BIGFOOT'S bLOG

BigfootBookman · 16th May 2011, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Murphy's PGF history. Only showed the Patty part. Film was either edited, or they fast forwarded past the first 3/4 roll. My guess is that it was already cut, otherwise you have a lot of fast forwarding to get to Patty.

Gimlin was so excited at being involved with the first ever film of bigfoot, that he didn't bother to show up...

I asked John Green about this. He recalls the first roll, but just that it had a bunch of scenery on it with horses and such, and then ending with the Bigfoot part. His memory of the second roll seems to have faded away, though he did see it at some time. You guys here will surely call me a blind believer, but I do tend to take the word of the guys who were actually there over a lot of latter-day theorizing. The problem is that those guys like Green, Hodgson, Gimlin, McClarin, whomever, are rather aged, and 1967 was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

LTC, Gimlin had driven all night after a long and trying day. Can you really blame him for sleeping?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 16th May 2011, 11:16 AM

Parnassus, I don't necessarily take everything Murphy says as Gospel. In fact, I recently talked to him about some of his film site ideas, and he altered his Sasquatch Summit presentation. He does, though, have good access to primary sources, knowing Green well, and having spent much time working with Dahinden. He has good access to early materials, photos and documents as well. He has tried nobly to be authoritative on these PGF matters, but some issues simply cannot be sorted out with absolute certainty.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 16th May 2011, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

It isn't at all "just what Patterson said". First of all, Patterson said he mailed it, and there was the convoluted impossible story of getting to the store by 6pm after accomplishing all the chasing of bigfoot around, the casting of tracks, traveling back and forth from the campsite, and driving to mail the film before then going to the store.

Second of all, Patterson did not say anything about where the lab was. You did not say what the name of this alleged lab is. There's so much more, but all of this is people actively creating a story different from what Patterson himself said and it is clear why you do it: to correct and improve upon Patterson's story where it fails.

Where is the eagerness to improve upon Bob Heironimus' story where you feel that it fails? You haven't told us exactly what it is that is so wrong with it.

Patterson's story was contemporaneous so there is no excusing decades of memory loss, as seems reasonable to do with elements in Heironimus' recounting. A reasonable person, were they interested in the truth, would try not to be so one-sided in "fixing" the contemporaneous but impossible story and dismissing without the slightest consideration the story told decades after the fact.

Well a person could be specific about how they were trying to piece it together. This is pretty vague.

It's hard to remain gracious, and I want to. Forgive me if I fail there.

Patterson said it was processed "off the books" in an unofficial way, and he didn't want the guy to get in trouble if his name and the lab were revealed. There, the start of the problem. You'll say a convenient lie, I know. Murphy says he found there was processing capacity in the Seattle area for that kind of film, and it could have been done. Long interviewed one guy who said he didn't do it; but someone else in the lab or someone else in the area could have learned the process. I'm not bending the truth, but just looking into what has been said over the years about the film's history. Last I checked it is not my job to prove anything to you. I'm doing my own thing, and was only here responding to a few questions and sharing a little information we've found.

I challenge you, BushPilot, to take out Long's book and sit on Google Earth and really try to make some sense of Hieronimus' "route" to the "film site." It is simply absurd. Go see. Or come down here and I'll show you.

BTW, the pre-processing timeline IS possible, if they went directly to Willow Creek first, making it around 6:15, just like Gimlin always said and says. I know, I've tested it. The only part that doesn't make sense to me is this 3.5 mile tracking upstream idea. That seems excessive, I'll admit, on top of everything else.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 17th May 2011, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

bigfootBookman-
Really what time did they got into town.
You said Bob Gimlin said and always said it was around 6:15 but in the interview with John Green he said it was 8:30 or 9:00.
Bob Gimlin said in that interview that when they made the cast of the tracks and got back to camp and fed the horses and tied up the horses and it was good and dark by the time they got into town it was around 8:30 or 9:00.
So by what you said Bob Gimlin said 6:15 like he always said but in a interview he claim it was 8:30 or 9:00.
So what was the time they got into town?
And what town did they mail the film off?
For they even said they mailed the film to DeAtley house from Eureka CA.
In other words they claim to have mailed the film out from different towns at different times.
So I like to know what town they mailed the film from and what time did they mailed it?
And please don't say Bob Gimlin said this or that for he changed his story about the time and town as well as Patterson did.
You see this is why I never did my research on the stories they told is because their stories keep changing ever time they told it. Just like when they claim no one can make that kind of suit. I prove them wrong about that.
You see you can not answer the questions and if you do you have to say Bob Gimlin said or Roger Patterson said when in fact it was proven time and time again that you can not go on what Bob Gimlin or Roger Patterson said.

