Friday, March 30, 2012

Debris from Bluff Creek, Odds and Ends: Last Episodes of Season 2 BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT; Bobo; Kodak Cine K-100 Camera; plus, Questions from Daniel Perez of the BF TIMES

Me and My Friend, the Kodak Cine K-100,
the same camera used by Roger Patterson for the PGF.

Before the next season of Bluff Creek adventures begin, I thought I'd better gather up some of the last loose ends from the previous season's efforts. Season Two of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT is now completed (view the last episodes below), and we are working on plans for a major pow-wow of new investigations once the area up there is open again. Snow on the ridges and locked road gates usually keep us out until late June, and then lock us out again in late October. Loads of new information has poured in since we proved and verified the PGF site location, some of it very odd and confounding aspects of the Bluff Creek history. We've been told that Bob Heironimus was in Willow Creek in 1965, which is just too odd to blog about without further data. The investigation continues....

An anonymous (for now) "R.K." sent me a vintage sixties Kodak Cine K-100 16mm film camera, just like the one used by Roger Patterson in 1967. It is an identical model, save that it has a front-loaded lens turret. It is in apparently functional working order, so it may come in handy for research this summer. Here are some nifty photos of that...
The K-100 with the three-lens front turret. Patterson had the single-lens setup.
Ahm a gonna film me one a dem sum-bucks!
Little Bigfoot walks behind the K-100.
Interior of the camera. Click to Enlarge.
The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT, Season Two, Episodes 63-67 
This is Season Two, brand NEW. Back to the Creek Again! Here you will find the "Checking the Grid and Site Draft Map, and Measuring the Big Trees" episode. Part 63. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Measuring the Big Trees and Making Test Footprints" episode.
Part 64. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Robert Survives Solo Camping on the Film Site and Does the Tree Bores" episode. Part 65. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Aftermath Discussion at the Old Bigfoot Motel" episode. 
Part 66. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Robert Interviews our Mathematician/Geologist on the Film Site Math Proof" episode. Part 67. Check it out!
Before he awarded us the BIGFOOTERS OF THE YEAR award, Daniel Perez sent Robert Leiterman and I some questions. Here is that email interview....
(Parts of this were published between the December 2011 and January Issues of THE BIGFOOT TIMES. Click the name to visit Daniel's site and subscribe.)

Robert and Steven: some questions for a write up in the Bigfoot Times newsletter.
PEREZ: 1) Who made the decision to create The Bluff Creek Film Site Project?
STEVE: It was Ian and I who started this research project by obsessing over small details in the history of Bluff Creek. There were a lot of unanswered questions, and many outright contradictions. This included five main opinions as to the location of the PGF site, and many more minor locations proposed or hinted at by others. As explained below, the official “Project” was started in 2010, when Robert joined us and started filming our research and investigations, and releasing the results on the BFRO YouTube page. I’ve been blogging about it, too, on BIGFOOT’S BLOG. It has been a long personal process for each of us, but our collective work took the last two summer-fall seasons, with preliminary stuff between Ian and I before that in 2009.
PEREZ: 2) When did this project begin?
STEVE: Ian and I were separately heading up to Bluff Creek in the early to mid 2000s, and began working together on this history after meeting at the Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up in 2009. In 2010 we began working with Robert, who wanted to document the process. Three summer-fall seasons, then, went into this Project. I first looked for the film site, using John Green’s sketch in his first pamphlet/booklet, in 2001. Green’s map was rather vague and imprecise. Questions lingered until I was back up there in 2007 with Cliff Barackman, James “Bobo” Fay, and others. From their opinions, guided in part by what Gimlin had said in 2003, and the marked maps found in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK, we tried to find the film site. It was a strange place, at once familiar, and yet very alien. No clear indications were found anywhere of the scenery familiar in brief glimpses in the  PGF itself. The following years were a slow and sometimes agonizing process of trying to pull the real information from the word-of-mouth and presumptuous statements made by various researchers. Ian was there in 2006, where he met Daniel Perez and Richard Henry. His outdoors and navigational experience gave rise to a parallel interest in discovering the site. Ian and I met in YakimaWashington, but were able to conveniently meet and head to Bluff Creek as he lived nearby in Redding. I’d known Leiterman for a while, and when he heard about our research his own curiosity to find the site was ignited. He became a driving force to get us to apply our research on-site, rather than just hike around and theorize.

Perez, 2007, Willow Creek. Photo by Streufert
PEREZ: 3) Who was part of the project?
STEVE: Ian C., Steven Streufert, Robert Leiterman, with part-time participation of Rip Lyttle, and then Rowdy Kelley toward the end of it. We were aided immensely, of course, by the remaining older locals from the general Willow Creek area, like Al Hodgson and Jay Rowland, as well as many of the old-time Bigfoot researchers like John Green, Jim McClarin, Bob Gimlin… and yourself Daniel Perez, among many others.
PEREZ: 4) Many other parties claimed to know where the filmsite was but nothing bore fruit. Do you think they were doing it to attract attention to themselves rather than the subject?
STEVE: Before what I like to call the “Great Confusion of 2003" (when many major researchers along with Gimlin himself tried to find the site and could not), I think many just assumed that the site was “known.” We found, living here and having the time to try to actually find the spot, that it was NOT known. As it turned out, the spot found in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK was correct, but the trackway course was not found, nor the big trees, nor frankly any of the things actually seen in the film. The last positive ID of these features that we’ve been able to determine was made in 1983, by Thomas Steenburg, who had help from Dahinden. After this it really seems to have become overgrown and lost to time, with Green and Titmus not being able to find it at all by around 1998.

