BIGFOOT'S BLOG, Special Notice, November 2010The results of our summer's studies are finally coming forth. "C.I.," Robert Leiterman and Yours Truly set out to know Bluff Creek and its history better, especially as pertains to the Patterson-Gimlin Film. We sought to find the true site and track-way location, despite the fact that there are at least five different proposals from various researchers, and memories seem to have grown vague and as mysterious as the regrown forest now covering the once open sandbar where the famous Bigfoot film was shot. Here are the three introductory Bigfoot-nerd sessions trying to lay the preliminary foundations for our subsequent visits to the site area. Enjoy!
CLICK PLAYER BOXES BELOW TO VIEW YouTube WITHIN THIS PAGE.
Coming Up Soon!!! Robert Leiterman hikes up Bluff Creek from the Bluff Creek Bridge to the PGF site area, filming all the way. Also in the hopper: a very rainy day finds the three intrepid investigators out in the downpour trying to find those Big Trees, comparing the Peter Byrne, MK Davis and Barackman-Gimlin identified sites, trying to find "Dahinden's X" and Daniel Perez' arrow, and generally coming quite close to death by hypothermia and uphill mud climbing exhaustion. ALSO: An extensive new blog entry on our DAY ONE is in the tank and nearly ready to bottle. It should be up this week.
If the above embedded video boxes don't pop up do check for them at BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube.Or find them here: PART ONE, PART TWO, and PART THREE.
*******************************************************
ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!!!Ha ha, hu-man! You spend all summer film at Bluff Creek, you STILL NOT film Me!
*******************************************************
All video shot and edited by Robert Leiterman. Copyrighted by him, with content from Steven Streufert and Ian (C.I.), 2010. Film site images photographed on computer screens, from books, or on-site, as seen in the videos are used for research purposes only, and are seen being used as such. This blog is copyrighted too, though you may borrow and quote if full citation is given, preferably with notice to us and a kindly link to this blog.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6586879&postcount=4620
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr. Parcher's brain is parched? Or fried by reading too much on the JREF Forum?
ReplyDeleteFolks, you might want to just ignore the above link's slander and folly. But if you go there to the dark side (JREF) do at least read my response, which follows here, after seeing their big "ha ha" moment. Funny? Not. Not, really guys.
Anyway, whether or not that particular frame is "flipped" or not (please explain what that signifies, anyway, Mr. Anonymous, Parcher, or "LTC8K6") has NO RELEVANCY on the discussion seen in the video. We are not analyzing the state of the film, but rather the film SITE. There are various clues to be had in the film, and that particular frame (yes, I AM aware of the controversy) was used only to look at that "hole" spoken of by MK Davis, and in that context. It is the earliest frame of the film I've been able to find, too. It was one among many images we looked at over the course of two hours, none of which was planned or choreographed in any way. It just happens that I had that version of the PGF on my computer in a format that could be played at a very slow speed and easily paused. We also looked at screen shots from various sources. It matters not that that frame's image appears in our video--it has absolutely no impact on our studies of the film site.
Mr. Parcher, clearly, is just nitpicking, and looking for an excuse to use "Swastika Steve" whenever he can, clearly misunderstanding the original intent of my use of the symbol as SATIRE and PARODY of the former situation on the Bigfoot Forums. Using a satirical element does not suddenly make one associated with that which is being satirized. Parcher might also consider that I used images of the hammer and sickle of the communist USSR, as well as images of Orwell's Big Brother, in my comical protest against uncalled for attacks and incivility on the BFF. It is clear, as well, that Parcher's intent is slanderous, not humorous, nor is it productive of discussion or making any point within the statement he made. It is a silly distraction away from the point of a discussion that is talking about something else altogether than he is.
I would ask this, Parcher: do please explain the meaning and relevancy of this issue to the studies we are doing in Bluff Creek, or why it matters in general. Sincerely, I'd like to know. I've heard about this "flipped frame" issue before, but it is always muttered like it is part of some conspiracy theory. What's the point? So what? Do explain.
Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek
PS--(No, I am not obsessed with swastikas and Nazis, though I am German. Therefore, so constituted, your use of the term associated with my name constitutes an act of ethnic hatred. It violates, I believe, the posting guidelines of this Forum. I'd like to inform you that, actually, a relative on the other side of the family that stayed in Germany was actually killed by the Nazis in a concentration camp. He was a former Weimar Republic Social Democrat and member of the parliament. Hitler hated guys like that.)
Steven-
ReplyDeleteJust finished watching all the Bluff creek Film Site Project videos and I must concur with your analysis - not that it matters much - I haven't been to Bluff Creek, nor had a sighting, nor have any other credentials, but I am interested in the subject and keep apprised of what the BFRO, Barackman, and others are up to. It seems to me that the most likely spot is the last one on your hike - the sand, the young uniform trees growing out of it and the large Douglas Firs - it all makes sense. Just too bad you can't remove all the young trees, take a picture, then put them back. Looks like most of them are pines as well, so going in in the winter wouldn't help get you a clearer line of sight. All I can add is I enjoyed your thoughtful research and am glad I found your blog.
Cheers,
Boot
Portland