OK, Leroy, I mis-spoke when I said "always." I should say "usually." You can't be too nitpicky on this stuff, Leroy, because as a matter of fact it is true (I am the first to admit it, as it troubles us to no end!) that the stories have morphed over the years, details have changed, been exaggerated, guessed at, altered in memory, and so many other problems. And, we now were not there then to document this stuff. The guys themselves did not really bother to document too much. Nor did the early researchers at the time. I say this does not necessarily prove a lie or a hoax, but just that they were almost certainly not paying attention to what time it was or how far they might have ridden on horses up and down the creek, and other matters like that.

Remember, these guys don't seem to have been wearing watches, as the times are just rough estimates by all appearances. Also, they did not have odometers or pedometers on their horses.

Gimlin states that it was good and dark by the time they made it into Willow Creek. Perhaps in 1992 he was thinking, oh, it must be dark at like 8:30. He says he IMAGINES it was around that time. In other words, he is just GUESSING. Someone probably corrected him, or he thought about it some more, and he realized that in later October (with daylight savings time not applying, too) it is starting to get dark in the Bluff Creek canyon sometime after 4:00, as the sun gets down behind the tall mountain ridge. If they left around this time, well, it takes about an hour to drive out from their camp area to Highway 96. From there it is some 30 miles of paved but curvy road to Willow Creek, and would have taken them some 45 minutes. So, it is totally plausible for them to have reached Hodgson's store at about 6:15, and called him there. Hodgson is the source for this time, and he knew best, as he'd just closed shop as always and reached home. He told me it MAY have been 6:30 when they called, as he was just estimating.

One thing one just can't believe Al Hodgson on, in my opinion, is his memory that Roger said something about them having gone over the Bald Hills Road to town and delivered the film already. That route does not make sense, as it is two hours over the mountain to the coast (this AFTER the hour to get out of Bluff Creek down to Weitchpec), and another hour nearly from Orick area to the Eureka airport area. I think Al just misunderstood something that Roger said to him, or mis-remembers. Gimlin says they went to Willow Creek first, and then delivered the film, and this is much more plausible.

From Willow Creek to Murray Field just outside of Eureka on the north takes about 50 minutes. It is not plausible that one can take the "mailed" statement literally, as the post offices would have been closed, and they could in any case have just mailed the film from Orleans or Hoopa or Willow Creek, towns that also had USPS offices. Hence, by their going to Eureka, we know they had OTHER intentions, namely, they must have been headed to the air courier office at the small plane airport. This is the only reason they would have had to head to Eureka. The conversation with the news reporter seems to have been done by phone, so that is not a reason to go to Eureka, either.

Parnassus,
From the above you'll see a few of the things I have "tested" in the timeline.
I simply do not know how much time they spent after filming the creature in documenting or tracking it. One wonders about the 3.5 miles upstream tracking part of the story, for sure. However, if they filmed it around 1:00, and followed it a ways up the creek, then returned to inspect the tracks, nabbed the plaster, cast them, filmed a few things, then boogied on out of there, it could have been done. The route back to camp on the creekside road would have been much easier then than it is now (as there in fact IS NO ROAD to speak of there any longer). A horse walks maybe 4 miles per hour, trots maybe 8mph, and canters around 10mph (wikipedia says so, anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_gait), so it wouldn't have taken them all that long a time to cover some five miles round trip to get plaster from camp.

I find a leaving time around 4:15 or whatever totally plausible. I find the trip to Willow Creek plausible, and the trip to Eureka totally fine if one rules out this absurd post office idea. Now, the processing is another story, which has already been belabored endlessly; and it is not something I can test on the ground here. Murphy inquired at the Murray Field office, and they do not any longer have flight records for 1967, sadly. Even Greg Long discovered that there WAS processing of that Kodak film in the Seattle area at the time. I'll leave that issue for others to argue.

The things above could have been done. One just has to remember that parts of the story were not properly documented at the time, that parts were altered in the tellings which involved hyperbole and the desire for drama, and that memories are vague and experiences subjective. The "timeline," then, is rooted in anecdote. Sure, you guys here will argue that it is all messed up because it was just a tall tale from the start. That's OK. Really, I don't mind. I'm just trying to investigate whether the things said about the PGF could be true, and in the cases above, yes, it could be.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 17th May 2011, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

Here is a video I made to show movie magic they did back in 1950's. I did a 7month study on movies and how they film them and edited them back in the 1950's I did this study to find out what they can and can not do with film in 1967.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVTm_mck2TU
This test I did two years ago but, never post it until now. As you watch this video you will see one of the frames from the PG film that everyone has seen over the years. As you watch this frame I re-color it to make it look very clear and more light and I even took out the Bigfoot in this frame. Like I said I did this by doing the same thing they did back in 1950's when they worked on films.
As you will see it was not that hard to do I did this re-color and took out the Bigfoot in this frame within 5mins.
Again I show the work I do and the test I do to find out if it can or can not be done.
I like to add when I recolor this frame you can see more trees in the back ground then you can see in the original frame.