The many researchers who have made the varied claims of “their own” filmsite location seem to have suffered either the confusion of faded memories, or else a certain arrogance that their own “information” and “knowledge” were sufficient, despite a nearly total lack of verification and validation. Those like MK simply made up their own location, with no substantiation whatsoever save that the spot “felt” right to them, and they had heard some snippet or rumor that they felt must be accurate. We found, in trying to investigate this stuff, that there were MANY such snippets, and NONE of them could prove anything. What we saw was an oral history disintegrating into legend. We sought to correct that, and it truly was not easy to do. We sought to establish truth and reality, a real history, which are rare things in the field of Bigfooting, I’m sorry to say.

I have to say that the biggest enemy in this endeavor has been the presupposition of unfounded claims made by some researchers who never even bothered with proof and documentation. Just saying something is so is never enough. As in the case of MK, one false conception can lead to a thousand others following. Attention-getting? YES. It seems to be what drives Bigfooting the most, as we generally can’t seem to produce very good evidence of the phenomenon it give more weight to individual declarations, egotism, and imaginary and unsubstantiated claims to truth without real evidence. Everyone in this likes to call themselves “researchers,” but it is stunning how few of them actually bother to document and really study anything.
PEREZ: 5) Are you confident that after 40+ years you have located the exact spot?
STEVE: Yes. Indeed. Well, we still have to prove it absolutely to the world. Proof, in a scientific and surveying or optical/photographic sense, is a whole other order of business. The history is ambiguous and contradictory, too. I am satisfied, though, that this is the site, and I see absolutely NO evidence for any other location we have investigated. ALL of the evidence and history, such as it is, points to this one single sandbar on the long course of the creek. There is no doubt in my mind, as I walk on the very course of the trackway on that site. It is big enough, with all the landmarks and proportions in order. Once understood, the site becomes clearly visible (conceivable, at least, though one cannot really see in the way Patterson’s camera did back then), despite these 44 years passed and new forest growth since the filming event.
PEREZ: 6) Of the team, who had that Eureka moment of pinpointing the "big tree?"
STEVE: The “Eureka” moment was really a gradual process realized as a group over a few years. It was I, Steve, who began insisting on that particular big tree and area, and seeing the sandbar and the angle of view in the film toward the “right” side of the sandbar. But I'm not claiming credit for it personally. It was group research, and no one of us alone could have brought this project to fruition. That is why we go by "BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT."
We’d looked in that area before, but always felt that the trees were just way off too far toward the end of the film. We had decided that we would focus on that spot and do a site survey last year, but we ran out of time with the seasons and weather changing. Robert and I were even more convinced when we heard that it was Gimlin who had identified the spot of the first sighting. Ian remained skeptical, thinking the site and big trees were not big enough, and so forth.
I found my way to that tree again this mid-summer (during a time when we were unable to get the group together up there), and gave it a serious new look. I had to change my whole mental image of the film site around to realize it was the correct tree in the right spot. In many ways the image in the film is an optical illusion of perspective, with a  moving subject and camera position. We had to think around “square” models such as seen in Murphy’s diorama of the site. I began pointing out that tree to the others, the biggest one down there in that general spot. Robert agreed, but reserved judgment until we could do the site survey grid. Robert was very determined to get to that level of documentation before concluding anything. Ian wasn’t able spend much time at the spot with us in the one time we were all of us together there this summer. He still has reservations, but I think we’re making a little headway convincing him.
When we did our survey with Rowdy we saw things in greater depth and focus, and the landmarks began to emerge from the “jungle.” We saw the trees for the forest. So many had assumed that that area was just not big enough, but when we measured it the known film distances fit in there perfectly, with all the right pieces of the puzzle. Next to that big tree there were others in what appeared to be exactly the correct locations. When we were there as a group surveying without Ian I showed that big tree to the guys again. Rowdy then insightfully spotted the maple next to the big tree, with a slightly bent trunk. I then identified the spiky snag, which I'd never thought before could still be standing. The "ladder tree" and middle tree were obvious, once the big tree was found. The other background big tree clusters are notably similar, but we have yet to fully study and measure all of them. Measuring anything on that hillside is very difficult.
Robert gets loads of credit for conceiving of and managing the site survey. It was Robert who was most fixated on the stumps, which are other lasting features that will help prove this location with finality. Rowdy helped out in huge ways at that point, in organizing and conducting the site measurements. Rowdy, who has a degree and works in film, has already contributed many new views and analyses that hadn’t occurred to us before he got involved.
Ian’s skepticism and rationalism have been constant guards against false assumption. 
The Process: The arrow in the Perez booklet identifies the end point of the film, pointing specifically to the upper sandbar zone. Gimlin identified the crook in the creek downstream as the first sighting spot in 2003, and more decidedly this summer on site. In 2010 Perez, upon being asked to pinpoint Rene's exact mark on the map, marked this very spot. We had already ruled out all locations downstream, and focused on the upper sandbar when Gimlin arrived here. We had to try to conceive of that sandbar without the new tree growth, trying to see again what Dahinden saw in his "aerial" shot from the hillside. We realized that the big trees had to be farther toward the end of the sandbar, and that the film was shot diagonally across the apparent north orientation of the sandbar. Munns put out an animation recreating the motion of cameraman and subject within the setting, and this was instrumental in our revisualizing the site. We drew a magnetic north axis on site and found it oriented perfectly with the biggest tree there, one we'd previously thought was way too far to the "right" to be the big tree. Upon close inspection, all the other main trees were found, and in our site survey the old stumps and debris piles were amazingly still there.

