Thursday, November 17, 2011

PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM SITE REDISCOVERED... and DOCUMENTED. The BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT Reaches Preliminary Conclusions re. the Location of the True PGF Site.

Mid-November 2011 Edition
Site Survey Draft 3 compared to a page from Christopher Murphy's book
showing the 1971 PGF site "aerial" photo. Red marks show I think very
clearly that a high level of correspondence exists between features found
on the site today and in 1967.
Map and marks COPYRIGHT Robert Leiterman, Bluff Creek Film Site Project.


After four years of investigation, two seasons of serious on-site research and filming, having looked into this mystery of geography and history since 2001, I am very, very convinced that we have finally found and documented the site of the filming of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film in Bluff Creek. Though the proof is not officially final and professionally analyzed yet, and one member of our team still has some reservations (this is Ian, who was unable to attend this year's work on the site save for one appearance before our site survey work was begun), we have found enough correspondence to offer this to the world with very high certainty that we have indeed found the site and are able to show it.
The November 1st corrected and revised map, drawn by  Robert Leiterman.
Copyright. Right Click to Enlarge and Save, for Research Only Please.
Large, half-size image of our map, drawn by Robert Leiterman and copyright.
Right Click to Enlarge and Save, for Research Only Please.
Large, half-size image of  the 1971 (or '72) Dahinden "aerial" shot, matched
with our map. Red pen features drawn by Robert Leiterman and copyright.
Right Click to Enlarge and Save, for Research Only Please.
We did a full (though admittedly a bit amateur) survey grid of the site on the upper sandbar of what we'd been calling the "General Consensus Site Area." Having ruled out so many other untenable "theories" of where the site was, we had determined to give this area good, full and true look. The upper sandbar was the only spot that even came close to having the features found in the film, despite its modern-day appearance as a temperate jungle. This summer we'd found that the lower sandbar area did not match our current information, and ruled it out. However, on the upper area we found a very large tree, one that bore an uncanny likeness to the one seen the the PGF. This last month we determined a true north-south axis from the spot Gimlin had noted as that of the first sighting, and then gridded out the entire sandbar in ten-yard increments, noting all features found in those grids. Lacking Ian, we found Rowdy Kelly, whom we had met during the filming of the Animal Planet series, to be of immeasurable help and film intelligence. This data, all of the older features found on-site, along with the big trees in back and the creek position, was then translated onto a to-scale ten-foot per square map by Robert Leiterman. Folks, this is the PGF site.
The Big Tree, directly north of the Gimlin first sighting spot on our grid map.
It sits right on the sandbar level, and is the biggest tree in the area.
Note that it bears a large number of woodpecker holes, as recalled by Peter Byrne.
Photo by Steven Streufert, 2011. See very top of map grid for location.
Comparative image from the BFF, my photo is from an angle
slightly to the right.
Some, such as MK Davis, have made claims to the contrary over the years since the 1977 Rene Dahinden/Barbara Wasson/Walter Leeds photos were taken. They are wrong. These photos, provided to us by Daniel Perez (not publishable here until we finally get his permission to do so) are the last images that we have been able to find showing the site recognizably before it became an overgrown jungle of new forest. Since then, no one has to our knowledge demonstrated the location of features readily seen in these images and in the film from 1967. Many have tried to show the location on Google Earth, with flawed GPS coordinates, and photos on web sites and in books that bear no resemblance at all to the site as it was in 1967. We, in the course of our studies on-site, were able to rule out all the sites proposed by other researchers, save for one, the area identified by Bob Gimlin to James "Bobo" Fay, first told of to us by Cliff Barackman. This is the spot marked by Rene Dahinden on Daniel Perez' map.
Detail of 1971 photo showing the site before it became an overgrown jungle.
These stumps and large logs are still to be found on-site. We documented
all of them that could be found.
Big Trees cluster detail. Note the leaning tree behind the middle tree, as well
as the spiky snag beside, both still present and documented on-site today.
Rene's "X" in Daniel Perez' booklet BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK.
The compass shows magnetic north, explaining again the diagonal course
of the film action across the sandbar area.
It was not, ironically, the site chosen by Daniel and others present on the general site area in 2003, with the group from the Willow Creek International Bigfoot Symposium. At that event NO ONE could agree. Christopher Murphy published images of the wrong location in his books, John Green could not recognize the site at all, even Bob Gimlin had trouble remembering it, so changed was the appearance of the vegetation in the creekbed. At the end of that trip, however, Gimlin turned to James Fay and said, "This is the spot, Bobo. This is where we first saw her." He had recognized the canyon walls, and settled in his mind that he was in the right spot. Still, no one could agree; and at that point no one could walk up and touch the true "Big Tree" of the film. Well, finally, we have.
Middle Tree and what is left of the "spiky snag" fir, missing its top.
Note how the tree on left sits higher on the hill, as in the image below.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October 30th, 2011.
Frame 352, showing the Big Tree, the yellow-leafed maple, the middle tree,
the "spiky snag" and then the "ladder tree," from left to right
