researcher/debunker, Leroy Blevins, Sr., read our MK Davis interview, and then sent the following question. We had spoken to him before, at length, last year; and this question sparked another round of discourse. It has evolved into an interview, but because of the wide-ranging nature of the discussion, much of it was not containable in the formal interview process. Hence, we are including all of the discourse that stemmed from it for you to see and consider. Original Blevins grammar and syntax have been left as they are--there's only so many times we can say "sic." Not all of this could be arranged chronologically, so please be tolerant and willing to follow where these winds blow. Oddly enough, despite all of the attempted debunking that follows, Blevins is a BIGFOOT BELIEVER. He saw one once!

If you haven't read our more recent blog post on Blevins-related issues, you might want to refer to it HERE.

Leroy Blevins, Sr.: Pareidolia Genius
I like to ask you something if you don't mind. I been going over interviews on MK Davis and Bob Gimlin. Now the question I like to ask is Who was the one that shot part of the film that shows Patterson with the pack horse in the canyon and woods and who was the one that shot part of the footage that shows Patterson making the cast prints and Patterson holding the cast prints?

The reason for this question is in the interview Bob Gimlin did with John Green on Nov 5 2009 Bob Gimlin was asked about the camera on who had the camera Bob said Roger had the camera the whole time. And he also said he knows nothing about cameras or how to take pictures with a camera even today he has never tooken pictures. So I like to know who was the one that was filming Patterson at Bluff Creek when Bob claim he did not have the camera or even taken any photos. So there had to be someone else with them for Patterson to be filmed at Bluff Creek.
PS Do you have MK Davis e-mail address I lost it and I like to ask him somethings if you don't mind

Say, can we do this discussion as part of an interview for my blog? I'd assure you that if you did this I would not edit or distort what you say, but just try to discuss it with you in the questioning/discussion that will be out in the open as the body of the interview. Since I am a blogger on a weekly schedule, I like to try to put discussions like this into the blog if possible, rather than just having them privately.

Here is some other "stuff" we found in your Gimlin image. Are
they all real? They are just as obvious and clear as your "Bob."
Blevins says he sees Bob Gimlin hiding in the bushes behind
"Patty" in the P-G Film. It is just an illusion, like our "man" here.
You make a very good observation that Patterson may have had no packs on his horse. However, there is no firm record of what day that woods footage was taken, nor the Gimlin with pack horse footage, and no one knows for sure that they were shot on the same day as the Bigfoot part. It is on the same reel, that is all.

Actually, Patterson rode a smaller pony most of the time, and it appears that he is on Gimlin's larger horse in that woods footage. And it appears that Gimlin is riding Patterson's horse in that other footage.

I don't know what to make of what Gimlin said about the filming. In other places he has said that he filmed Patterson making the track casts, and in the woods a few times. I really don't know. He is like 79 or so now, so his memory of things long ago is obviously going to be spotty at times. Also, it is hard for me to refer to a radio interview. Are you speaking of the Larry Battson show one? I guess I should listen to it again.

I say, just don't jump to conclusions when there is not enough evidence to show things one way or the other.
Steve, Bigfoot Books

LEROY BLEVINS: I don't mind doing a interview. But may I ask a question if you don't mind.
The reason I said this is what doe's it matter. As you know I send you what I found in the film but all you can do and even other people come up this excuses on what I found. Like the saddlebag I send you still photos that shows Patterson on his horse with no saddlebag on his horse. But you said it was Bob Gimlin horse or this part of the film no one knows when it was filmed. Instead of looking at it and say something like you do show there was no saddlbag on his horse now how did Patterson get his camera out of a saddlebag when the film shows him with no saddlebag. Now if you was there then I can say ok it was Bob Gimlin horse or this part of the film was shot days before. But you was not there just like me I was not there. Now if Bob Gimlin seen this interview and see you made your claim it was his horse or it was film another day then if someone ask Bob Gimlin about this photo that shows Patterson horse with no saddlebag  then he can say the same thing you said in your claim. Now is this right on finding the truth? So you see this is why I said WHY.

Just like I can point out somethings that a lot of people and even researchers said it can not be done even you said the same thing. Like the timeline they told of that weekend. Filming the Bigfoot and making cast prints and going into town to mail out the film then get the film developed and show all 3 reels on Sunday and again on Monday. When I know by making calls to places that developed this type of film and they told me it take about 2 or 3 days to developed all 3 reels and they all close at noon on Saturday. So like I said there is no way they did this on this 1 weekend. But today Bob Gimlin still telling this same story and we know that is a lie. So just this alone shows Bob Gimlin lying.

Here's our quick PhotoShop hack job to show the "other guy
sitting on Blevins' "Gimlin's" knee. Which one is "real"???
Now about Patterson.Patterson claim his horse fell on him but Bob Gimlin claims that never happen.
Patterson used another man as a standin for Bob Gimlin and claim he was Bob Gimlin.
Patterson is lying on both times.

So you see just in these two things here you can see that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin both lied. So how can you stand up for them and how can anyone believe these two men when they both was caught lying.

I like to point out something again. Bob Gimlin claim in the interview on Nov 5 2009 that when he was at home he had a friend that seen Patterson and the Bob Gimlin standin and he said his friend stand up and yelled out that is not Bob Gimlin I know Bob Gimlin and that not him and then he was kicked out. But in the interview when Bob Gimlin first told the story he said his friend called him after the show and said that Patterson was useing some other man in his place and claim he was Bob Gimlin. But his friend did not said nothing for he did not like to start a riot so he said nothing and keeped quiet. So you see again from Oct he tells the story to a man on Oct 20 and just 15 days latter he changed the story. And I know you will say he is old but still Bob Gimlin changed his story again. So you see it does not matter what I say or show you are someone else will make up a excuses for Bob Gimlin or Patterson. When what you need to do is find Bob Gimlin and ask him these questions and let him come up with the answers.
For example: The saddlebag.
Ask Bob Gimlin to answer why there is no saddlebag on Patterson horse.
Ask Bob Gimlin why does one photo shows him standing behind the brush.
Ask Bob Gimlin why is there other images of men found in the film and why they took them out.
Ask Bob Gimlin why the film shows more men there with him and Patterson.
Ask Bob Gimlin why is Bob Heironimus and Jerry Merritt on reel 2 with Patterson makeing the cast prints and holding the cast prints in his hand on this same reel.
Ask Bob Gimlin why the Bigfoot stop 9 times in the film and stand upright.
Ask Bob Gimlin why are there two different feet on the Bigfoot and why don't the cast prints match the feet on this Bigfoot.
Ask Bob Gimlin when was the film shot and when did they get the film developed.

You see only Bob can asnwer these question not you or me only Bob Gimlin. I show what I found in the film and still photos but Bob Gimlin is the only one that can asnwer the question. Like in that interview he was on Nov 5 2009 in that interview Bob Gimlin claim he was at Bluff Creek the last week of September or the first of October. Then Larry said you mean Oct 20 and he said ya that right. Just like Bob Gimlin for years claim the Bigfoot was just a little over 6' but after he seen the Munns report now he claim the Bigfoot was 7'4". Come on Bob Gimlin is getting words put into his mouth and he is only telling the same story they tell him to say. So now do you get my point. And the reason I said why.

What I show is there no matter what anyone say I show what I found and the only man that can asnwer the question is Bob Gimlin and you and I know Bob Gimlin will never answer these claim or questions.
So you see you answer any of the things I show you are not giveing Bob Gimlin the time to come up with the answer for he is use to people telling him the answers to the questions. You can see this in all of the interviews he was in. Like in a interview with Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin said the arms of the Bigfoot was way down past it's knee then Patterson said no the arms did not go past the knees like that and Bob Gimlin said ya thats right. So you see Bob Gimlin is given the answers to the questions and he is not coming up with the answers on his own.

Now like right in front of Bob Gimlin Patterson claim his horse fell on him but Bob Gimlin did not say nothing. Now both of the things I just said are told in 1 interview Now if Bob Gimlin tells the truth as people claim why did Bob Gimlin stop Patterson and said now the horse did not fall on you like when Patterson stop Bob Gimlin on the claim of the arms below the knees. Now Patterson stop Bob so why Bob did not stop Patterson.
So you think about this first and let me know what you think on what I said. Thank you God Bless, Leroy
The thing is, you take inconsistencies in the stories as lies, but they are not necessarily so. You can say they are lies, but they may just be differences in how things were remembered.

Also, it really is NOT proven when those first images were taken, so you cannot necessarily presume that the non-saddlebagged horse is the same horse at the same time that Patterson was riding when they saw the Creature. You just can't, and it cannot be proven from the scant evidence that we have.

Gimlin and Patterson had different memories, or they didn't get their stories straight, or they forgot things over time. That seems clear.
Blevins' "Gimlin." Do you see him? Wait, how could he be riding a  horse if he
was actually hiding in the bushes? Also, Blevins does not realize those trees
 are at perhaps 45 feet or more away from the Bigfoot. His "Gimlin" is a giant!
There are other things that you SEE in the film that may not really BE there, like the Bigfoot in the earlier footage, or the "Gimlin" in the trees. These are NOT proven by you, but only suggestive things you have spotted in a murky film background. All of your points MAY be true, or some of them may be true, which may or may not shed light on the film and what happened.