PEREZ: 7) In the blog site, it is stated, "Though the proof is not officially final..." Who makes it official?
STEVE: “PROOF” cannot be had by mere photography, as the site is a totally overgrown jungle now. Each detail needed to be analyzed by itself, and put into location on our site grid map in order to be seen and understood in context. This was the real, full “Eureka” moment, when Robert finished his map. There was so much more correspondence than we’d ever imagined we’d find.
We have shared our results with Bill Munns, and he has confirmed preliminarily that we’ve gotten it correctly. We are hoping to continue this work on-site in 2012, hopefully with those who have expert knowledge in surveying, cameras and optics, not to mention geology and natural history. We have found innumerable ways in to this subject, and have had to learn much in order to be able to understand what we were seeing and finding. We are all of us amateurs, so we did our best, and at this point we are hoping that others will be able to verify our findings in a fully convincing and professional way that will leave no doubt lingering into the future.
PEREZ: 8) About how many man hours did it take to produce your quadrant map?
STEVE: Ask Robert about that one. We spent three days the first trip, myself one day and Robert two days the next trip, in the map/survey process. Robert spent countless hours working on the maps once he got back from the site.

ROBERT: Daniel--Steven, Rowdy and I had spent approximately 60 man hours of actual work time on the film site gridding the gravel bar for the map during October, 2011. This included compass work, some brush clearing, tree boring (determining ages of trees), gridding and flagging the site with north/south (Y) and east/west (X) axis points and lines, also drawing in the stumps, logs, trees, debris piles and root balls (artifacts) and double-checking our data on the ground (searching/walking/confirming/correcting). See the hourly breakdown by researcher below.

October 22 nd. 2011 total combined 22.5 hours
Robert - 7.5 hours
Steven - 7.5 hours
Rowdy - 7.5 hours
October 23 rd. 2011 total combined 22.5 hours
Robert - 7.5 hours
Steven - 7.5 hours
Rowdy - 7.5 hours
October 30th 2011 total combined 9 hours.
Robert - 5.5 hours
Steven - 3.5 hours
October 31st 2011 total combined 6 hours.
Robert - 6 hours
Approximately 6 + 9 + 22.5 + 22.5 = 60 hours of field work and another few hours transferring the data to the final map.
The lower bend and root balls at PGF site area.
Photo by Steven Streufert
PEREZ:  9) When I told Robert in 2007 I believe it was a waste of time to look for the filmsite because I thought it was all changed forever, you didn't buy into that idea. Was this the result of training as a forest ranger and schooling and general experience about the woods and longevity of trees?
STEVE: Leaving this one for Robert…
My comment: We knew that the geology and history of the Bluff Creek area could be understood. We sought to discover all we could that would bear upon the stories told about the events from 1958 to 1967 that involved Bigfoot. What we saw in the creek area were the remnants of the 1964 Flood. We then understood that the sandbar, established by that 500-year event (or whatever it was) should still be there in some form. We found no evidence of logging having been done since 1965-66 salvage work post-Flood. Hence, we refuted the things people had been saying, such as: “It’s all been washed away,” or “The trees should be stumps now.” We showed that with persistence reality may be discovered and history documented. We showed that it is idiotic to just assume things as these people did, without any clear evidence for such assumptions.
We were determined not to just say, for instance, that we knew how to get to the Los Angeles urban area. We wanted to get to Norwalk, and then to a certain address, and eventually find the spot of a specific location, like finding Daniel Perez’ house there. Many said that it could not be found, or that it did not matter; but we found many clues along the way, and it was fun playing Sherlock Holmes with these Bigfoot-related mysteries.
ROBERT:  Steven covered some good stuff already. I will add to it. I find that few people have the patience to get down and get dirty in the field. Very few of us have the ability or take the time to double-check what others say about things. Sometimes we find it easier to assume the obvious and go with the flow, giving some statements credence. If three people agree it's got to be fact right? And let’s face it, we’re no longer a society of outdoorsmen and women whose very existence had depended on the ability to read the signs and predict the weather.

As a park ranger, spending time in the forest is my profession. Being able to read my surroundings can be an essential skill. Though not all park rangers live and work in forests, I do. I spend a considerable amount of time in the outdoors and have taken it upon myself to feel more comfortable in them. I have also tried to better understand my home area.