It seems that all Leroy has done is altered the apparent "exposure" levels of the film images by boosting color saturation, contrast, etc. in a digital program. I'm not sure why it took him seven months of supposedly studying FILM techniques to learn how to do something that is readily apparent to be learned in Photoshop in about ten seconds. It is clear that Leroy is not working with film at all, but just manipulating a digital image; and proving NOTHING at all. The colors there are just brighter, not different, or "added." Duh.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 17th May 2011, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

BigfootBookman- one I don't use photo shop. And two again you don't know how I did it. I used real film frames to do the editing on the film frame.
I did not use a photo I used a film frame to do it. So again you are making a claim you know nothing about. You don't know what I do here.
What next are you going to tell people I just took the Bigfoot from the PG film and past it on another photo and tell people I made a copy of the suit.
I prove you wrong again.

Leroy, so what WAS your process, then? It sure looks to me like it was done on a computer. Did you actually use 1950s or 60s film methods? I doubt it. Seems you just scanned a frame into your computer. Also, who knows where that frame came from, which copy, and what generation?
Explain this.

Also... do please explain your source for all this so-called "information" on Ron Olsen. The PGF clip in his ANE SASQUATCH: LEGEND OF BIGFOOT film is hardly "improved" nor does it have "color added." It's a low grade copy like those in nearly all the BF documentaries. And it's clearly just a clip, not the full original film as you presume.

Oh, but you just "left." What, are you chicken?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 17th May 2011, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

BigfootBookman-
One I don't have to explain nothing to you. And you call me chicken come on that is so childish. What next you going to send your Dad after my Dad.
By the way what makes you think you know what you are talking about when I seen your new video and the way you talked about the painting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2wA3...el_video_title
You talked about Bigfoot having a contractor licensed and insurance. And you said "I don't see any marijuana plaints".
And by the way I show my name Leroy Blevins Sr. I don't hind behind a fake name BigfootBookman.
And if Bigfoot is so real as you claim then you show the proof that they are real.
I know I claim to have seen one but, I am not out proving they are real to each his own when it come to Bigfoot. But you are out telling people that they are real so why don't you go out and get one to show to all the people and not just keep talking about this BS PGF.
You live where they are and you go to Bluff Creek well you should have no problem in finding one when you live next door to them. Roger Patterson did and he was from Washington and he filmed one there so you should be able to do this with your eyes closed but , if I was you, you better keep them open.
Bye, Bye

No comment... or maybe I'd better?
Blevins does not know a joke when he sees one, I suppose, nor does he know it as he should when he looks in the mirror. "Chicken" means you won't come forth with your sources and verify anything, so all of us here really just have to assume that you don't really have any valid sources, and you just evade ever having to prove anything you dream up in your bizarre, conspiratorial theories. Oh well.

The mural in Willow Creek depicts Bigfoot helping out in the economic development of the town. It DAMN WELL SHOULD have marijuana plants depicted in there, as that is the only real cash source we have left out here. About a third of this town is growing... weed. How do I know what I am talking about? I live here, and I interviewed the artist who painted the mural. And really, I can't help it that Duane Flatmo painted Bigfoot as a contractor. What is your point? I know you were a contractor yourself, so why can't you build a theory that will stand squarely the test of time and analysis? You make houses on sand, supported by illusions, and roofed over by pure thinly-sliced baloney.

As far as the name, everybody knows who I am on here, I believe, and they can readily see all of my contact and biographical information by looking at my blog, frequently identified here as:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/

As far as proving Bigfoot is real, that is not my job. I'd love to see one for ten minutes like you claim to have done, but oh well. Why didn't you take a picture or film it, Leroy? There are active Bigfoot zones all around Willow Creek. I look into the reports. I go into the woods a lot. Who knows? Maybe they are real and I will see one. It's funny, though... you always claim I am trying to prove the PGF and Bigfoot are real, but really I am an agnostic about everything, and I'm just trying to honestly look at the phenomenon. One thing I do know: BIGFOOT IS NOT AN EDOMITE.

Leroy, go have a beer, man. It would do you some real good.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

Edited by LashL:

Edited.

Bye bye

Edited by LashL:

Removed inappropriate content.

There are plenty of cases made for the validity of the PGF, and I don't need to make yet another. They're in the books, if you could actually try reading them.

All you have so far is a lot of pareidolia nonsense, and a cheap, modified gorilla costume that might possibly look good at a dark Halloween party. It certainly does not make you some kind of hero, for all your crowing about it.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

BFBM JUSTED GOT PWNED!1!!1 BY BEVINS. Got any evidence BFBM? nope

That is a logical fallacy. Attacking the PGF or Bigfoot evidence is NOT the same as attacking ME. Also, Blevins BELIEVES in Bigfoot himself, so his argument is disingenuous. I've said it here many times before: I have no ego-investment in proving Bigfoot exists. My arguments here are not, in fact, even based on that premise. Blevins boxes at a straw man, clearly.

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

River-
I found that video by just looking at videos about facebook.