The point of doing an interview with you is that we could go through these things systematically, and try to analyze them together. The matters with Bob Gimlin need to be taken up with him, but obviously you'd have to ask him. I am not his "good friend" or anything, though I have met him a few times; and in any case he would surely resent your accusations, or would be very tired of this kind of questioning. He has told his story, and that is where he stands. He isn't changing it at this point.
So, do you want to do the interview or not?

LEROY BLEVINS: Ok Steve, Let us do this but first let us go over everything and not just part ok. And let us also start at the beginning and not in the middle or end let us go over everything so they can see it from both side with nothing add to the story and not hear say from others. Plus we need to look at the answers they give and not the answers he say or give. And we also will go over my findings and talk about them points by points so people can see what I am talking about plus we are talking about my research on the film and not the researchers research that was done on the film. But when can use some of there research to prove our points in this interview so people can read for them self to understand.

Ok now lets do this.
Or Maybe You Believe BOB?
The story told by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin told of that day back in 1967,
The story:
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin claim they was at Bluff Creek Ca. They claim to have seen and film a Bigfoot at Bluff Creek on Oct 20, 1967. They road their horse to in the woods and up some roads and a around a bend and they came up on the Bigfoot. They claim the horse gone wild and Roger Patterson claim that him and his horse fell to the ground then he got up really fast and got the camera out of his saddle bag and started to film the Bigfoot. Now as he was filming the Bigfoot he was running up on it as Bob Gimlin road his horse across the creek bed and took out his rifle to cover Patterson. Now as Patterson was filming the Bigfoot The Bigfoot it self just walked away very comely and just looked back and contenu to just walk away as these two men was running up on it with things in their hands but the Bigfoot just walked away. After the Bigfoot was gone Patterson reloaded his camera with new film and they started to film some more of the tracks the Bigfoot left behind and also they made cast prints of the tracks. After they was done they road their horses back to the camp site and got into the truck and drove 17 miles into town so Roger Patterson can mail out 3 reels of film they shot to his brother in-law Al DeAtley. Now Patterson send it to the airport in Seattle Washington. This was all done on Friday Oct 20, 1967.

Now Saturday Patterson brother in-law (Al DeAtley) recessive the film at the Seattle Washington Airport at 10 AM Saturday morning. He then took the all 3 reels and got them developed and gone back to his home in Yakima Washington. This was all done on Saturday Oct 21, 1967. Now on Sunday Patterson and Gimlin gone back to Yakima Washington however Bob Gimlin gone straight home as Patterson gone to his brother in-laws (Al DeAtley) house to look over the 3 reels of film. When Patterson got to his brother in-laws (Al DeAtley) house they gone into his basement to look over the 3 reels of film. At that time there was two other men upstairs waiting to see the film too. Now as soon as Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) seen all 3 reels they told the other two men they can see the film. Now this was all done on Sunday Oct 22, 1967. Now the next day Roger Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) gone to Canada to show the film to some researchers there. They shown the film to the researchers but they only shown 2 of the 3 reels. After they shown the reel 1 and reel 2 two of the researchers asked can they have a copy of reel 2 so they can look over the tracks of the Bigfoot and the tracks left by the horses. Roger Patterson told them they will have a copy of reel 2 by Friday. Note: However they never got a copy of reel 2 and no one has never seen reel 3 only Roger Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley). Now all of this was done on Monday Oct 23,1967.
Or Maybe You Believe Roger?
This is the story told by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin but the question is was this the truth they told?
The reason for the question can this be done in the time frame they tell in the story.

Friday Oct 20, 1967 They filmed and made cast prints and film some more then road all over the place in trucks and horse and mail out the film.
Saturday Oct 21,1967 Patterson brother in-law (Al DeAtley) drove to Seattle got the film at 10 AM and got all 3 reels developed and drove back to Yakima.
Sunday Oct 22, 1967 Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) viewed all 3 reels at his house in Yakima Washington and even two other men.
Monday Oct 23, 1967 Patterson and his brother in-law (Al DeAtley) shown the film to researchers in Canada.

As you see just in this timeline alone there are questions that needed answers too and where is the proof to back this story up they tell. So I did some research on this story to find if what they told is true or not and to find if the time frames can line up to the story. First I made some calls to places in Seattle Washington that develops this type of film and was open back in 1967. I found 11 companies in Washington that develope this type of film and was open in 1967. All of them claim they did not develope the film for Patterson or anyone else but they did tell me that there was no way that 3 reels of film of this type can be develope in one day even on a Saturday for all of them close at noon on Saturday. This gives 2hr for Al DeAtley to get the film and find a place to develope the film. However I did talk to one company that did developed the film for Al DeAtley and they was 3 reels but they claim it was droped off on Tuesday Oct 10, 1967 and was picked up on Friday Oct 13, 1967. So I asked did they have any recordes of this and they said no. So it was back to hear say. But they did also told me that it takes 2 or 3 days to develope this type of film and to do all 3 reels and they too also close at noon on a Saturday. So looking at this so far by the time to develope this film don't fits the story they told. 

Now as I gone over the film I found that there was some editing done to the film. So add this to the time frame and and agin with the editing done to the film it had to be done before way before Oct 20, 1967. Now they claim there was only the two men there and that was Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin however on reel 2 there was two other men seen on that reel and that was Jerry Merritt and Bob Heironimus. This just add to the question of how many men was there at Bluff Creek. At this point in my investigation on the PG film there was more questions to the story they told of that day. So at this point I made another call to Bob Heironimus at first was was not there so I left my name and number on his answering machine. But he called me back a week latter it was on a Wednesday. So I asked him why was he and Jerry Merritt was on reel 2 when it was told all 3 reels was shot at Bluff Creek? He told me that part was filmed at Mt. St. Helens in Washington. Now this brings up more questions the reason for this is on reel 2 you see after Bob Heironimus and Jerry Merritt the part of the film where Patterson was filming the tracks and showing him making the cast prints then also showing Patterson holding the cast prints in his hands by a tree. So how did they film the first part of reel 2 at a different location and take out that film then put new film in and then put that same film back into the camera without messing up that reel?
But again Bob Heironimus claims there was only the 3 men there.
So now at this point I gone back to the film and look at parts of the film to find the proof to back up the story they told of that weekend. As I gone over the film I found two things that stand out in the film.
Or Maybe You Just Believe Patty?
First the Riding Chaps. As you watch the film you see Patterson with riding chaps on as he rides his horse. But in part of the film as Patterson was making the cast prints he did not have his riding chaps on. Now again come to the question is why did he take the time to take off his riding chaps when he had to put them back on to ride back to the campsite on his horse to get to the truck to ride into town. Plus he just got done filming a creature that people been trying to do for years.And with all of this going on and filming the creature and horse going crazy and finding his horses and making cast prints and filming then he still had the time to take off his riding chaps and put them back on. Note: As I gone over other photos of Patterson at campsites and in his book you see Patterson sitting around a camp fire at night with his riding chaps on even a shot film that shows Patterson with 5 other men and they all was sitting around a camp fire with their riding chaps still on them.
Then the second thing I found as I was going over still photo of Patterson holding the cast prints in his hands by the tree. You can see there was no plaster on his paints. As you watch him make the cast prints you see he get plaster on his boots and left leg but when you see the next part of the film you see Patterson holding these cast prints in his hands and there was no plaster on his left leg and boots. Plus as you also see the cast prints in Patterson hands are very clean with no mud or sand in them they look very clean to just been made. Note: Photos will be send with this e-mail.

Patterson with Casts, Bluff Creek
Like I said we will do this one step at a time. As you see by this Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin are not telling the truth.  Leroy

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Leroy, We'd have to start from the start, with me asking you a question, and the points and discussion following. You know, I can't address all of that information at once, and it won't introduce you to the reader. We'd have to do some fact checking along the way, too--can you cite sources for all of your information?

The first question should be...
BIGFOOT BOOKS: Mr. Blevins, could you tell us a bit about yourself, your background, and how you became interested in Bigfoot and the Patterson-Gimlin film?

LEROY BLEVINS: I am 43 years old I have a wife and 5 kids. I am retired from construction of 30 years, I have always had a passion for history,I started to do research at the age of 14 looking for the true history of man. On my spare time I study the Bible, Egyptian, Native American History, American History, Hunting, Tracking, Filming and Photo Analyzing. After I retire I started to do my research full time. I did research on Noah's ark, Garden of Eden, Sodom and Gomorrah, The ark of the covenant, and other stories told in the Bible looking for the true stories that are told.In my research I have found the true story of Noah and the flood and I also found the location of Noah's ark at rest on Mt Ararat, I also found the location of The Garden of Eden. I also did research on the Zodiac Killer and found away to read the letters he wrote. I became interested in Bigfoot 9 years ago when I seen one as I was going home from work. It was in the middle of the summer and we just got done with a roof job in Indiana I lived in Ohio. So we gone throw Kentucky and as we was going throw Kentucky on the highway it was around 4PM now I know this, is everyday from 4:01 or 4:02 this radio station always played Another Brick in the Wall by Pick Floyd. Now as we was going down the highway my nephew point to the side of the road and said is that a monkey and as I looked it stood up and I said no that not a monkey we was only about 20 ft away from this creature. We stop to look at it and it just stood there for about 4 min's just looking at us. I can see the face and the whole body it was a male he stood upright he was around 7'1" he had brown fur but the front of the torso was more of a lighter color. The face looked like a big man face with a beard and long hair and you can smell this bad odor. Then it just turn around and step over this 4ft fence and walked away into the woods. That same night when I got home I took off of work for the next 3 days to go over books and research by others just to find the start of this hair man. I have heard of Bigfoot by my research on the Native American and also when I first seen the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot film back in 1976. 