Back to the film site.... I realize a lot of change can happen on a gravel bar in 44 years, but I also realize that certain landscape features like trees, stumps and logs will take time to totally disappear. Much of that is dependent on insects, fungi, the weather, topography and other factors. Nature has its way of making sure of that. If there were once big trees, then there should be the remains of either the big trees themselves or stumps, and some stumps can hang around for a good bit of time. If the downed logs and stumps were no longer visible, then there should be debris pile remains in their place, possibly in the form of logs and stumps. Stumps last longer than most logs. Different tree species break down faster than others. As an example, alders and cottonwoods will break down faster than firs. Determining the age of trees on the floodplain could also help us see the forest despite the 40-year-old newer trees. For the most part, the positions of the artifacts (logs, stumps, trees) shouldn’t change unless they were washed away, buried or hauled away by salvage loggers. All we needed were clear pictures, a good aerial view of the P.G. Film Site (compliments of Rene Dahinden's 1971 overview) to match some artifacts, as well as patience and time. With the photographs in hand, and a little determination, we were bound to find something. As it was, we did find something... a whole lot of somethings that looked an awful lot like the Rene 1971 overview.

PEREZ: 10) The big tree, what is the present diameter and circumference of it? And is it in your opinion still the largest tree in that immediate vicinity?
STEVE: It is the largest tree in the upper sandbar area. Downstream from there we found two other trees of that huge size, but they are of course in the wrong places. Unfortunately, time and the mass of things to do somehow overwhelmed us, and we didn’t get to measure the diameter of the tree. You can see in the photo of it with me in front how large it is. I’m standing right at its base, so rough measurements of my size and the tree behind me may be made. I’d say the tree is about five feet in diameter. It is an old growth Douglas fir, of the top size found in that climate, soil and terrain, but it certainly is not the largest fir I’ve ever seen. I think it is big enough indeed to be the one seen in the film. Hopefully an optical expert like Munns with be able to tell us this with certainty, based upon our measurements.
PEREZ: 11) Was the Eureka moment derived by association of other items that made a match from 40+ years ago?
STEVE: That is explained above mostly. All the factors of history that we could find played into this. We talked to all the witnesses of the site and area that we could find, and investigated some six miles of the creek watershed. We were frankly astonished to find how much STILL remained, however much others assumed it would all be changed. I mean, stumps and big trees, yes, were there, but we also found the debris piles rotting away but still in the same places. We have over two dozen clearly identifiable matching features outlined in Robert’s comparison map done with the 1971 Dahinden “aerial” photo. And there are many more possible ID points to be found with further analyses. Even the empty spaces on the sandbar are positive data points, as it is quite unlikely up there for something NOT to grow on a spot. Hence, if there is no stump or tree over 40 years old on the site now, and the same state existed in 1967, that is another correlation and correspondence. Finding the big tree was great, but it was astounding to find the other trees along the line, one by one, and to see that their layout was a perfect match for what is seen behind the creature in the 1967 film.
PEREZ: 12)  Did the two of you have a physical advantage over the Bigfoot community because you live geographically closer to the area than most others?
STEVE: Of course! For some it is a lifetime Mecca journey to get up there. For me it is an easy day trip. Hence, we were able to return again and again to answer lingering questions and to explore new information, and finally to check and re-check data.
PEREZ: 13) To Robert, are you surprised that this area, once relatively clear, is an "overgrown jungle" today?
ROBERT: You mean young temperate forest? No. We’re talking successional growth, part of the natural cycle. The flood waters gave that bend in the river a clean slate. Sunlight, nutrients, organic debris for shelter against the harsh elements, the proximity of water, all of these were factors. The new layer of sand and silt was a seed bed for the successional plants. After they established themselves, the trees were soon to follow. What we’re looking at now is a forest reestablishing itself in a prior habitat right in the middle of the P.G. Film Site.