Edited by LashL:

Edited.

Edited by LashL:

Edited.

I've said it before, do I have to say it again? John Green was simply trying to be polite to you. What did he tell me? Well, here it is again:

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?"

[Note: the use of the word "crazy," above, is not my own, but is the expressed opinion of someone not in the employment of Bigfoot Books.]

If Green saw the creature as black in the film that says next to nothing. He was not viewing it either in person or with modern photographic enhancement. In the small, uncropped original, shown on a tiny home screen no doubt, he saw it as a dark figure, and it struck him as black. That's all. That does not mean it was not dark, reddish brown when viewed under better circumstances. In any case, that is just his subjective perception.

If you want to talk about "facts," then OK: TELL US HOW YOU KNOW ALL OF THIS ABOUT RON OLSON COLORIZING AND ADDING TO THE FILM? Cite verifiable SOURCES please.

Pure comic Halloween costume, in my opinon:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-D...ns+BF+Suit.jpg
I can't tell if that is supposed to be a ninja or an overgrown spider monkey with a big butt.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

BigfootBookman-
And to the rest of what you said I don't have to show nothing to you because you have not shown one thing to me as the film as being real.
You show me that the PG film is 100% real then I will show you everything I have and where I got it and where I found it.

And I do mean show me it is 100% real by what you find out and not by other people research.

SHOW ME THE PROOF OF THE BIGFOOT IN THE FILM IS 100% REAL.
Come on if you know so much show me up by showing me that the Bigfoot in the film is real.
And until you can show me the Bigfoot in the film is 100% real then stop crying to me about what I show and post.
Sorry to all the others on this site

That latter is a very empty offer. Obviously, by now, NO ONE has been able to say 100% of anything either way in regard to this film. That is a major aspect of its continuing fascinating appeal. Leroy KNOWS I cannot "prove" the film to be real, 100%. So I guess he will never show us his evidence and "sources."

Mr. Blevins makes extraordinary claims about the history of the film. All I am asking is WHERE does he come up with all of this stuff? I mean, if he knows all about who had the original film and when, and that Ron Olson colorized and added additional material to the film which was originally only 30 seconds, and that the early part was not even shot at Bluff Creek, shouldn't he be required to at least cite his source for all to see? Wouldn't he WANT to cite that source in order to validate his own claims? In what other field of history or learning may we just SAY something without corroborating evidence or a credible source? Without some source we really have no idea of whether his claims are at all credible; and in fact, I think everyone here is absolutely convinced of their incredibility. Add that to the fact that we do have other evidence and claims quite to the contrary, and we are left with just a bunch of empty words proving nothing. How can any of his claims have any value to this area of study, beyond amusing diversion, if they are not substantiated? Are these not the same criticisms that skeptics levy against "Bigfoot Believers"?

I am not making personal attacks here, really, as Leroy seems to be a perfectly nice, decent fellow in his personal, ordinary life... just like MK Davis is.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

What are these cases for validity?

I'm not here to make that case. I've seen the ridicule here heaped on believers, so why should I bother? If I were to quote, say, Meldrum or Munns, you'd all just laugh as is typical here. I don't see any reason to expose myself to such abuse. I'm interested in the PGF and the Bluff Creek histories. That's what I'm here for, even if most views are skeptical or mocking.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

You keep asking Leroy to cite his information for his claims, but you won't... If you refrain from posting your beliefs for fear of ridicule then why on earth are you here, why be in the debate at all?

Gilbert, I have not MADE that claim here.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

All I did was merely ask you what those many cases were... If you won't tell me for fear i'll ridicule you then I don't know what to say.... Its rather ironic though, since you're giving Leroy grief for not giving you the info you're asking for...

Gilbert, you KNOW what those cases are. They are in the books. Why should I reiterate them here?

The points I have been making here are in regard to the history of Bluff Creek and the P-G Film, not the validity or falsity of the film's subject.

I am not afraid of your ridicule. It's just a tired old argument without resolution, that's all.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

If you don't feel comfortable addressing my question, thats fair enough, but you must surely realize that you can't demand such information from others and then refuse to engage when you, yourself, are asked to do the same.

No, your argument is specious. I am asking Blevins for the sources for claims he has made here. When I have made claims I have been quite open with my sources: John Green, Al Hodgson, Jim McClarin, Jay Rowland, Christopher Murphy, Daniel Perez, et al. These are two wholly different categories. You are in fact trying to change the subject.

You are capable of finding which are the major books on Bigfoot and the PGF, are you not? Try Meldrum's book for starters. He makes some pretty good points.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 18th May 2011, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

BFBM
Plz STFU. Go to the movies.
Just as a favor to me. Im begging you . At least ignore Leroy for 48 hrs.
I'll do the dishes for a week.
Yer makin me crazy.

OK Parnassus, I'll leave this forum to you and Leroy's monkey suit. It's OK.