Patterson on Horse in Bluff Creek.
Do YOU See the Saddlebags?
So for them 3 days I did research looking for the start of this creature that is when I gone back to the Bible and found the start of this type of man. The Bigfoot was a Edomite. The Edomites was a race of man that was very big and had fur that covered their body's and was stronger then us. They lived in the woods and fields. They had a smell they also made a bitter cry when they are upset. The Edomites first lived in a city called Edom they built a city in the mountain side just as the same you see here in the USA these cave city's in the mountain side. There is a lot more I can tell on this research but that would take up some time. So the reason I started to do research on the PG film was one day about 4 years ago a man called me and said will you take a look over the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot film for me. I then ask him his name and he said just call me a friend. So I ask him how he got my number and why he like for me to go over this film. He told me he seen my research on Noah's ark and seen I found the ark and he also seen some of my other research I did on other things in the Bible. So I said will the Bible has nothing to do with the PG film. He said will you look for the truth and everything you claim you show. But I said I don't know. Now he called me 3 other time before I said yes to do my research on this film. Now at first when I started to go over the film I was looking for proof to back the film 100% for I seen a Bigfoot just 5 years earlier. At first going over the PG film it did looked very real to me but I needed to look over the whole film and not just parts of the film. You see in my research I go over the whole stories that are told and not just parts of the story I even do testing on the claims and the story just to find if it can be done or can not be done. This is how I do my research. I don't send my research out to others to test for me or look over for me I do the testing and research myself this way there is no hear say or anything added to the research just right to the point. But at this point as I started to slow down the film to get a better look at all of the surrounding in the film. I learned in research that the only way to find the truth is not only look at the object but also the surroundings for they also can tell you something that happen. So when I started to slow down the film I found things in the film that stand out in the surroundings. One of the first things I found in the film was another man hat. This hat came in and out of frame as Patterson was filming Bob Gimlin riding down this dirt road with the pack horse. If you look you can see in 1 frame the brim of the hat and the next frame the whole hat. You can see it on the bottom right corner in the film. Now it was told that there was only the two men there that day but here in the film shows Bob Gimlin in front of the camera then you have Patterson behind the camera on his horse and now you have this other man hat come in and out of frame. Now by looking at the film you can see that Patterson was filming from his horse by the motion of the camera and the the angle as he filmed Bob Gimlin with the pack horse they both was at the same level. The hat may look bigger then what it is from the sunlight reflecting off this white hat. The two frames that shows the hat will be send with this e-mail.
BIGFOOT BOOKS: Well, that is very interesting. I'm not too sure how well known you are in the world of Bigfooting, but my sense of it is that those within the Bigfoot community who do know about you think of you as a debunker and disbeliever. In actual fact, then, you DO believe, as you have seen one. Why did you pursue the analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF), instead of seeking the creature itself and trying to prove it, after you saw one?

Can you give the Biblical references you have used, for our readers? It would seem you fall definitely on the side of "Bigfoot as Human." But how is it that, if they once lived in cities and alongside of us, they now are so hidden and elusive, animal-like, living wild and leaving absolutely no evidence of technology, building, cities or societal organization? What happened to them?
Gimlin with Packhorse in Bluff Creek.
Regarding the "hat": just to be clear, for our readers, this is not from the actual, famous "Patterson-Gimlin Film," the clip that everyone has seen, with the Bigfoot creature in it. Rather, it is from the same reel of film used in that trip, called Reel One by researchers. The Bigfoot part is the last minute or so of that reel. As the story goes, that footage was taken previously, either earlier that day or on an earlier day, before they saw the creature. As in all of the stories about October 20th, 1967, Patterson had the camera stashed away in a saddlebag at the time of the sighting.

Can you tell us what version of the film you are using for analysis? And also, have you found this "hat" in other copies of the film to confirm that it is there on the original and not a film defect in one of the copies?

To me it does kind of look like a hat, but is so obscure in form and cartoonish in shape that I can't really take it as being a real hat. Besides, it looks sort of like one of those large, tall, dress cowboy hats worn by dudes and town dandies, and not a practical horseman's outdoors hat such as the one worn by Bob Gimlin in that image. How can you explain that it appears so fleetingly? I mean, it is only in two frames, and that would be about 1/8th of a second for a camera running at 16 frames per second. That is really beyond the speed of normal human or animal movement, I'd think, especially for a back-and-forth motion. Also, the bill of the "hat" looks kind of oddly shaped. Have you found a real make of hat that matches both the shape of the top and the bill, for comparison?

LEROY BLEVINS: This is one reason I agreed to do research on the PG film is to find the proof to back the film and show it, so people well know this creature did in fact exist. and I have gone out on expeditions in the past and plan on going out again this weekend.

Part of the Bible I found the start of this kind of man.
Genesis Chapter 25 V21
A Scene of "Edomite Bigfoot" in the Hell of Michelangelo's Last Judgment.
This is the chapter and verse where the story of Esau started. However to get the whole story on Esau and the Edomites you have to go over all of the stories from Genesis to the new testments to find the whole story on the Edomites. Now the reason why they stray for man was over 3000 years ago the Roman gone after them and killed all the males in the city of Edom. However some of them got away and even the woman that was pregnant at the time also got away. Now the reason why they look like today is that Esau had 5 wives and he had sons by all 5 wives however 4 of Esau wives also had sons by their own sons this is the reason they are a little deformed. For the sons also had sons by their mothers. Now there was a painting done at the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo called The Last Judgement. In this painting he told the stories from the Bible. Now if you look at the bottom of the painting in the middle you will see he painted the Edomites cast out from man into caves. And the painting show the same image of the Bigfoot we call today. I will send this photo to you so you can see. I will also send a photo of the fur that covered the body of Esau as told in the Bible and 3 blood line of Esau wives. Now the Blessing that Esau got from his father was to live off the land and drink the water from the heavens.
There are a lot of evidence that shows they are here in the USA. The cave city's you see here where built by the Edomites. I have done research on Edom and the design of their city and if you look the cave city's here show the same trade marks as the city of Edom. I have been in construction for over 30 years and all companies have a trade mark they leave behind to show they was the one that built it. And the cave city's here in the USA show that same trade mark as seen in the city of Edom. Like some of the cave drawings done 100's of years ago show this type of man that came from over the waters and shown them how to hunt and track and shot with bows. These are the same trades the Edomites did and also this same trade can be found in the Native Americans. 

I even analyze voice recording of Bigfoot sound and found that if you slow them down you can hear them talking. In 1 recording I gone over as you slow it down you can hear two of them growling at one another then the one said "Follow the path below" and then a female Bigfoot said "OK Chief" I have this recording. Then I found that the whooping sound was not whooping at all. Again I slow this done and you hear human. Then you hear in the far off another side human. Then as soon as you hear them say human you here 5 nocks on the tree and the other one did 3 nocks. The whooping is Human and the nocks are to let the other one know how many human's they see. 4 nock are 4 human's 3 knocks are 3 human's. I even gone over reports of eyewitness claiming to hear these knocks and in those reports two men claim to hear 2 knocks and in another report 7 people claim to hear 7 knocks. So you see the knocks on the trees are to let one another know how many human they see.
Green Showing His Copy of the PG Film on X-Creatures.
The film I use is a copy of the film that John Green has. Now how can someone get a copy will as you know they shown his copy of the film on TV so that makes a copy of his film. So you see what you see on the TV of John Green film is what is on John Green copy of the film. Now I not only gone over his copy when I find things in the film I also go over other copy's of the film and even on the net and youtube and TV and all copy's of this film shows the same thing in all. Like the hat the hat looks bigger then what it really is. The reason why the hat looks Bigger is that the sunlight reflexing off the hat to make it look bigger then what it really is. And yes all the copy's I seen of the film shows the hat at the bottom right corner of the film. Now the hat I found in the film I match it to other hat but there was on photo I found that shown this same kind of hat as seen in the film. The photo I found this same hat in was the photo taken by Larry Lund that shows Roger Patterson with 4 other men.The hat that match the hat in the film was the hat that Howard Heironimus has on. 