PEREZ: 14) Do you think you ruffled feathers with discounting Murphy's location and his physical filmsite model?
STEVE: Well, when I questioned Christopher Murphy about this stuff he was always open and helpful. When I contacted him before his Sasquatch Summit presentation he listened to my points without defensiveness, and then changed his talk to reflect parts of our research. He did a very fine job in making his site model diorama, but we found it ultimately limiting as it created a predisposition to view the perspective and motion in the film wrongly. It was just a recreation of frame 352, based on Dahinden’s measurements. When we cracked our minds out of those shells we were able to look at the actual locations in new ways.
The site location found in Murphy’s books was based on only one visit there in 2003, for only a few hours, so he cannot really be blamed for getting the location wrongly. It was really pretty close, but inexact. In any case, he was getting cues from others there, so any confusion in his books or internet statements only reflects the difficulties that PGF site location research faced at that point. It is not his fault, really, and he’s been a gentleman about it… unlike many others who have acted as if this were a PERSONAL ISSUE. It is not, and it should not be. It is about facts, not egos.
PEREZ: 15) Where many of the stumps noted in the original P-G film and noted by later researchers still there?
STEVE: I’ve answered this above. We need to get someone with high-level optical photo-analysis skills and software to look at this, but from Robert’s comparison work we’ve shown, I think, a level of correspondence that goes way beyond randomness and is in the highest level of certainty. This is just eyeball work, though, done while constantly having to adjust one’s assumptions trying to approximate the true film perspective in comparison with the site map and overview hillside photo. It isn’t easy to do. As far as we can tell at this point essentially ALL of the bigger features of the film are still present there, and are to be found in more or less exactly the same position and similar condition now as they were in 1967.
PEREZ: 16) Did the woodpecker holes that Peter Byrne said where there in 1972 on the big tree something that strengthened the case for the correct site?
STEVE: Well, Byrne’s memory of how to get to the film site seems to have faded over the years since he was there and it was recognizable. We know from his photos that he was there on the right spot. He took the best photos documenting the site. But since then he has been taking people or guiding them to the spot right at the road bottom, at the bat boxes. This is wholly implausible, much like the MK Davis location, for near-total lack of corresponding features and a landscape that is totally different from that in the film itself. One thing he DID remember was the pock-marked bark of the Big Tree. This is EXACTLY what we found when we identified the tree. Apparently these are holes made by woodpeckers trying to get at bark beetles and other insects infesting the tree. This may indicate weakness in the tree, so it may be quite aged and on its way out sometime in the not too distant future.
We are going to try to get a core-bore of the tree’s rings next summer, and of course this time we will have the required two people and time enough to get a diameter and circumference measurement of it. That is the funniest aspect of this research: just as we think we’ve discovered something or the solution to some mystery, we find that a dozen new avenues of research open up requiring further investigation. Something tells me this Project is not over, and will continue on for many more years.
One thing I’d like to say here is that Bob Gimlin was RIGHT. After all the researchers had become lost and confused, Bob, who had only been there once before 2003, was able to re-identify the site. This is a real kick in the pants of those who constantly want to say that Gimlin has poor memory, or that he is confabulating. ALL ALONG THE WAY we found that Gimlin’s accounts of the locality, the scene of the filming event, and the features found down in that creekbed were essentially CORRECT.
We have to give credit to Rene Dahinden, especially, as it was his memory and research dedication that were preserved in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK. To you, too, Daniel, we are very grateful in that you actually bothered to document that recollection before the site was lost entirely to time. The clues preserved added up to enough for us to find the site again.

PEREZ: Anyway, those are my questions. Should you have additional comments, just jot them down as I would like to go to press with this soon.  Best, Daniel Perez
Daniels 2007 table at the Willow Creek PGF 40th Celebration Conference.
There in the middle is Daniel's K-100 Kodak movie camera, very similar to ours.
We had NO idea that he was thinking of giving us the "Oscar" of Bigfooting at the point of this interview. Do keep in mind that this was done before we had final mathematical confirmation of the site geometry. We have that now, such that we now have absolute proof that we have found the correct location. What will follow is further measurement and hopefully more useful perspective on the film itself, and its strange, hairy subject.
Recently Bobo, from FINDING BIGFOOT, stopped by BIGFOOT BOOKS. Though he is a friend, I couldn't resist getting him to sign a promotional card for the show for display in my shop. Here it is:
James "Bobo" Fay signed this card for Bigfoot Books.
Kids visiting the shop LOVE this thing, as they love the Bobes.
Unfortunately, Bobo was recently mauled by a Bigfoot on The Soup, but somehow survived to continue filming episodes of Season Three of the show. He is in Louisiana now, and we have word that they are heading to Australia for the Yowie, and to Southeast Asia as well. Wow! Here is the video of the attack:

And listen to a podcast episode from SAVAGE HENRY, a Humboldt humor magazine, to hear the "real" Bobo, complete with drinking games, here:  Episode 10 of SHIT Talkin'.

Until next time, SEE YA!

Me Mute.
No Me No Speak.

This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2007-2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial 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. 

Thursday, March 22, 2012


MARCH 22nd 2012

Hello all. In case you have wondered why I have not been "blogging" much lately, well, I feel you should have an explanation. Aside from a general annoyance with the state of Bigfooting these days, and a general sense of finishing something up in Bluff Creek, I've just been active elsewhere. In case you don't know about it, I'd like to invite you to check out our new discussion group on Facebook, THE COALITION FOR REASON, SCIENCE, SATIRE AND SANITY IN BIGFOOT RESEARCH. It is open to all to read and join, so long as you are a user of this popular anti-social networking site (who isn't?). If you wish to post you may simply join the group. See below for general guidelines.

This group has been VERY active, with some 400 emails coming in today, so if you don't want that happening just set your notifications for the group to "Off" and check in once in a while.

In case you haven't heard... We are "E.V.I.L.": Evidence Verified through Investigation & Logic

Introductory Message:
"This group is open to all, and seeks to promote the spirit of rational thinking and evidence-based reality orientation in a field (BIGFOOTING) gone mad with fantastical dreaming and grandiose presupposition. This is a pro-Bigfoot group open to skepticism and critical thought, so long as it is not hateful or too slanderous. This group is democratic, anarchistic to the greatest degree possible, and non-believers and fanatics are equally welcome to participate. All are encouraged to be either constructive or funny, but we ask that personal insult be saved as a last recourse. Take a stand for the compatibility of Sasquatch and Reason. Add all of your 'Squatching' friends to this group."  