Re. the other guys' points: I've made it clear that my position on the film is agnostic, and I'm only really interested in discovering the events and geography surrounding it, which to me are interesting local history. I simply do not wish to switch over to a fruitless argument about whether Bigfoot is real or not. You guys seem to have settled opinions anyway.

Kitakaze, you are welcome to visit, and it would be great to meet you. Any of you here, should you be in a friendly mood, are welcome. I'll even show you the Bluff Creek and film site areas if you can be there without guffawing and scaring off all of the Sasquatch.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 19th May 2011, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

I also like to add when you see this part of the PG film you will see Roger Patterson riding his horse and you can see a dog running around. This is one of the dogs Roger Patterson used in making his documentary and as you see in the frame that MK Davis points out there is a dog print in the sand. That print was made by the dog you see in this first part of the PG film when the dog was running around Roger Patterson and his horse. That part of the film is also in the PG film.

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

The sounds you hear on this film is like you would hear on a documentary they added horse sounds and other sound. Even when they started to film the Bigfoot they add the sounds of horses going crazy. And there is talking on the film.
What I like to point out is why they don't play the sound today when they show the film.
Here is a video That if you listen to the sounds in the back ground is the sounds on the film but, the voices and the music and Roger Patterson talking and Grover Krantz was added to this documentary on the PG film they shown on TV. But the sounds of horses and horses going crazy is what is on the PG film that you hear in the back ground.

Um.... uh.... hmmm. No Comment.

Some questions, though:

Was EVERY piece of film or photo of Roger Patterson ever taken "part of the PG Film"?
I guess his whole life was "part of the PG Film"; and yes, it had sound, dogs and horses in it.
Just like Washington is in Bluff Creek, I guess.

Were the horse sounds added, or NOT?
What makes Blevins think it wasn't ALL added?

Also, if there is ONE dog print seen on the Bluff Creek sandbar, where are all the OTHERS? Last I checked, dogs have four legs.
Parei-dogprint-dolia?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 19th May 2011, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins

BigfootBookman-
This is what I am talking about every time I show something you come out trying to make my findings as if I am just tell a tail about the film.
I like to ask you, have you ever seen the whole PG film and not just parts they show on TV?
I know you have not seen the film.
So how do you know what is on the film or not.

You show me nothing I haven't heard of before, save for your own "unique ideas." Yes, I have seen ALL of the publicly available versions of the film and documentary inclusions, so far as I know of them. I have seen the first frames, the middle frames, and the last frames. What might I be missing? Oh yeah, the sound, the edited parts, the Gimlin in the bushes....

Quote:

You see even when I point things out that even Bill Munns shows and claims you still have a hard time in believing me.

I have read the full Munns Report. What I was asking you is how you know there were edits and colorizations and additions done by Ron Olson. It is known that ANE got rights and then probably even the original. So? Speak to the question I ask, not a dodge to something else, please.

Quote:

I like to make a point here if people don't mind. I come here and post things I find and yes I even show the frames I do have. Just like the dog print in the PG film. Yes dogs do have 4 legs and the reason why the 1 print shows up and the others did not show up is as it was told the sand at Bluff Creek becomes dark when it get wet. So with this in mind the dog at the film site may have got one of it's paw's wet and step on the sand and that one print turn dark when that sand got wet from that one paw being wet and this is why there was only one print.
I mean there is water at Bluff Creek.

The dog print appears in the middle of an even part of the sand bar, and there is only ONE print. AND, that part of the sandbar was up a considerable way from the creek. Did the dog levitate?

Quote:

You see Steve no matter what I say or even others say you keep coming up with your side and make excuses for the film and the people around the film.
Let me show you.
I claim Bob Gimlin did not have the camera so someone else was with them for that person to film Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek.
Then I find a interview and post it where you can hear Bob Gimlin himself said that he had nothing to do with the camera and that Roger had the camera the whole time and that he don't know how to use a camera and even to this day he don't take picture or know how to work a camera.
Then when I show you this and post it you come off with a excuse for Bob Gimlin by saying well maybe he forgot.

Human memory is dodgy, flexible, mutable. And then there is the tendency to add hyperbole and drama to a story, for it to change and adapt with perspective and time.

Quote:

Here is 1 fact that they had someone else with them for them to film Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek for Bob Gimlin claim he never used the camera.
That is a fact.
And the person that filmed Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek was left handed by the way the person was filming Roger Patterson. I did a 6 month study on filming and angles of a person that does filming. Can I show this yes for I too did diagrams on filming and the angle of shot when someone is filming from the right hand and left hand and even in front of them. I point this out to MK Davis and he said to me you have a good eye for pointing this out.
Let me show you.
Take the Bigfoot and put it in the middle of the scene. If you was filming from your left side you will see more of the right of the Bigfoot then the left for you are filming from the left. Now if you are filming from the right side you will see more on the left side of the Bigfoot then the right for you are filming from the right. Now if you had the camera right in front of you and filming from the front of you, you would see the same distance on both sides of the Bigfoot and the Bigfoot would be in the middle of the frame. This show you are filming from the front of you.
And the PG film shows by the angles of filming that the parts that shows Bob Gimlin was filmed by a man that is right handed for when you see Bob Gimlin you see more to the left of Bob Gimlin then you do of the right of Bob Gimlin. Now the parts that shows Roger Patterson was filmed by a man that was left handed for when you see Roger Patterson you will see more of the right then the left of Roger Patterson.
So you see the proof is in the film all you need to do is find the angles of the shots in the film and that will tell you if it was shot from the left or right or in front of the camera man.