The Blevins "Hat," with Gimlin in Foreground.
Now after I found this photo there was something that match this photo to the PG film and here it is. On Reel 2 you will find two other men on that reel and they are Jerry Merritt and Bob Heironimus. Now both of these men are in this one photo with Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson taken by Larry Lund. Now as you watch reel1 and reel2 you will see that Jerry Merritt, Bob Heironimus, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin all have the same clothes on in the film and in this photo. Now I know that you can see one or even two men having on the same clothes but all 4 of these men having on the same clothes in this photo taken by Larry Lund and also have the same clothes on in reel1 and reel2. Now the film and even this photo was both taken in the fall of 1967. Is this a coincedence maybe but a very big one like 1 in a 1,000,000. Just like one photo of the Bigfoot at the film site there are two photos that shows the bottom of the feet of the Bigfoot and you can clearly see they are two different types of feet. The left foot has no toes and the right foot has toes and looks more like a foot but the left foot don't even look like a foot. I even try to match the cast prints to the feet of this Bigfoot seen in the two photos and they don't even match this Bigfoot. The left foot or right foot. Now I also found in the one photo of the left foot showing hiding behind the brush Mr. Bob Gimlin. Yes Bob Gimlin was not on his horse as he claim for the photo shows him behind the brush as the Bigfoot walked past him. I know that you and I talked about this before and you told me that another researcher claim the Bigfoot was 20 to 30ft away from the tree but that is what he told. So I did a test on this and found that the Bigfoot was only 3 or 4 ft away from the tree then the 20 to 30 ft as claim by another. I also did a test why was Bob Gimlin behind the brush and the test shows a man with a head piece on can not hear 6ft away from him. Now the camera man was about 25ft away and you need someone closer to the man in the suit to let him know when to walk and when to stop. I will send photos with this as well. Now when I zoom in on the face behind the brush I match the face of Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin to the face behind the brush and the only face that match was the face of Bob Gimlin. Now I als found the height of the man and it was between the height of 5'6" to 5'8" and this height match the height of Bob Gimlin. Now the man behind the brush also has on a long sleeve blue shirt and again Bob Gimlin had on that day a long sleeve blue shirt. And again you see Bob Gimlin in the photo by Larry Lund and Bob Gimlin has on this long sleeve blue shirt on.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: OK, let's try to stick to just a few things at a time, next time, or try to narrow it down a bit. First, what evidence is there that these Biblical Edomites are the same people, or the same species, as Sasquatch? It seems that some of the Bigfoot sightings report human-like traits, but a clear majority describe them as being ape-like. Also, what are these cave cities? The rock dwellings I know of are made by the Anasazis and the Pueblo peoples who followed them. From all that we know these were humans, living in pretty advanced forms of civilization. The Bigfoot creature definitely lives like an animal. In nearly all of the reports. And we don't find any Bigfoot cities out there in the woods, despite trying. Can you cite any archaeological evidence that confirms these Edomites in the New World?

Your voice recording observations are interesting. However, to me they are quite vague. And besides, why would these Bigfoot creatures speak to one another in English, and how could they possibly speak so quickly that their voice would have to be slowed down many times over to make it sound that way. This reminds me of playing Led Zeppelin records backward. I did indeed hear those "Satan Messages" in there. So I tried it on The Doors. I heard Satan there, too. I even tried it on the Cookie Monster album, and lo, there were lots of cool phrases in there, too. I find this kind of observation highly dubious and subjective, just like looking at blobs and blurs and shadows in a photo or still of a film and then finding all kinds of mysterious "hidden" content.

Your version of the film, as I recall, was copied from YouTube. Isn't it? I'm sure you know that the compression on that site removes pixels and frames (as far as I understand it), and presents a generally very low quality image. If that is the copy you are using then I would say all of your conclusions are suspect and questionable. Also, that "hat" part: it was NOT on the other copies of the PGF, but so far as I know it has appeared in the public arena only from John Green's copy. So, you cannot say that it is there in all the copies because people only copied the Bigfoot part, so far as we know. If not, where in the world did you find your footage from the earlier part of Reel 1, other than Green's copy?

Regarding Gimlin being in the bushes behind the Creature.... Well, the dimensions of the film site and the placement of the trackway were well documented at the time. What "test" did you do? Why would your test be more credible than the records of several researchers who were there on the ground at the REAL film site and took REAL physical measurements? Look at Rene Dahinden's measurements, as well as his photo taken from above on the hillside above the film site. You will see that the creature is very small on the sandbar, and is moving quite away from the trees, even though it does not look that way due to the optical illusion of the film perspective. Three-dimensional things look flat in a two-dimensional plane. It is well known that you cannot easily measure distance solely from looking at film frames. HENCE, if Gimlin were in those bushes he would have to be a literal GIANT to appear at essentially the same size as the creature. Please see the photos I am attaching for a true view of the film site. Your early frames under question here would have been at the far left side of the photo image. From such a distinct blur I have no idea how you could really calculate the "man's" height, and looking at your images trying to prove the color of his "shirt" I see so much color distortion and pixelation that I can't tell if any of it is correct to the original setting and objects.

You mention that one foot does not have any toes... but can't you see that there is a very distinct blur line right at that spot in the image you are using. This looks like original camera blur made even worse by a very poor and pixelated digitization of the thing. Why on earth, if the suit were faked, would he not put toes on the foot? Your shape-size comparisons with the footprints, too, are terribly wrong because of the differing angles of view between the two.
Blevins claiming that these Yakima-area docudrama images
taken by Patterson's film project were shot in Bluff Creek and
were part of "roll two." NOPE.
You mention "Reel 2," but those cowboy images ARE NOT from Reel 2!!! They were shot in Yakima, WA, not at the film site. It is well known that Patterson used those guys in the making of his docu-drama earlier that year--just look in Greg Long's book! However, that is NOT the film site, and not the people at the filming. Even Heironimus says that there were only three there, not four or five. I really do not know how you got the idea that this was from Reel 2--so far as I know it is only a bunch of clips put together to be used in documentary presentations or for TV. Please cite your source on this. I can always ask John Green for the truth, but I'd like to know where you get yours. Also, that photo of the bunch on the horses, so I've been told, was not taken by Larry Lund. You are CONFLATING things that did not happen at the same time and place. Or so it seems to me. Reel Two is LOST, and so you cannot confirm any of this!

Please see, also, my image of your "Bob Gimlin" in the bushes, with my own discoveries circled. I see a crazy deer head, a dancing tiny bigfoot, and so many other strange things that look just as real as your Gimlin. Also, your Gimlin is so blurry that it might as well have been Elvis hiding in those trees.

OK, sorry, but I had to answer your points. Let's try to narrow it down somewhat for the next round. That way we can proceed logically and do some fact-checking and real analysis of your ideas and images. I'll let you reply to the above before asking a next question. If you want to propose a new point at the end to move on with just do so. Thanks!

The 1971 Dahinden "Aerial" Photo, with Camera Position and Subject
Here are the images. Notice that the creature is 92 feet from the tree in the back. It is also a good distance from the stumps you can see on the sandbar behind. It is even farther to get into the green foliage you are talking about Gimlin sitting in. The earlier frames would have taken place just off the frame to the left in the aerial image.

LEROY BLEVINS: If you look at the location and you look at the photo of Bob Gimlin behind the brush you can see that the location can not be found in the location photo. So you can not use this to make a point when the location of Bob Gimlin behind the brush can not be seen in the location photo.

Christopher Murphy Diagram
BIGFOOT BOOKS: It is right there, to the left off picture slightly, near where Patterson stopped running and stabilized, where Frame One of the Bigfoot is. Look at the diagrams, especially the one showing creekbed margin. Accounting for angle of view that place the creature just off the edge of the aerial photo. The subject in the film was walking in the middle of the sandbar, not up at the edge of the treeline.

LEROY BLEVINS: I think you are loosing it. I don't see none of the stuff you are seeing. You are just pointing out shadows and saying things that are not there. are you ok?

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Leroy, I think that is what YOU have been doing with this Gimlin thing. Hence, yes, I am OK. I was joking. I do "see" those things--with my imagination, just like you do. Look closer. The things will emerge.


BIGFOOT BOOKS: Ok? Yes. Completely. Are you? I look forward to your answer.
Titmus-Krantz Diagram
LEROY BLEVINS: No because where Patterson filmed the first walk of the Bigfoot of the Bigfoot you can see very clearly see there was a hole just to the left of Patterson and Patterson was right by this hole and there and debree.But when you look at the photo of the location you don't see this hole with debree. So what did they do cover it up then took this photo of the location? Just like the road off to the left of the location. As you have seen by MK Davis he shows a photo of John green at the film site and in the back ground you can see a road. So you see the first part of the Bigfoot walk location is not seen on the photo of the location site.

What I found and what I show is not my imagination. What I found and what I show is a real face behind the brush and the face that match the face behind the brush is that of Bob Gimlin. You are not doing what I am doing you are pointing out shadows and claiming this is this or that. But the photo shows Bob Gimlin.

I like to know why you did not answer my question I ask you last night about Bob Gimlin lying.

Steve, Before I answer any more question I like to ask you something. Your questions you ask you are using someone else research to answer my research but none of it is your research. Then you point out things in the photo and say this or that when in fact you are just trying to come up with reason for Bob Gimlin or Patterson. When all I show is what can be seen in the film I think you need to ask the questions to Bob Gimlin  and not me. You like to think with logic but this is not logic. Or even in reason. You siad we will go over this from the start but you are jumping around from my research on the Edomites to the film. At first I thought we was only going over my research on the PG film and not my research on the Edomites and recordings. When you can say that sound good but let us talk only about the PG film for now and then maybe latter we can do a interview on the Edomites and the recording. But you are talking about the PG film and my research on Edomites and even my research on recording when we need to say with the PG film and not jump around like you are doing. Like before you can say this person is lying or that person is lying you have to look at the facts at hand. Let me show you.