Our Holy Teachers: 

A Further Message:
""We are a group that posits the unusual position in Bigfooting that one may approach the strange and unknown with reason and logic. We seek rational and evidence-based explanations for the phenomena associated with Bigfoot, and refuse to give in to the lazy paranormal option. We do not believe that fact is a matter of belief, and that truth may be known with patience, Science and reason. Reality is indifferent to belief. Sasquatch does not live in the human mind unless it is a mere myth. Evidence points to a flesh and blood animal that walks the earth, eats and leaves scat, and footprints in the physical ground. We wish to explore the possibility of Bigfoot reports and claims with an open, skeptical attitude that sees as much value in exposing false claims and bad ideas as it does in affirming a belief system based on our own experiences and potential encounters. Either a thing is real or it is not, and we seek to know the difference."

And a further Personal Statement for you:
"I stand for Sasquatch as I stand for respect for all beings. All living things have their own ways, and their own forms of sentience. I stand for their right to exist, as I also advocate that humans expand their awareness and understanding of other life forms. We are not the only beings in the universe or this planet capable of feeling, thought, self-awareness, and the experience of Being. The utilitarian viewpoint of anthropocentrism must end, as also must anthropomorphic projection of our biases, values, uses and predilections upon the living world. These are the great ethical crimes of human history. 

These are the source of all our destructive impact upon other living beings and peoples of the Earth. The argument as to whether the Bigfoot are apes or humans is specious and spurious. We are part of the same family, Hominidae. We share the same tribe as chimps, the hominin. All animals, all life forms, have their own adaptations and responses to the world. These should be understood on their own terms, respected and valued. We should find ways in which we ourselves may live without devastation and destruction of the habitats and life-ways of others, be they human or other form of animal. We, humans, are animals. We are evolved from and part of what we call Nature. 

This is the context which gave meaning and breadth to the lives of traditional aboriginal peoples across the world, the concept that we were all brethren, that one spirit infuses all of us, and is manifest in each creature in its own way and form. All of life, in this view and experience of the world, has meaning, value and its own truth. It is a much more rich and textured way of experiencing life than that of the modern human, isolated in cities, and so hypnotized by the products of our own culture that we do not even see the stars at night and know that we are dwelling in a massive galaxy hurtling through a universally interconnected space-time.
Not to devalue Science, as it is this wonder of humanity which taught us about these very galaxies and our own place in them; but rather, let us practice the expansion of our awareness and knowledge with a respectful and open appreciation for all things, such that they may be discovered, known, and experienced in mutual co-participation in this strange Mystery of existence. Sasquatch, as much of we know of it, and as we know so little, represents the living unknown, a being able to walk like a man but still live in the deep grandeur of natural being. Let us regard this as a guide, and a lesson, for how we may conduct our own daily lives, and the direction for our future civilization."

This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2007-2012, 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.

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Doing Cryptozoology and Becoming a Cartoon Character: "Steve the Bigfoot Doctor" is Released, plus a FEISTY CATS/CATS IN BLACK Interview

"After finding bigfoot, Steve the bigfoot hunter thought
his job was done. But little did he know, his adventure
 had just begun. 

Early March 2012 Edition

Beware the paths you take in the woods in pursuit of such things as Bigfoot, as they may lead you to odd places. In my own case it came to happy ends, as I am now a cartoon character serving as the basis of a series of books for children presenting Bigfoot and the study of it in a positive, appreciative light. For some investigators, and Bigfoot witnesses too, it ends in ridicule from the general public for believing such "odd" things. For those who have actually studied the history of the phenomenon, the possibility of an actual creature existing most parsimoniously explains the vast body of sightings reports and other evidence. For some, it is just good, plain fun.

Last year Natasha and David Breen, artists and authors behind the FEISTY CATS and CATS IN BLACK series of books for young people, and residents of Humboldt County, Bigfoot Country, produced a first book in the Bigfoot series: "Steve the Bigfoot Hunter." Now they are out with a new one, "Steve the Bigfoot Doctor." Both of these books are in rhyming verse and tell optimistic and cheerful tales that might just inspire the next generation of cryptozoologists. They are cute and funny, and to myself (especially as I am in them, along with my favorite hairy hominoid) rather endearing.

The authors have produced a lot of other books. The FEISTY CATS is a kind of super-hero comic series for young teens featuring cat-people dealing with the complex moral, social and psychological issues of growing up and trying to do good in the world. The CATS IN BLACK (a pun on "Men in Black") series deals with more complex geo-political issues often involving conspiracy theories and "forbidden knowledge." In fact, the authors have seen their books featured on the web sites of both Alex Jones and David Icke. They have produced a set of books similar to the Bigfoot ones that feature a young David Icke, the notable British theorist responsible for the "Reptoid" theory, as a character.

See below for an interview Bigfoot's bLog did with the authors, as well as to find links for viewing their web pages and books, and to make purchases if you'd like.

Also, see below for what happened to some friends of ours when they mysteriously found themselves the stars of a very popular TV show, FINDING BIGFOOT. Yes, they were made into cartoon characters, too, even super-heroes. It is weird to see your friends on TV, but it is even stranger to see Matt lose his belly for a set of six-pack abs.



OK, I'll admit it, it's weird being a cartoon character, but also kind of cool. At least they didn't make me go Bigfoot researching with Justin Bieber, which was one of their earlier story ideas (see the animation below).



BIGFOOT BOOKS: What is Feisty Cats and Cats in Black, and how did this series get started? Is it a superhero comic, a graphic novel, a kids' series? And what is its purpose?