The "spiky snag," "ladder tree," and background tree clusters.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October 30th, 2011.
Crucially, we came to realilze, someone had to find the big trees as seen in the film; but not only that, given the long endurance of stumps and large logs on the ground, one should be able to locate those as well. Many, during the course of our investigation, uttered assumptions such as "You should be looking for stumps of those trees, not the trees themselves." Well, we found that the last logging that had been done in the actual creekbed of Bluff Creek in the area where the film was shot was done after the 1964 flood, salvage work conducted in 1965 and 1966. Investigating, we found clear signs of this, with old stumps still there in the ground since that time. No site, however, had the stumps in the right configuration, along with the big, old-growth Douglas fir trees as seen in the film itself, save the upper sandbar of what we've been calling the General Consensus Site. Due to a couple of observations this summer I, with Robert Leiterman, was able to ascertain that the lower and middle sandbar area simply did not match new information and images that we had received since our first season of investigations the previous year. We set our sites on finalizing our site investigations, and finally spending enough time on that overgrown upper sandbar to measure and document it properly.
The so-called "ladder tree," still showing its retained lower branches, not
a common trait in old-growth Douglas fir.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October 30th, 2011.
The same tree, in 1972, with the "spiky
snag" to its left.
Having had Bob Gimlin return to the site this last summer and reconfirm his 2003 feelings about the location added fuel to our suspicions that he might just be right, even after all of these 44 years since the filming. Then the digital site model work of Bill Munns came in, and my mental image of the site and camera perspective in the film was changed forever. Like an epiphany, old images of the film site fell away, and we were able to look at it as it really was. The camera position had changed greatly during the course of the film, as did that of the moving subject. We realized that the film was shot diagonally ACROSS the sandbar, and it was a moving viewpoint that one sees in the film. It was not as if within a square box, as Christopher Murphy's fine but limited site model diorama represented. One had to overcome the optical illusions of camera perspective and film image flattening. At one point MK Davis published a completely incorrect image with lines drawn to represent the film perspective from Frame 352 superimposed upon the 1971 Rene Dahinden "aerial" photo of the site. I was able, with knowledge of the site, and a little common sense (I am certainly not a "film expert"), to draw in the proper perspective lines (as seen below).
The Incorrect Perspective as represented (and later retracted) by MK Davis.
Perspective corrected by Steven Streufert. Image overlay altered by MKD,
upon Rene Dahinden's original 1971 "aerial" photo of the known PGF site.
Confirmed by Bill Munns.
Bill Munns, film professional and PGF researcher, fully confirmed this understanding. Hence, we were ready to return to the site with a new mental image. And lo, upon returning to the site with my daughter during the summer, I was able to look to and consider trees way off to the "right hand" side of the site as true and viable candidates for the "Big Trees." We had written off these trees in the past, as they seemed way too far east of the main action of the film, considering the location of the creek and the size of the sandbar. Given our new understanding, it was very clear to me that this site WAS indeed big enough. All we needed was 400 feet from sighting to the end of the film, about 300 feet of actual film action, and that was readily apparent as possible within this spot (and was confirmed by our grid map). Conferring with Robert and Rowdy Kelly, it was decided we would return to the site and not only measure these rough distances, but also do as accurate an amateur survey, grid and map as we could. The map images seen in this blog entry were done from our initial ten-yard grid and flagging work, done with a correct north compass reading for each square, translated into a ten-foot per square map describing the older items present on the sandbar, things that could plausibly have been present in the 1967 film. We were, in effect, removing the new-growth forest, and were able at last to "see the trees from the forest." We were stunned at what we found.
Bill Munns' digital site recreation, as seen in screen captures from his
YouTube presentation. These were derived solely from data contained in
the film itself, showing the curious starting point and creek position that
has puzzled seekers of the site for decades.
The animation by Munns showing the postion of Frame 352 against the
background trees, with the subject  paralleling the creek.
The later part of the film as depicted by Munns. Note how much the positions
of both subject and cameraman have changed through the process of this film.
When Leiterman took the data home and made two drafts of the map, we saw that nearly every major stump and debris pile we marked as presently on-site could be found in the 1971 Dahinden "aerial" shot. It was simply too much confirmation to be coincidence. The first line we drew in the survey was a direct north axis from the claimed Gimlin first sighting spot. this course led directly to a cluster of old trees, and most notably the biggest darn fir we had found up there at the creek level. Upon consideration, with the photos of the film site in hand, we found the middle tree, the "ladder tree," the spiky fir snag seen between them still standing though with a broken top. Many other features were found. The scales of history fell from my eyes and I was able to clearly see: this WAS the spot. So, we finished our grid, marked out all that remains on the site, and now we feel that we will soon be ready to show more or less exactly where the creature in the film walked, and where Roger Patterson, ran, stumbled, stabilized and filmed the subject.