You ask a question and I aswer it then you use things like Mr.Longs book when Mr.Longs book is calling the PG film a hoax. Then you ask me can I prove that this is from reel 2 when reel 2 was lost. Well that true but if it was lost then why do they show parts from reel 2 like the Bigfoot tracks and and Patterson making the cast prints. And these are from reel 2. Even when they show Patterson by a tree holding the cast prints in his hands this to is also from reel 2. So you see how can reel 2 be lost when they show these parts from reel 2. Now you ask me a question about the feet of the Bigfoot what you don't know is I was in a interview with Mr.Morris and I point this out in that interview and even talk to him and the bottom of the feet he sold Patterson has the toes shape at the top of the foot but the bottom look more like a pad with no toe impressions in them. Now we have not gone over from the beginning as you claim and I say this is we did not talk about Bob Gimlin or Roger Patterson. We are just talking about the film and other things. But let us look at this first. Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. You claim and others claim that these men tell the truth but let us look at that for a min. Roger Patterson claim he and the horse he was on fell to the ground and the horse was on top of Patterson now this is claim by Roger Patterson. However Bob Gimlin claims that never happen. So here Bob Gimlin is telling people Roger Patterson was lying. Maybe not in those words but the point is.Then Bob Gimlin also claim he could have been hoax but it had to be well plain by Roger. Again Bob is telling people that Roger can pull off a hoax by this statement. Now Patterson book he did 1 years before he filmed the Bigfoot. He shows drawing he did in his book that match the same Bigfoot he filmed. Then as you see if you read his book and gone over both of his books. Yes I said both books, the reason for this is if you look at the first copy of Patterson book and then look at the reprints of his book you can see some photo changed and he took out some drawings. Now this bring up a question. Why he took out the drawings and why he changed some photo in the book? I ask this is they took the time to change these things but they did not take the time to spell the men names right. If you read Patterson book you well see he mess spell Bob Titmus Patterson spell it in his book Bob Pitmus and even Bob Gimlin name is mess spell in Patterson Book he spell his name Bob Gimlan. Now there are a lot more things I can point out about his books. I have both copy's of this book. But my point is on this Patterson took the time to chagne the photos and drawings but he did not have the time to check the spelling of the men names. So can we believe anything that Roger Patterson said by looking at what Bob Gimlin said about Patterson no we can't. Now let us look at Bob Gimlin he claim some of the same things Patterson tells like the film date. Now you and I both know this can not be done in this one weekend them filming the Bigfoot and develope the film and show the film. So we know and even be going on other people research we know this can not be done. Now here we see Bob Gimlin is lying. Plus again Bob Gimlin also claims there was only him and Patterson there but this was a lie also. Now here you have Bob Heironimus claims he was the Bigfoot in the film. Now this man took a polygraph on live TV and past it. Now Bob Heironimus not only took one but two polygraphs and he past them both times. He claim he was the Bigfoot in the film and the polygraph prove his story. So this show there was 3 men there. Now Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin never took a polygraph to bakc their story. Even today Bob Gimlin will not take one. But if he was telling the truth then why not? Again here is proof to show that Bob Heironimus was the Bigfoot in the film but people call him a liar but he past a polygraph test two time. And Bob Gimlin is just telling the same old story with no proof to back that story he tells. So you see my point is why ask me the question on my research when people need to ask Bob Gimlin about what happened there and who was there and why is he lying about the time frame. Plus I like to add if you watch the one video I send you where they was talking to John Green about the film and then John Green was showing his copy of the film. One thing stand out in what John Green said. He told the man and I quote " Yes this is the start of the film that they we got the creature on" Now as you see John Green when't from "they" to "we" fast in that interview. Now if John Green was not there with Patterson or Gimlin then he should os said "Yes this is the start of the film they got the creature on" But he said"Yes this is the start of the film that they we got the creature on" Here again why is John Green including himself with Patterson and Gimlin when he was not there. Now do you see my point no one once to show this or even talk about this they only just look at parts they like to show or tell when you can not over look these things when you are looking for the truth. Now like I said I talk to Mr.Morris and I even talk to Bob Heironimus and when I talk to Bob H at first he was very nice and he told me to ask him anything I like too. So I ask him about the part of reel 2 that him and Mr. Merritt was in and I also ask him about the photo that Larry Lund took as well and very nicely he answer those question. But when I told him about what I found in the footage like another man hat and other image they took out and even Bob Gimlin behind the brush as he walked past him in the Bigfoot suit. Then Bob Heironimus got very nerves and then he asked me not once but five time did I show this to anyone or tell this to anyone and all five times I said yes I did tell others about what I found and then he hang up on me. Now why did Bob Heironimus got nerves and why he ask me five time did I tell this to anyone and show this to anyone and then hang up on me like he did. This show me that Bob Heironimus know more then what he is telling. Now Bob H asnwer the questions on him and Merritt and the Larry Lund photo but when it came to what I found in the footage he was very nerves over it. Now again like I said if Bob H telling people there was the 3 of them there then why not tell me this same thing but I told him the footage shows other people there with them he did not answer it. So you see my point is no one well read this or even show this even you will not bring this up because like you and all the others are trying to make this film real when in fact all it was is a big hoax. Did you even know that in a interview just last month that a research said that if he did not find what he found in the film like the blood then he was just mark the film down as a hoax. And this research is trying to tell people the film is real but even by this claim he has his doubts on the film of it being real.So again you said we are going to go over eveything but as you know we did not cover this and this should be one of the first things we go over first before I show what I found in the footage.
Christopher Murphy's Film Site Model, Showing Distance from Trees

BIGFOOT BOOKS: The red dot in image 3 is Patterson's final filming location. The creature location is frame 350-ish. The first frame was located quite to the left, near where the red dot indicating Patterson's final location is. He ran up from the creek, following and paralleling the creature's trackway. Look at the Titmus/Krantz diagram I sent. See the tiny figure at the start of the dotted red arrow? That is the approximate location of "the look" in the middle of the film, not the early frames where you are claiming to see Gimlin.

Also, that aerial image was taken something on the order of four years later than the PGF!
Can we stick to the interview process, do you think? We need to get this down so I can make sense of it for the readers.
Christopher Murphy's Film Site Model, Showing How Perspective Deceives
The road to the left that you mention is NOT at the film site. That was from a film made in late August or very early September, 1967, shot by Rene Dahinden when he and Green were investigating the Blue Creek Mountain trackway find. MK Davis is WRONG in saying that this was part of the PGF, as that film had not even been shot at the time this other film was made. You are just simply wrong, too. The "road" along Bluff Creek was to the right, behind Patterson in the film. It was a dirt cut made for logging, not an official road. You can see, in the earlier Reel One footage, Bob Gimlin riding along it. This road was part of the clearing salvage logging they did after the huge 1964 flood.

Why do you think your stuff is "Real" and mine is not? What EVIDENCE do you have for that? Just because it kind of looks like Gimlin? That is not enough. It is too murky, and not in the right proportion to have really been a man sitting there, as I'd said in my response.

Maybe try to put this stuff, which is good debate, into your INTERVIEW response. Otherwise I will have a very hard time keeping track of this in a linear way that can be published. OK?

WHICH QUESTION, now, did you ask, about Gimlin lying? You have said so much all at once that there is no way to respond to it all. I don't mind discussing that, but lets do it within the interview process.

My research is real research, too, Leroy. I am a scholar. I have two MA degrees, and know how to work with books. I do look at the film and study it, but I am not a film expert; I don't think you are a professional film expert either, are you? I study the books, the historical record, the skeptical as well as the believer views, AND I have been to the actual, real film site many times. I have talked with real human beings who lived here at the time and were involved in Bigfoot in some way or other. I can only try to find the truth, but I will not just jump to conclusions because of some blur I see in the film, or some little inconsistency in the stories. These are human stories told at the time and over the years since the film was made, and so they have human flaws. Whether or not anyone is lying is still a question. You should look at your conclusions: could they HOLD UP IN COURT? If not, then what is lacking? Your "evidence" would not convict OJ Simpson, let alone Bob Gimlin. I think Gimlin is "innocent" of your claims; but that does not mean I am not willing to consider other viewpoints. Go ahead and speak your mind, and please cite sources when you can. Just because Bob H. or the costume maker say something, long after the fact, does not make it so--especially if it is they who are lying for ulterior motives.