Tahsa: I've been drawing cartoon cats I called the "Feisty Cats" since I was eight years old. Just two years ago my brother David took interest in my characters and their concepts and helped me put a story line behind them which started the children's storybooks.

David: Natasha works at a preschool, and the children she shared the Feisty Cats with, seemed to really like the Cats In Black characters the most.  And this got us to thinking that we should just focus on something that is already familiar.

Tahsa: The Cats In Black is now our main focus because people know who they are, but they are still different enough to make them our own thing. That is one of the reasons we made them cats. We thought Cats In Black would be a better means of telling conspiracy theory related stories in the background setting of a comic strip.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: OK, for those who do not know about it, what is Cats in Black? Why are the characters portrayed as cats, and how does this reflect on ordinary human society? Are they a form of superhero, or are they meant to show the true potential of all kids and people to do great things?

David: The Cats In Black plays off the "Shadow Government" conspiracy concept. We wanted to use characters that were already familiar to the public, but something also shrouded in mystery in order to give us the flexibility to make it our own and use it as a backdrop to play around with well known, relevant issues. You could think of the Cats In Black being the fictional characters who are responsible for all conspiracy theories . Our goal was to touch on popular conspiracy theories, while still remaining light humored and appropriate for all ages. Another reason we made them cats, was to appeal to kids.

Tasha: The Feisty Cats was about superhero cats, and the Cats In Black were their body guards. The Cats In Black didn't have powers, they were like the Lex Luther of Feisty Cats. They have none of the powers but technique and other means at their disposal.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Books for kids (though I'm sure grown-ups will enjoy these, too) usually have a MESSAGE, a moral of the story, or an inspiration to help kids in growing up and developing their personalities. How do you think your books function in this regard, and how did they grow out of your own childhood experiences?

Tasha: Books for self empowerment and critical thinking are the primary concepts we are trying to get through to kids. Our books are just topics that we are interested in. They don't have anything to do with our childhood experiences.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: How did the Feisty Cats originally evolve in your own life, Tasha? What did you see in them, and how is it that they have persisted until now that you, as an adult, are sharing them with the kids of the world?

Tahsa: First I drew them out of my imagination and as I got older I started drawing characters I saw in people. Most of my Feisty Cats are inspired by people I admired and people who I thought would look cool as cat people. It's just persisted because that's what I love to do. I would stay in my room and draw cats all day, and eventually my brother noticed maybe there was something more useful we could do with my characters. And now it's really exciting that we have our books being sold online in Europe.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: And David, what is your background, and how did you get involved in these stories and books?

David: I liked to draw a lot when I was a kid. But as I got older, I lost interest in my art and spent most of my time playing video games. I even went to college hoping to become a computer programmer, but I'm glad that didn't work out. It wasn't until I discovered Macromedia Flash and started playing around with the concept of vector graphics, that I started drawing again. I had several years practice, designing logos and doing freelance art. When I started to become more interested in the Feisty Cats, I wanted to contribute with my computer art abilities, and we are where we are today because we both share the same passion for these characters and their stories.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: You had another popular project, David, with large online following. Do you wish to mention that here?

David: When I started drawing on the computer using Flash, one of my first projects was a comic strip about movies. It took off there for a while, but movies was never my passion. I ended the comic strip after a good 2 year run.  I'm much more excited about working with Natasha on Cats In Black, because this series will have a following of cool, open-minded people we can look forward to connecting with

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Can we say “Movie Comics”? OK, to me, from what I’ve seen, the Cats books are basically Super Hero tales. How do you think the superhero model works for kids who have to live in the “Real World”? Also, how do your stories move from situations featuring kids in the struggles and issues of growing up to the topics of conspiracy theories and such things as Bigfoot? Are you, in the manner of much Science Fiction, addressing the Future, and the Unknown, and “Possible Things”?

David: Yes, Movie Comics. A comic I illustrated and co-wrote with Salvador Garcia, an old friend who moved to Peru. For Cats In Black, we've abandoned the superhero model.   Although it was a popular concept when we were kids - today I believe it's becoming a bit redundant.   We wanted to do something more innovative - because having powers makes things too easy and unrelatable.  The conspiracy theory crowd and new age ideas are becoming more and more popular, and we believe Cats In Black would be perfect for this emerging market. We are using conspiracy theories as the background model we work with when trying to convey our messages of self empowerment, thinking for yourself, and the power of positive thinking.

Tasha: Our stories are based on conspiracy theories, so by their definition they are not fiction or nonfiction.   It's up to the reader if they believe in conspiracies or not.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Yes, indeed. Superheroes imply some kind of supernatural power or gift, whereas the average person has only their wits and imagination to get by with. Does battling against these dark, conspiratorial forces symbolize freeing the mind? Does it imply some kind of revolution that may restore humanity to greater dignity and strength, even though these characters are cats? What is it that these conspiracy theories represent for you? Aren't they kind of like the old good guy-bad guy scenarios of comics of the past, battles between good and evil clearly demarcated?

David: The humor of our series is that it's from the perspective of the so-called conspirators. I don't see it as so much of a good versus evil situation. The Cats In Black are depicted as neutral characters by their nature who see their actions as simply doing their jobs.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Well, normally the Conspirators are seen as the Bad Guys… "THEM." Is this a counter-conspiracy, then? Recently, you have had a major breakthrough with the books, and that is the involvement of a certain individual (I don’t mean myself) who is now being featured in several of your latest titles. Can you talk about that, and how his theories of Conspiracy and Reality relate to your own books and creations?