The sloping hillside behind the big trees, letting the light come through.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October 30th, 2011.
The same feature as seen in the 1972 Dahinden photo.
Bill Munns has our full data set and images. Much of this has been posted by me on the Bigfoot Forums (BFF), in the Munns Report thread, under "Film," and the "Patterson-Gimlin Film" subcategory. While he is busy on a job, we await his professional analysis. Should anyone out there with professional qualification wish to aid us in truly confirming and proving that this is the actual site, we'd be happy to establish a working exchange wherein the full, high-resolution images of  our map and map details, complete with measurements and GPS coordinates will be provided. We don't want to "own" this data, but rather are eager to share it with the world. We are hoping that professional analysis will be undeniable and FINAL, at last proving the site location and verifying this special spot on the earth for all of time and history into the future.
Stumps and old sawed log debris, remnants
of the 1964 flood and post-flood salvage logging,
as may be seen in the PGF. Still there today.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October, 2011.
Stumps that were there when Patty walked, still there today. These are the
sort of durable features that we sought to place on our survey map.
 Photo by Robert Leiterman and copyright.
One thing I'd like to say: BOB GIMLIN WAS RIGHT.
Gimlin on the first sighting area, with Finding Bigfoot cast.
From promotional trailer.
Next time on this blog we will have a lengthy guest blogger appearance by BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT member and videographer, ROBERT LEITERMAN. He has written a fine piece on the whole process of our "Journey of Re-Discovery," and the frustrations, excitement, controversies and fascinations all along the way. This blog entry today is just the first step, the tip of the iceberg, in revealing all of the data we have gathered.
Bill Munns' PRELIMINARY study based on our first generation grid map.
Another Munns' PRELIMINARY study based on our first generation grid map.
We would like to thank especially Bob Gimlin, Cliff Barackman, James Bobo Fay, Daniel Perez, Christopher Murphy, John Green, Jim McClarin, Thomas Steenburg, Peter Byrne, Rip Lyttle and Al Hodgson for their help along the way in this research. Thanks to Tom Yamarone and Scott McClean, too, for being the ones who first showed me how to use 12N13H to access the PGF site (else I'd have been lost on Lonesome Ridge Road!). Also, we'd like to extend a full, spitty raspberry to Mr. M.K. Davis, who was of no help whatsoever, would not provide us with his claimed site location, and who generally has spread more mystification and stupefaction than knowledge on the PGF since he veered from his fine original work. Also, to Bobbie Short, sorry, but you were just plain wrong, but it would have been nice to have that map you promised us. Oh well. To all the anonymous commentators along the way, thanks for your input, too.
Old firs, to right of PGF big trees.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October 30th, 2011.
A full new set of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT videos will appear soon on YouTube. We'll have the links for you here, and through the blog's Facebook wall. These videos will not number up to 45 like the last set, so tune in to see all the things described here and in the maps we've made as they are now, on the ground, in reality and not in myth and human imagination.
Leiterman's camp, right about where Patterson filmed Frame 352.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October 30th, 2011.
The "jungle" of the film site, right in front of the "Big Tree."
Here is Robert shooting the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT videos.
Photo by Steven Streufert, October, 2011.
(Click the link above or the one below to view all the previous videos we've done on the Bigfoot Books YouTube page. Look under "Favorites" and "See All.")