LEROY BLEVINS: [At this point the "Interview" stalled out, and Leroy disappeared for a while. He claimed it was because he was so busy on his latest line of research, THE JFK ASSASSINATION. When he came back it was with all sorts of similar blurry images in which he claimed to see the true assassins, which no one else had ever noticed in all these 47 years.]
The Blevins Suit. 
Here's an official announcement Blevins made about his Patty-Bigfoot imitation suit. He's rather proud of this thing, which looks just like a cheap Halloween costume to us. We quote:

Here is the image compilation Leroy made and sent out to various researchers.
"My friends,
I like to show you for the first time on over 43 years a copy of the Patterson Bigfoot costume has been made. I made this suit in one of my testing I did on the PG film. They claim that no man can make a suit like the one in the PG film. However in this e-mail you will see photos of me in my suit next to the Patterson Bigfoot suit. I did this test to find if a man that never made a costume, can make a costume like the one you see in the film. And the test past. This is the first time I have a made a costume. I made this suit with parts you can find in the 1950's. It took me 15hr. hand sewing to make this suit. The cost for me to make this suit was $243 in todays money.If you like you can show this photo to all of your friends or others. Now by this suit I have put to the test by the claim of Bob Heironimus claiming he was the man in the Bigfoot suit. Now as you look at the research done by John Green you will see that he filmed a man at the same location Patterson filmed the Bigfoot. The man John Green filmed was Jim McClarin. As you place a frame by John Green next to a frame from the PG film. You can see the Bigfoot was only 2" taller then Jim McClarin. Now Jim McClarin is 6'5" and with the Bigfoot in the film being 2" taller then Jim McClarin that makes the Bigfoot in the film 6'7". Now Bob Heironimus is 6'2" now that is 5" shorter then the Bigfoot in the film. However in this test I myself is 6'2" and I place the suit on to see if I can be the same height as the Bigfoot in the film. And this test also past. For as I had the suit on I am 6'2" but with the suit on I am 6'7". The suit added 5 more inches to my height. I know there was new research done on the height of the Bigfoot in the PG film but still to date the best evidence to show the true height of the Bigfoot in the film is by John Green's film. The reason for this is John Green filmed his film of Jim McClarin in the same location with the same surroundings as you see in the PG film. Plus you can line up the surroundings in both frames to match. Then with Jim McClarin in the same spot where the Bigfoot was. So the true height of the Bigfoot in the PG film was 6'7" and a man 6'2" with the suit on is the same height as the Bigfoot in the film.
The costume was made by Leroy Blevins Sr.
The man in the suit is Leroy Blevins Sr.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
God Bless
Leroy Blevins Sr.
I give permission to show the photo and to use this e-mail."
Then the interview continued again...

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Leroy, let's see you film it in proper proportion, with correct gait, stride and footprints on comparable terrain, showing muscle movement and breasts bobbing. Use the same camera and correct distances as documented by Dahinden and Green, too. Also, see if you can fool three horses and a guy like Gimlin who would never hoax and lie about it for 42 years.

Munns has pointed out, too, that Green's comparison may be incorrect due to disparities in distances between background trees. He may have used a different lens than Patterson's.

Your "fur" also looks utterly fake in comparison.
Nice job on the Halloween costume though, really!

LEROY BLEVINS: You know the funny thing is. I make a claim and I show it. Now as you talk about Bob Gimlin I can prove he is lying from the word go. And that proof is by the interviews he gives. He tells the same story today as he did back then. He claims they filmed this film of Bigfoot on Oct 20, 1967 and they got the film developed the next day which is on a Saturday and then show it the next day which is a Sunday and then show it again the next day which was a Monday. Now by this shows Bob Gimlin is not telling the truth. Now I know you will say this or that just to make up some excuse for Bob Gimlin but the facts are in on him. Now also most everyone that did research on this film said there was no way they can do this by filming the bigfoot and then developing the film and and show this film all in one weekend. Now am I lying no I don't think so. So you see if Bob Gimlin don't lie then why is he still telling this same story when it has been proven time and time again. Even companies that develope this type of film claim they can not develope this film in just one day for all of them claim they close at noon on Saturday. So again Bob Gimlin lied on this part of the story. So you see my point is how can you tell people that Bob Gimlin is telling the truth and he is a honest man when he lies about the time frame of that weekend. And as for you saying, my costume is just a Halloween suit well just today I got a lot of e-mails about my copy of the Bigfoot suit. So please even you claim that they can not do all of this in just that weekend. So the question is do you think they can film this Bigfoot on a Friday and get the film develope the next day on a Saturday and then show this film the next day on a Sunday and then show it again the next day on a Monday? Now if your answer is NO then right there shows Bob Gimlin was lying. So you see you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Now if Bob Gimlin said no Roger filmed the Bigfoot around 10 of Oct or even the 15 of Oct then I can say maybe Bob Gimlin is telling the truth. But Bob Gimlin claiming they filmed the Bigfoot on that Friday Oct 20.
So who is lying? Me, you and all the other researchers that claim there was no way they can film this and show it all in this one weekend or is it Bob Gimlin telling the story of them doing all of this in one weekend?
Now can you answer these question or are you going to not write back or are you going to make up an excuse for Bob Gimlin?

PS sorry if this sound a little on the upset side but I believe if you are going to tell the truth then you should tell the truth from the word go. And as I point out Bob Gimlin is not telling the truth and how can you believe anthing that comes out of his mouth when he is lying in the first part of his story he tells.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Or maybe Gimlin is just telling the truth, as best as he remembers it? That is a much more simple explanation.

(Note, Leroy repeatedly says that we first talked three years ago; but see here, it was only about a year and a half ago. He can't even get that kind of thing right, let alone the PGF history!)

Leroy Blevins Sr said...
My name is Leroy Blevins Sr. I am C/O of Blevins Biblical Investigation. I have done a 6 month research on the P/G film and I found things in the film that shows it was a hoax. In my research I have even made a copy of the costume Patterson used in the film. Like they say seeing is believing well that is what I do for at BBI we not only tell the truth WE SHOW IT
freewebs dot com/pgbigfootdebunked [SITE NOW DEAD!]
August 28, 2009 3:56 PM

Steven Streufert, Bigfoot Books said...
EGADS, Mr. Blevins! You "prove" nothing. You are conflating images from earlier shots of a fictional bigfoot hunt Patterson filmed in YAKIMA, and BEFORE the P-G Bluff Creek Film. There is no "hat brim" in the footage of Bob Gimlin on Bluff Creek Road--that is a rock and wood, and is blurred. YOU ARE LOOKING AT FILM BLOBS, not real things. The footprint cast you say was the one they "took to town" is IN FACT ONE FROM HYAMPOM (see John Green's "On the Track of Sasquatch!), taken in 1963. It is a 17" track, of a different shape, too, not the 14.5 inch one from Bluff Creek. The two guys took turns filming on that trip, so some of the footage before the bigfoot segment is of Roger, some of Bob. John Green, who knew the men personally, confirms this. Frankly, so far, your stuff looks like the work of M.K. Davis of late, or the late Beckjord. And what does Bigfoot have to do with "Biblical Investigation," anyway? MORE LATER. I will do a thorough blog post DEBUNKING your "DEBUNKING." Look out.
August 30, 2009 4:35 PM

Leroy Blevins Sr. said...
My new site is freewebs dot com/pgfilmanalyze [ANOTHER SITE, NOW DEAD!]
If you like to know the truth and even see the truth go to this site for the best research ever done on the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot film.
November 14, 2009 8:28 AM

Steven Streufert, Bigfoot Books said...
Well folks, take the above with a grain of salt. I spoke with Mr. Blevins for a couple of hours on the phone, and extensively discussed these matters via email. He is a good guy, personally, but I think his ideas are a bit out there, and not really substantiated by the film.
November 14, 2009 1:22 PM

Leroy Blevins Sr said...
If you don't mind I like to add on my site I show still photo of John Green and Bob Titmus that they took 9 days after Patterson filmed his movie of the Bigfoot. However as you will see the Bigfoot prints they show is prints on the raod that Patterson filmed Bob Gimlin on. Now in the story Patterson or Gimlin never claim there was prints on the road or seen these prints. However you see these in still photos by John G. and Bob T. Plus it was told that it rain that night after Patterson shot the film but as you will also see the track are like new. For these tracks are the same track was left by the Bigfoot that Patterson filmed.Now think of this, this 1 Bigfoot was seen by two men and ever ran after it why would this same Bigfoot come back to a location days after when it knows that other people will be there for Patterson and Gimlin was there. Sorry but the only away for Patterson to film this Bigfoot and with John G. and Bob T. to also film and take photos of the prints before it rained or even seeing the same print from 1 Bigfoot this show that the film by Patterson and even the film by John G and Bob T was taken on the same day. For even the tracks left by the horses still can be seen on the road like they are new. take a look.
November 17, 2009 9:25 AM

[The Views Following Are Comments From Others, Not Necessarily Those of Bigfoot Books]

Hudge said... Blevins is totally off base,may be a good guy but he in NO WAY proves Patty to be a hoax,in fact,after listening to some of his arguments and proof,I am more convinced that Patty is 100 percent Sasquatch. April 29, 2010 2:13 PM

Anonymous said... The film that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin made in 1967 of Bigfoot was real. The creature they filmed was half man and half gorilla. June 2, 2010 1:14 PM

Mikey D said... This is a good blog. I also greatly appreciate Mr Blevins and the time he took to investigate and research these different points he makes. It was a very interesting read. Some parts did make me smile though I have to admit. I mean there is a close up of a monstrous ape leg with strained and bulging muscles and the arrow is pointing underneath labeling where 'some fur has come out'! Classic. What about the giant leg muscles?? And check out the pendulous breasts, the nipples, it all looks just too real to be a hoax. Interesting work though, we need both sides of the debate to fully conclude. July 20, 2010 2:41 PM

Anonymous said... In my opinion, Leroy Blevins is an undeducated man looking for attention. He boasts about having the "best" bigfoot research ever done. Yet, he can't construct a simple sentence. His tag-line is "we show it"....yes, you "show it" show how stupid and lame you are. Blevins "research" and "conclusions" suck much ass.