David: But yes, the concept of a conspiracy for us is when information is maliciously kept from the public.  David Icke is the perfect leading character in our series, because we feel he best represents this up and coming movement of free thinkers.

Yes, the Cats In Black are seen as the bad guys, and David Icke's character is the good guy who represents the mind set and value system of this unique and exciting modern day truth movement in which he is the top figure head and most successful outspoken personality. It's a huge opportunity and privilege to be working with David Icke and his crew on the Cats In Black storybook & comic strip series. We have 3 books available right now in David Icke's online bookstore under Children's Books, (Including Steve the Bigfoot Hunter) and you can visit the Cats In Black website to see the weekly conspiracy comic strip. (

Tasha: Our rhyming picture books take David Icke's idea's of self awareness and staying positive amongst the chaos, and simplifies them into stories that is easier for kids to understand.  We also feel the Cats In Black would appeal to adults who are not normally curious about these topics.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: So, you are actually working with Mr. Icke’s approval and perhaps aid in the creative process? For our readers here, how do your books incorporate some of the aspects of Icke’s thinking, such as Reptilians, Multi-Dimensionality, Mind Control by the Illuminati, etc.?

David: With this series, we plan to cover all of David Icke's topics of interest. We are directly working with his bookstore staff. They approved our earlier concepts and now we've been given the green light, creatively speaking.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: That is very cool for you guys! Congrats! Isn't some of that stuff a bit scary for kids, though? Or, might it not scare some of the parents away, as well? Much of it is considered kind of "out there" thinking, you know....

David: That's the fine line we have to walk. To make it appealing to adults, but still appropriate for children, and I feel we're doing that really well. Out there kind of thinking is perfect for children's books. Big red dogs seems kind of out there too! Oh, and thank you. It's very exciting.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Right! Kids are the most “out there” of all humans, usually!

So, aside from meeting me, how did you get involved with BIGFOOT, and how does this down-to-earth hairy guy relate to the cosmic themes of the Cats in Black and Feisty Cats? What does Bigfoot mean to you? How does the cryptozoological quest of your character, Steve, relate to the themes of self-empowerment and free-thinking that you advocate in your other books?

David: Bigfoot for us is just another phenomenon within the series. Like UFOs, abductions and anything else that has eye witnesses. Bigfoot falls into that special category of things that most people have to see to believe. The character Steve, in Steve in Bigfoot Hunter represents a community of people who are passionately aware of a cultural phenomenon that the public at large assumes and interprets as a concept of fiction.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: But, perhaps, the crucial question might be: IS IT REAL? Or, does it matter? What is "real" in the Cats series, and what are its goals in dealing with these stranger aspects of reality? I mean, beyond simple entertainment, what is at the other end of the exploratory process, whether it be exploring the "Crypto" or the "Conspiro" aspects of this world?

David: Part of the humor and spin on the Cats In Black concept is that every conspiracy is real and they are the perpetrators. The goal of our series is to simply highlight these conspiracy topics in a humorous cartoon - an angle that is more attractive to your average person. We want to make information entertaining, and don't want to come off as preachy.

Tasha: We are not saying every conspiracy is real, but that is what will make Cats In Black so interesting and entertaining.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Fascinating. A generation growing up with these books are quite likely to have a very open mind to the possibilities and hidden realities in this hyper-complex and ever-changing world.
Do you guys have any other things to say about the series, or about life and “Reality” in general? Where are you heading in the future with your works?
Also, where might readers find copies aside from your own web site and David Icke’s? Links would help.

David: An animated television series is something down the road that we've always considered, but this book series is our main focus at this time, and we feel it's the best medium in which to present our material and tell our stories.

So if any your readers are intrigued by the concept we've outlined in this interview and want to help support David Icke and the Cats In Black, right now you can purchase our books directly from David Icke's bookstore.  They have 60 copies of our books available right now - and more will be available as soon as we setup a drop-ship method with David Icke's bookstore.
Also check out the Cats In Black website each week for a new conspiracy comic.

It's been a fun interview. Thanks Steve!

Tahsa: I can't wait for the Cats In Black movie.  :)

BIGFOOT BOOKS: OK, thanks to both of you! I look forward to seeing where this fascinating series will travel both here on earth and out there in the Cosmos. Best to both of you!

Here is a funny animation the authors did with myself, Bigfoot and Justin Bieber of all people:


Cats-In-Black-And-the-Power-of-the-Microchip may also be found on the ALEX JONES BOOK PAGE, too.


made into cartoon characters, our friends from FINDING BIGFOOT became super heroes through the pen of artist, Rictor Riolo. Check out his hilarious cryptozoological art through the link below.

View full-sized versions of these images through his DEVIANT ART GALLERY.


Me kind of angry too. Me get made into cartoon and look, me all snaggle tooth growl and mad eyebrow. That how me really look? Plus me have talk bad this like but that not how me really talk. You know they say Bigfoot talk English, Spanish, Russian, Me a linguist, me even talk in your mind use MindSpeak if you let me.

This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial 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.