Best to all ,
Steven Streufert,
Bigfoot Books, Bigfoot's bLog, Willow Creek
Vine maples, the source of the red color seen in the PGF, still not turned red,
and this on October 30th. So, naysayers, how was it that there was red in the
film if it wasn't shot in mid to late October, or even later?
Autumn on the hill behind the PGF big trees.
Some orange-ish red starting to show.
Photo by Steven Streufert, 2011.
PS--Mr. Marlon Keith Davis, in obvious response to our work, has posted a blog trying (futilely) to make the case for his utterly incorrect film site. Read it HERE.

Here is my response to him:
"Au contraire, MK. We have found the true site, upstream from your location. The proving is ongoing, but the documentation is done. We surveyed and gridded out the sandbar and found not only all the main trees, but also the majority of old stumps and aging log debris piles. What is more, we have made our grid map starting at the very spot Gimlin himself identified in 2003 and again this summer. Having pursued this since 2001, and living near the locality of the filming, I am hardly a "debutante." Not one "expert" has, in our lengthy investigation, been able to identify extant landmarks as seen in the film. Now we have, and there is no doubt remaining."
Measurements taken by Robert Leiterman and Steven Streufert on-site.
These show the distances between the big trees, with spiky snag, bent
maple, middle and ladder trees and leaning tree in back.
CLICK TO ENLARGE. Drawing is Copyright Robert Leiterman.
EXPLORE FURTHER: There is much on the BFF through this link to the... Munns Report Thread. We've been working with Bill on this, and he has allowed us to post some preliminary analysis here. The images above were done using the uncorrected first draft of our site grid map. Robert Leiterman has since refined, confirmed and in minor ways corrected the map to the versions seen above. As I said above, we are currently working with Bill, but we will consider a working relationship in the future with anyone out there who would like to work with our images and data.
James "Bobo" Fay, a vital link in the PGF site rediscovery process, is seen
here walking in front of the Bluff Creek sandbar. They filmed their recreation
there as they could not get good lighting for the cameras up on the actual
film track-way location. Bobo knows this, but its what you have to do for TV.
(I think this image came from the Finding Bigfoot video, but if you took it,
do notify me and I'll give credit.)
In case your didn't see it, "Bigfoot Books" and myself appeared on a recent episode of FINDING BIGFOOT on Animal Planet. Here is a video clip of that segment someone made.


Me glad hu-man finally learn to look, like hu-man Sherlock Holmes, and find one real place in woods. Me tire of trying to trick them and them lead to wrong spot. Me think now that they done, a Sasquatch might get some peace and quiet at my Bluff Creek home.