Anonymous said... Mikey D is right!!! You have to look at all possibilities as far-fetched as they may sound. The subject of Bigfoot is in the "far-fetched" category. Mr. Blevins's research and opinion are part of this subject. I wish I had the time and commitment to research the subject but I don't. I am just glad there are persons out there that do research on the subject because it keeps the subject fresh in our minds. I will read anything on the subject of Bigfoot, good or bad, because it interests me. Keep up the good work guys and keep the info coming. February 15, 2011 11:17 AM
THIS BLOG POST TURNED OUT TO BE TOO LONG! AT 113 pages in WORD with images, about 70 text only, we've had to divide it into two parts.

Quotes from John Green may serve to end this all-too-massive blog entry, for now....

JOHN GREEN: I have tried reasoning with Blevins, to no avail. Nothing left to do but ignore him....
Why does every crazy need to be refuted? MK and Paulides had earlier acquired a following with their work in this field so they needed to be answered when they went astray, but who is this guy that anyone should worry about him?



Me try reason with Leroy. Me stand there right in road for four minute so he see me, me say me NOT some Edomite. Me not even believe God. Me no need. Me shrug shoulder. Me walk away, leave stink behind for him. What me do? He no listen, never will, he stare at blurry picture all day when he maybe could talk to real Bigfoot who KNOW what happen. Me there when they make film. She hot babe Bigfoot, girlfriend at time.

This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2011, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if notification, credit, citation and a kindly web-link are given, preferably after contacting us and saying, Hello, like a normal person would before taking a cup of salt. No serious rip-offs of our material for vulgar commercial gain will be tolerated without major BF stomping action coming down on you, hu-man.


  1. Mr. Blevins is correct about the man behind the bush. You can see it clearly--check this link:

    Look just to the right of the creatures left cheek--(right side of face lower part of screen)--there is clearly the profile of a man's face from nose to chin, unsmilig lips--he is peering out from behind a tree. It is too clear--it is definitely a man. I have shown this to others, and they also agree.

    If someone could just take the frame (the last one that pops in on the rapidly advancing and retracting photos) and stop-frame and blow it up it will clearly show that either Gimlin, or so other man was clearly present when this was filmed. I believe someone will one day very soon, and it will conclusively prove this was a hoax.


  2. I forgot to add--despite Mr. Blevin's bad grammar he asks some excellent questions. Everything I have read about bigfoot states the creature is very secretive and elusive, often hiding behind trees, and scurrying off quickly as humans appear.

    Yet, on this one day in 1967 one of these "elusive" creatures decides to take a stroll in broad daylight--through a clearing---though there is plenty of forest behind her--and in the presence of men and horses she can clearly see!

    So much is made of the creature's appearance,etc.--and yet questions like the one's Blevins asks are ignored or laughed off. I have asked the very same things--and one views the evidence of WHO fllmed this, the odds of him stumbling upon a bigfoot that acts completely contrary to all other bigfoot creatures (they do not come out and stroll through clearings in the presence of humans) are astronomical.

    Combine that with the obvious photo (once enhanced--thank you M.K. Davis) I pointed out in other post, and you have a hoax---a REALLY good one---but still a hoax.

  3. If you'd actually READ my writing above you would see that all of this is REFUTED. There is only a "blob" image behind the creature, and I'd love to have someone show it appearing for more than one frame. Also, the "man" would have had to be about ten feet tall that far back from the subject. This is pure PAREIDOLIA. Also, if you knew anything about the actual film site you would see that the retreat path of the subject makes total sense within the landscape. Oh well, I guess I tried. Some will believe what they want, reason and logic be damned, I guess.

  4. Your are refusing to really face the facts. I have SEEN the frames with the man behind the bushes and it is A MAN. There is no doubt about it---the face is that of Bob Gimlin. Mr. Blevins has actually done some really fine research--he has forwarded me several photos and film clips.

    This was definitely a filmed "production". Again, did you ever ask yourself why this elusive creature, which so many only have brief snippets of running through the forest (they explain that it is because Bigfoot hides, and is very elusive) decides to come out one day and walk out in the open in broad daylight, and it does it KNOWING AND SEEING that there are two men on horse-back?

    Come on. It has all the forest behind it that it could amble through, yet it chooses to walk through an open area fully exposed? And it chooses to do this for someone who has gone there for the sole purpose of filming a Bigfoot? It's like it said "I usually don't do stuff like this, but since you made the effort to come here with your camera, here I am, film me!"

    Steve---the man's profile on the facial profile enhancement is not a "blob"---several people I have shown now definitely see it. I cannot claim it is part of the head--because it may be part of the background. You need to take a look again to the right of the creature's left cheek---the frame flashes twice--there is a man in the photo for sure.

    Of course, if one will not accept anything that may discount the film as genuine, then it would be impossible to convince you, or for you to give it a careful and real investigation.

    I have to tell you---for 44 years I believed that the film might be real--I say that sincerely. I always had some doubt, but thought maybe it could be real. But in the last three days, and with the photos I've seen, and really learning the details about Patterson and his associates I am 100% sure the film is a hoax.

    I believe by the end of next year---due to the increased knowledge of digital photography---and the the more people (like myself) who REALLY check out all the evidence, the film has a very good chance, once and for all, to be called the hoax it actually is.

  5. By the way---it may be REFUTED in your own mind---but is has not been refuted. The photographic evidence is too strong to completely refute. I can see Gimlin in the photographs---so can many others----you may not WANT to see him in the brush---but he is there. Blevins did an excellent job of placing Gimlin's photograph next to the image in the photo--it is actually quite striking.

    We are not talking "seeing things in clouds" here--we are talking an obvious image. I can see it--and many others can also. Shapes in clouds diappear---photographic evidence does not.


    By the way--I keep forgetting to mention--the photo in above link is not the Gimlin photo in the bushes. It is of another man---you can clearly see his profile just to the right of the creatures left cheek (the image flashes twice)--if you haven't seriously checked it out, please do so.

  7. I'm not even arguing whether the film is real or a hoax, so you are holding out a stinking red herring. Believe what you like, see what you see, I don't care. However, for those who know the FACTS about the film and its history, and the environs of Bluff Creek (as I do, living here and studying it for years), Leroy Blevins' theories are simply rinky-dink, factually unsound ABSURDITIES. Nearly every paragraph he writes has false conceptions, errors way beyond grammar, and truly ridiculous assumptions. What can I say? If someone says the moon orbits around Pluto I'm going to have to correct them. Just as I am sure there are some out there who still believe the world is flat, there will always be a few counterfactual conspiracists full of their own imaginative delusions like old Leroy. Oh well. At least it is entertaining, sometimes.

  8. I will issue a challenge to you and Leroy: SHOW me the "Gimlin" in at least five seconds worth of the film, in multiple frames, as the camera pans across that area of the background trees. It is only there in ONE frame that Blevins has presented so far. It would have to be there for more than 1/16th of a second if it really were a "man." OK? Good. See ya.

  9. Steve--

    Actually, no, it doesn't have to be in the frame for 5 seconds. Blevins isn't the only one who contests the film. There are others who show that the film has been spliced in many places.

    Again Steve, you have not addressed the man who also appears in the enhanced facial profile film:

    Just to the right of the left cheek (right side of film)--which is a frame which flashes twice in the segment shown, is the face of a man, whose nose, mouth and chin can be seen easily if you intently look at that area of the film.

    I have already had several people say "HEY! You're right! There is a face there!" Now--I do not know where the face comes from---whether part of a "mask", or in the background, or as Blevins replied to me--that it is an area of the film that was spliced over when they
    re-filmed, and the face appears due to do an overlap of two film segments.

    Also, Steve, once again, think of the odds of bringing a camera to an area where an "elusive" creature exists--so elusive that no bones have ever been found, and finding hair or fecal matter is also nil. Bigfoot researchers say it is so hard to spot one because they hide so well, and quickly disappear into the forest when they see humans. They may "spy" upon humans, but from behind trees, etc.

    Yet, on this day in 1967, Patterson goes there to find a film a creature. As the two men approach on horses (which make quite a racket when walking) this Bigfoot, normally so elusive, decides to ignore the forest path it could take, and decides to take a stroll in broad daylight through a clearing.

    Now, Patterson WENT THERE to film a bigfoot, but only has enough film to capture a few seconds of this creature who steps out into broad daylight and proclaims "film me!"

    Serioulsy, I used to be 50-50 about the film's authenticity, but seeing several of the photos myself, noting what Patterson had done BEFORE he filmed the creature (many people are not aware of these facts), and just using logic itself, one has to come to the conclusion the whole thing was staged. It was a good production, but as science, technology and time itself catch up, it will eventually be CONFIRMED a hoax.

    But I will add this---most people who believe in bigfoot and the film itself would not accept it is a fake if Gimlin himself were to admit it was. I can hear them now "Gimlin must have accepted a bribe", or "Gimlin is old now--he's probably gotten senile". They have bought into the film so strongly, that not even the one's who filmed it admitting they did would persuade them otherwise.

  10. Steve--

    By the way, I hope you accept my comments not as being hostile. I sometimes get strong in my posting, and don't mean to sound as if I'm on the "attack". If it comes across that way, I apologize. It's just that I see the film at Bluff creek as a "bluff" if you know what I mean.