JREF OPTICAL EXPERTS: Can any of you see any sense to the right-left-handedness issue? It seems to me with distance and perspective there would be no way to tell. The angle of view will not change considerably with a shift of about one foot when viewing a distance of about a hundred feet. And anyways, couldn't one just say that the camera position was simply a foot to the left or right, rather than a right or left shoulder of the photographer?

BFBM

"I am out of here."

BigfootBookman · 23rd May 2011, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

This is just the kind of apologetics I have been pointing out: Clearly, At every turn the objective is to improve upon the story the hoaxers told, or subsequently told in contradiction to the first.

Even when rejecting what Roger said, the blame goes on someone else like Hodgson for remembering what the con-man said to him wrong.

It is a kind of fealty to Roger that in his grave must feel pretty good after a lifetime lacking any respect from most.

What I have said is hardly "apologetics." All I am saying is that some aspects of the stories told about the PGF events make sense to me, and are testable on the ground, while other things do not make sense. I've tried to rule out implausible things like Bald Hills Road and the post office, as they could not be done, or there would have been no reason for them to have done so. Other parts make perfect sense, and I have found that they indeed could have been done. I cannot account for the variability in the tellings of the tale, but I can chalk much of it up to variable memory over time and the desire at times for dramatic hyperbole.

I do not "blame" Al Hodgson. He admits freely to me that he does not recall everything, nor recall it perfectly. As he is the only source for this Bald Hills route, and because the route makes no sense, I conclude that either Patterson mis-spoke, Al mis-heard, or Al mis-recalls. I can look to things Gimlin said that make more sense to me, and I can theorize that perhaps he is correct about those things.

You can declare it all a lie, as is your right, but your theoretical assumption may indeed be wrong.

You are not fully correct about Patterson either, BushPilot. As you've read Long's book you know darn well that a lot of people in Yakima respected (and still do) or were deeply fond of the guy.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 25th May 2011, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by parnassus

What is the significance of what he did?

The "Bigfoot Corpse" is in the "bloody red hole" at the start of the film. That is clearly what B. Short was trying to show on her BF Encounters film splices page (taken down last time I checked). MKD has said this on his online "radio" show, too (search for ArtistFirst Bigfoot Central to find it). John Green, they say, imply, or insinuate, cut and spliced the film right at the start to remove the incriminating beheaded, skinned, bloody body of a Bigfoot. Malarkey!

I wonder: is B. Short getting marketing payments for promoting the upcoming "Incident at Bluff Creek" DVD "documentary" horrorfest?

BigfootBookman · 26th May 2011, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by bobbieshort

Funny how you criticize a film you've never evaluated on a frame by frame basis, Steven.

Do your usual ad hominem attack - we've come to expect it from you.

I have that section of the film in a frame-by-frame, slowed-down version. I see no bloody hole, and no Bigfoot body. What can I say? I am not attacking you, nor MKD, nor anyone else involved in that inane and ridiculous "theory"; I am attacking the inanity and ridiculousness of the theory. Do you see the difference? What I said above was not ad hominem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The last part of my previous post was simply a joke; but it was also me wondering if you are in collaboration with a certain filmmaker.

True ad hominem would be along the lines of: "Bobbie Short is loopy because she believes in the 'Massacre', so everything she says is absurd and not to be believed." Clearly this is not true, as you have much great stuff on your BF Encounters web site.

There ARE some things on your site that I will critique, and those are the things that I find incorrect and ridiculous, such as:
* the film was only 30 seconds long,
* Patterson was in Bluff Creek on Labor Day,
* the film was spliced to hide a bloody corpse,
and of course...
* Titmus was there when they killed the Bigfoot family as documented in the August-September Dahinden footage.

All malarkey. Nothing personal.

BFBM

PS--Are you sure that Munns is using partial frames? In my version the camera jerks back and forth from left to right quite a bit, and the "hole" is not always even visible. In any case, if Munns wants to show the berm/bank as demonstrative of his theory that the creek flows behind there, it is not in any way his obligation to show the whole frame when only a detail is demonstrative... and in any case, it is not a sign of some malign, evil conspiracy nor a cover-up, as you imply.