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, with some images copyright strictly by Robert Leiterman. Borrowings for non-commercial RESEARCH purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if 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. Need help from expects on this new Bigfoot video

  2. Hello Steven,

    Bravo! Great work! Found your site from a link on Cryptomundo. I had no idea that the actual Patty film site was in dispute. This is really cool stuff. I feel Bill Munns' excellent work (Munns Report) on the actual film leaves little doubt this was NOT a hoax!


  3. Steve, What a great piece of investigative work. Like the other poster, I didn't know there was an issue as to where the filming took place. I am truly amazed at the fact that the trees and stumps are still there and recognizable! These would be called "witness trees." At least that is what they call the trees on the Gettysburg Civil War battlefield that still remain today and were there when the battle took place. Simply, they witnessed the event. Is the fallen tree that is visible in front of Patty in frame 352 still there? And also, in Rene Dahinden's "aerial" view, how much of what you see is now forest jungle? Best of luck in your further work!

    1. See my previous posts and you'll find a comparison of the "aerial" view with the current map. Basically ALL of that area save for the creekbed itself is now covered in new trees.

      More cool than the stumps and trees still being there is the ability they give us to know more or less exactly WHERE the subject walked. It is much the same, despite the trees and new growth. One may still walk the very path of Patty.

      Much of the work is now in the capable hands of Bill Munns. We should be taking more exact measurements and more unobstructed site photography if we can get in there this winter (especially important as many of the trees will have lost their leaves), and hopefully will see some published results from him in the summer next year.

  4. Everything looks well researched and documented. Is there any chance you can provide actual map coordinates to the location.

    1. "UNKNOWN," thanks, but look... THE GPS AND MAP COORDINATES *HAVE* BEEN PUBLISHED HERE AND ELSEWHERE. In fact, if you click on the map above you will see that it has the GPS readings on it.

  5. From someone who has had many encounters with Bigfoot. I can say that the Patterson film is real! Just look at all the hundreds of Bigfoot videos out there, then look at the patterson film. what a difference! I know what i've seen is real, I've shot 3 bears in my life, there not bears! When you see one, you just know!

  6. If u have had so many encounters with bigfoot and you still have no proof you should probably, I think maybe you should give it up

  7. Winterfell, I think the only way to prove to people like you that these animals are indeed real would be for you to camp in the area where sightings occur, and for one to come in and mate with you in the middle of the night. Skeptics would find a way to explain away a dead body of a Bigfoot. So hopefully one will pay a visit to you up close, and VERY personal!

  8. Do you share the grid with people? Because I would be curious to see it on Google maps.

    1. The maps and GPS and everything are already published on this blog. Try looking through the more recent posts or put BLUFF CREEK or FILM SITE into the Search box.


  9. is film is irrelevant. it simply isn't clear enough. no matter how much enhancement is done there isn't enough information in the frames. all digital enhancement introduces artefacts. if bigfoot is found and looks nothing like the pgf the skeptics can say we were wrong but the pgf is still fake, the believers can say it is real and there must be at least 2 types of bigfoot. if bigfoot is found and looks exactly like the pgf the skeptics will say it could still be a fake. i doubt bigfoot will be found because i dont think it exists, but my opinions have no bearing on bigfoots reality. There is a huge amount of attention focused like a laser on a few seconds of film. There is not enough information to totally dismiss it. At the same time we cant ignore the people involved. If this was made by a known hoaxer few people would believe it. If it was taken by David Attenborough most of us would believe it. The reliability of the people involved is vital. The pgf has been sucked dry. It is what it is. A few seconds of a bipedal hominid taken on grainy 16mm with a not very good camera. In ideal circumstances it would be 1 of a wide range of information and evidence. But all the evidence is video and footprints. There is no evidence that cant be faked. We could make a good legal case for its existence or non-existence, but that would have zero bearing on whether it actualy exists or not. Science requires proof, that means repeatability , a place where we can find them over and over again or a body tomexamine. Thats difficult when conclusive incontrovertible proof can't be found but thats what science needs. The pgf is not that no matter how much we stare at it, but we all do because no matter what we believe even if we are total sceptics, at the back of our mind is the tiniest fragment of doubt that it may just possibly be true.


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!