  11. These points have nearly all been raised before, and they remain, still, spurious. There is not a convenient retreat up that hill behind the subject, it being a very steep hill (I know, as I have climbed it), and the real exit with cover is exactly where the film subject heads: up the creek and around the corner. IF you were to study the history of sightings reports, not just current internet accounts where "everything" is a bigfoot, you would see that the MAJORITY of them involved seeing a creature walking, by the side of the road or in the woods, or eating berries, hunting, or whatever. These are what people report to me here in Willow Creek, not just the kind of thing that "bigfoot hunters" experience and WANT TO THINK is bigfoot. I looked at your link. THERE IS NO MAN THERE. If I stare at my wall "intently" enough, I will start to see faces there, too. Also, look, the film was not spliced and edited. Film expert Bill Munns has proven that these were CAMERA STOPS, not cuts. Also, he now has the entire film roll one, which disproves about a dozen of Leroy's outrageous theories. NOW, RE. MY CHALLENGE: it does not have to be five seconds, but it DOES have to be there for more than 1/16th of a second. If it is REAL it will be in MORE THAN ONE FRAME. Anyway, Anonymous, I am happy to talk, if you catch up to me. Please don't just make the same old tired arguments that I've heard a hundred times before. Also, perhaps you should declare your name, as I don't really like spending too much time talking to someone whom I don't even know in any way. Accountability and human reality are important. "Anonymous" posts are annoying.

  12. Steve--

    It's funny you say there is no man in the facial enhancement link. Everyone I have forwarded it to now, after studying it for a minute or so (let your eyes become accustomed to the flashing photos) sees the image I am talking about. They all say it is the profile of a man showing nose, lips and chin. Whether it is a man is left to the photograpic experts--but for you to say "there is no man" with finality shows you are not willing to truly investigate any anomalies in the film.

    One person stated that it looks like it is an overlap of one film upon another--the first having the man on it, and the one with the creature on top of that piece of film.

    And what I am pointing out is not "staring at a wall" and seeing things. There is a definite image there---again, I don't claim to KNOW if it is part of the creature, etc.---others have confirmed to me that they see it too(not like seeing shapes in clouds---they tell me exactly where they are seeing what I see, call it a man's face, and say there is something fishy about it). And they're right--there is something very strange there.

    Yes--many of the films show a creature by the road, etc., and they quickly run off--or the photos or videos show a partial creature running or hiding in the woods.

    The Patterson film has a creature who decides to walk in broad daylight completely across a clearing, knowing men are present. Saying it couldn't run up a hill is very strange---when it has many avenues to take as it makes it's journey across the clearing. It's a bigfoot for Pete's sake--it better know how to climb hills, or have avenues of escape! And they are there.

    You may call them "old, tired arguments", but they are very logical arguments, and should be asked over and over again.

    I do not hold to Leroy's claim about bigfoot being edomites, etc. etc.---but he has made several very good points with photographs to show what he is stating concerning anomalies in the film. By the way, my name is Joe, glad to make your acquaintance.

  13. This is NOT a sufficient photographic source. It is full DIGITAL ARTIFACTS that distort a background of plants and the hillside. Look at the original, not this low grade crud. The film is a film, not some manipulated thing. Look what it shows... something walking in a natural environment.

    Just because you "see" something does NOT mean it is really THERE.
    This is an illusion. Plain. Simple.

    But see, I am talking about the film images, which are superior to digitally messed-up stuff like that clip you are talking about. There IS sufficient detail in the film images. Sometimes MK brings out amazing detail, other times he or others add digital garbage. Look to the original, as best as you may, not pixels of blobs.

    I saw "the man" you are talking about. I think. It is just like staring into the wood grain on your wall paneling or the clouds. Any ambiguous visual data can give rise to these patterns that appear to be "things" when they are not.

    That is not exactly true, what you said about there being no samples or "proof" of possible bigfoot existence. There are many samples of remains currently being tested for DNA content. Who knows? I agree, it is puzzling that there are not bones found all over the place, as so many people *claim* to have seen the creatures. I think much of it is just the human imagination. However, there is clear indication that something also may actually be living out there.

    I am NOT doing that, as you said, trying to "bolster a belief." I am looking at both things objectively. I don't let my imagination tell me about Bigfoot nor blobs.

  14. Steven,

    I absolutely agree with you. My main field of study is in Spanish Colonial Monument Making in the Southwest and Mexico (How the Spanish used to shape rocks into monuments showing trails, water sources, etc). I get people doing the same thing as Mr. Blevins. In my case however, they see images in Google Earth and believe what they see in GE and what is actually on the ground are the same thing.They don't take things like shadows and image distortion caused by Satellite Images. I tell them the EXACT same thing you have said to Mr Blevins: "Don't be an armchair quarterback! Get off your butt, and go to the site. Make your measurements. See if your theory holds up when you are WHERE IT HAPPENED! You will NEVER prove anything beyond a doubt unless you wear out some boot leather."

    Best Wishes - Mike McChesney

  15. you are all idiots and jerks

    1. You are an anonymous coward and a sore loser. Just give it up already, I seriously don't get why all you die-hard, 'rational' disbelievers think it's Your-Duty to, 'correct' the situation by sheer force of your keyboard strokes. If you really were a rational person who is sure of his facts, then why would you need to convince other people that this creature doesn't exist, if ego is truly not a part of the equation??? For instance, I no longer, "Believe" in God, I however, do 'Practice' some forms of religious ceremony for my own purposes that seems to have positive effects on my mental and emotional well-being. That being said, I realize that some people cannot break past their own, 'believing' barrier to learn their Own Truth for themselves, so I just acknowledge that and don't bother them with my thoughts because I am satisfied in my own hard-won Self-Awareness. My point being, if you were truly convinced it was all a hoax then you would most likely just drop-it and find something better to do with your time other than harass other people and the conclusions that they have reached on their own, using their own assessments. It seems obvious to me you're still struggling with the idea of it existing, as are many people right now, because it could/would suggest so many other things about our World it would be frightening and downright terrifying, for many deep and wide-thinking people. Wish you the best

    2. There is a real kind of Skepticism, and that is one based in CURIOSITY. True exploration and inquiry does not dismiss everything, but rather prefers to find the facts as they may be found, within the leading edge of the unknown. To just deny new possibilities for knowledge cuts new knowledge off, and leaves one in a state of stagnancy.

    3. It's perfectly fine to be a "'rational' disbeliever" if there is no rational reason to believe. Reality exists without ego, and is indifferent to beliefs or what we may feel as "our own truth." Bigfoot might be real, but the cultural phenomenon of urban legend is greatly in advance of any real and solid evidence for its existence.

  16. people will cling to anything that helps promote their self centered need to feel relevant and to connect and be part of different social phenomenon or specific events.It gives an elavated feeling of being part of something that for whatever reason is in some way meaning full or aesthetically appealing to the individual. For example seeing blurred pixels that represent s human face.Years ago I was examining a photo in a magazine through a 3 inch magnifying glass as i was scanning the page I almost came out of my seat with horrific terror. A group of pixels came together that looked like the face of some terrifing alien..of course it was not and after regaining my composure i continued to scan that page and others to find groups of pixels that looked faces many times over its a human trait that gives the brain the tendency to focus on images or patterns that resemble the human face called pareidolia very common. Theres many images that resemble many things in the pgfilm .I myself see a near perfect image of a park bench in one frame not to mention many faces. Of course its just pixel images no real faces no real park benches. Anybody who thinks these images have anything to do with authenticity of the pgfilm ...sadly mistaken. These people are just trying to be relevant and doing their best to connect with the PGfilm.

  17. wow, I just read all this... only found it recently... I was Blevins neighbor from 2003-2006... I got him into the Bigfoot subject and created a monster! I had no idea he'd take it to this level, I'd made some Bigfoot webpages on my website, he said Bigfoot was an abomination! I showed him "Sasquatch Legend Meets Science" which I'd recorded off cable, he said it had to be a man in a suit that God would not allow such an abomination to exist! He said all the sub-human biped creatures bones found in Africa were put there by the devil to confuse man! I have proof on video, also proof of on video of how much of a prankster he was, we would make stuffed dummies of various creatures and put them in bushes to scare the neighborhood kids! It's sad Leroy died on December 1st 2018 he was quite a character but I hate getting him interested in Bigfoot because he did damage to the Patterson/Gimlin Film of which I feel is authentic. I'll have to dump all of my Blevins videos on YouTube to show the other side of Blevins, he wasn't as Godly as he pretended to be! His obsession with Halloween and Bloody Massacre movies was intense and would gear up for Halloween with props and Bloody corpses in his yard 6 weeks prior! Weird hobbies for someone that mentioned God and scripture on a regular bases...

    1. Yeah, Leroy was quite the character and amusing but exasperating to debate with about the Patterson film. He would just name things up, either completely contrary to known facts, or else based solely on the most blurry and dubious "evidence." I'd love to see whatever video you have posted.

    2. I'll have to start another anonymous YouTube channel to dump the videos, I'll get my current one deleted if I post them! Blevins has a decent following due to his JFK Conspiracy channel! I'll have to edit myself out of the videos also! lol. When I do it I'll put "the Real Leroy Blevins" as the keywords to easily find it, I'll have to use a different android and wifi at McDonald's ... check for it in a couple weeks, I have lots of videos to go through, may take a month, I work about 50 hours a week at a regular job... something Blevins avoided most of his life! lol


Hello! Speak your mind. Let me know someone is actually reading all of this stuff! We moderate the comments here, but will let everything through that is not either blatant Spam or vile hate speech. Don't worry if your comment doesn't appear immediately--it is just under review. Thanks!