BigfootBookman · 26th May 2011, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

BFBM
You use the very transparent "I was just kidding" ploy all too frequently. Maybe you ought to think about either saying you're sorry or saying you meant what you said.
Of course irony is lost on footers but you did serve up a healthy portion by suggesting Bobbie was using the forum for commercial purposes. And by terming someone else's idea "malarky."

I tend to be an ironic and sometimes sarcastic guy. I won't apologize for that; though I admit it can sometimes be misunderstood, especially when people these days do not tend to read anything closely, and are ever prone to emotional and ideological reactions, taking things out of their true contextual meaning and intent.

I don't think B. Short's motivation is monetary, nor that she is getting paid for it. Her web site is free to the public, and a wonderful service to the field. Rather, I think the "Theory That Dare Not Speak Its Name," and the upcoming "Incident at Bluff Creek" are part of an irrational belief system and ideology aimed against "The Canadians" and Gimlin, one that at this point approaches the basic structures of a religion.

I know, you will say that all of Bigfooting is like that, which is your own ideology and right. Fine. I'd rather keep an open mind about mysterious things.

BFBM

BigfootBookman

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Yes, tell us what you think he is hiding. Is he part of the conspiracy? What do you see in the frame?

Here it is, that which B. Short sees:
http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/...liams-take.jpg
http://i1221.photobucket.com/albums/...sdepiction.jpg

Attached Thumbnails

BigfootBookman · 30th May 2011, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Yes, we know...

Yes, I know that you know; and I just wanted Ms Short to know that we all know, too. And no extent of beating around the bush with implications, nor removing her film splice page on BF Encounters that bore that image at the bottom as a conclusion, will change that fact.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 3rd June 2011, 02:16 PM

(The following text was found buried in the sands of Bluff Creek, scrawled in blood on an old and weather'd parchment made of Sasquatch hide. Read on if you dare!)

Years ago in time out of mind a little man from the Southern Shires came forth from his hole-in-the-ground home bearing a bound manuscript volume of great Ideas of his own Invention, entitled, Bluff Creek Incident: There and Back Again. It was a great achievement in the mind of this diminutive, furry-footed, erstwhile picture analyst by trade. It made him a Name and great Fame among the townsfolk of Gcbro, and other hamlets throughout the Southern Lands. In it he vanquished the dark lords and their orc minions from the frigid, frozen North Lands, sending these "Canadians" back down into their subterranean cave lairs. This, then, is the brief telling of this tale of the great Hero, one Mrodo Kibbets Daggins, or as we shall call him hereby his popular name of repute, the Honorable Noble Knight of the Shire, MKD.

Gather round, hear the telling of the tale! Hear how around him gathered from far flung hobbitine holes the Grave Lord MonsterHunter, the stern White Queen BS, and the loyal Dark Duke Dave of Gilroy Province. Hear how he, the adamant MKD, was first set on the Path of Adventure by the wily wizard, Beckjord the Grey. Hear with thine own ear how he slew on the grand voyage that followed the grim and pitiless serpent, Giant Salamader. Hear how he righteously stole the honored Great Ring, signet of Footer of the Year, from Sir Danny of the Southwest, and how he gave it to his trusty footman, DonDon, for safekeeping lest he garner of it power too great (still, he secretively donned the ring surreptitiously, while up in his tower chamber at Castle ArtistFirst). Hear how he traveled far-flung trails to the holy site of Discovery in Bluff Creek, California Territory, a continent away from his humble home, and dangerously adjacent to the Dark Lord Green's Northern lair. Hear how MKD saw clearly that all other chroniclers were wrong, and only he the rightful and truthful heir to the truth, and the True Site.

Know that Truth descended in mighty Glory, being brought to him in grand visions of the mind (kindled by the sage herbal intoxicants given him in his tea by the sorcerer Beckjord). These hidden and cryptic truths were dispensed by him in fardels borne by myriad henchmen, lest He, MKD, be known as the Source of what to the Dark Lord Green of the North could only be taken as the Causative Slander of Great Battle. Know and see how wily MKD, like Odysseus of old, enfeebled the mind of the great warrior Cyclops of "Ape" (also known as Gigantopithius) and confounded his troops with the many-layered Onion of Conspiracy.

Yea, internally he received, and outwardly he saw, vast projections upon the landscape of the venerable Celluloid Called P-G. Famed MKD is, and rightfully, for showing in this Film the Beast of God, a human form with braided hair and stick in hand, big-footed, as she walked into glorious martyrdom and Sacrifice for all Folk of the Good South at the hands of Northern reivers, and their shadowy Wraiths of Washingtonia. She and her Relations were felled by the musket ball of the Evil Titmouse and the dread Dwarf warrior, Gimli. The grave consiglieri, Dahinde Rene documented and depicted it for All across the flat Earth to see. And they spent the wretched remainder of their days covering up their shame with fig leaf books and pamphlets on "Big Foot." Only the Noble MKD saw through the Great Lie, and only he, with the aid of his scribe, Johnny-John Grendel could decipher the mystery from the obfuscatory haze; and only they master the great technique of the Sacred rainbow DVD.

Great armies converged from all provinces upon that tiny sandbar of Bluff Creek! For yea, it was as prophesied of old, the site of End Times and Great Portent. Alerted by gaunt and raving logging company scouts in the Southlands, Lord Green with great stealth assembled his cadre of assassins to descend upon this last, Lost World tribe of Big Foot. Human they were, though hirsute, odoriferous, and of great bulk; and expert they were at avoiding all technique of fire, writing, possessions and homes. Full of Goodness they were, the bane of Lord Green. Terrible and grievous this Canadian was, and forth from his Castle Harrison Hot, poured forth his vile and sub-human, ape-like servants. Upon Bluff Creek they assembled, and there they made a large Hole upon the sandbar to receive the blood of the Sacrifice. The snare set, into the woods they dissolved, awaiting their prey.

We need not say more to the believing Public, need we? Into the Bloody Hole their bodies fell, the hairy ones, and they were skinned, beheaded, and buried with the sinful, black fume belching Backhoe of Whitson. Red flowed the creek's waters, and red the sand with the prints of the Hounds of Moffit. Buried were the bones, lost the true tale of the extirpation, and watched over it was by the dragon Salamander. Flood and Clear-cut took their tolls, time washed away the traces of the Crime, and lo, even the roads began to be taken back into Nature until even the site was lost.

One dark apostle, Patterson the Short, was sent forth to beguile and dissimulate among the People, false prophet of Lord Green that he was, accompanied by Gimli. His film, infernally wrought upon a mystifying strip, clipped and trimmed of all but one bloody image at its start, was soon shown upon every wall and magic glass within the known boundaries of the world circle. So great was the enchantment that no one save MKD (protected from the sleep of reason again by Beckjordian Art) knew of the baleful, sinister, exsanguinated but also redemptive Truth. Across plain and vast pinnacles, crossing, past demon and hideous guardian beasts alike, MKD traveled. To Bluff Creek he came, and to the Site he walked through wood and water, until there he found the holy relics, a metallic wire, a piece of bone. Femur of Sasquatch held aloft to the wrathful Northern skies, MKD howled and raged, imperious he stood in the canyons shadows. I shall go forth now to the world and proclaim this Terrible Mystery, he proclaimed. And a Voice came from on high, saying, "This is my prophet, and he shall be the only One in the Land who shall see, who shall know, and let all others be blinded by Science, History, and Reason."

Returning to the Southern land of Miss Is Ippy, MKD built the lone tower of Bigfoot Central, and began his arduous task of discovery and proclamation. Long days and nights he spent poring over every frame from the Film, his eyes blear and crossed, until from the still images forms began to emerge, to move, to speak to him of forgotten lore and fable. Though Massacre it was, and Murder as Big Foot was Human, MKD made firm his resolve that No Name would his Theory have. It Dare Not Speak Its Name, as such words would slay the minds of men, rendering them irredeemably lost to the realms of Day. Finally, Truth was his, and alone his, the Account of what no one else had Seen and Known, that only He, MKD, could know and see, as he was blessed with second sight, and third sight, and....

[Here the manuscript abruptly ends.]

Read more at:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...-its-name.html

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 14th June 2011, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

Can you please cite a source for this? I suspect that you're misremembering a statement by DeAtley, but I want to give you a chance to prove yourself correct

But Greg Long says he found records saying that no planes were allowed to fly due to the bad weather. This (along with post office closing times) would render your proposed "6:15 timeline" unworkable. Why not see if you can confirm or deny Long's claim? Posting scans of records showing otherwise would be a great help to your timeline theory, after all.

First, where are the supposed records Greg Long "found"? I do not recall him "finding" these in his book's narrative.

The rainstorm did not hit until the early morning of October 21st, starting to rain around 5:00 a.m., as I recall Gimlin saying. The film, were it on a plane, would have been in the air the preceding evening, probably before 9:30 or so when he was talking to the newspaper guy. It would have been landed in Seattle or Yakima area before the rain even hit, so how can you be so sure they would have prohibited flights out of Murray Field? If you're going to ask me to cite sources, then please provide the source and context and page numbers or links for Greg Long's "discovery."

The 6:15 timeline idea is based on what Gimlin and Hodgson say. That they could have made it to Willow Creek by 6:15 is indisputable. However, what they did once they went over the hill to the coast is another matter. The airport people told Christopher Murphy that there WERE 24-hour services available there in 1967, with charter flights available and pilots on call. They apparently didn't have any records of those years in the office when Murphy was there. Perhaps Greg Long talked to a different person who knew more? I'd be curious to know.

I tried looking up Murray Field in the phone book, but there is no listing. I will have to try dropping by the offices someday. That is about 45 miles from where I live, however.

The source for the Patterson statement is Murphy's "Bigfoot Film Journal," though I recall reading that statement or the idea of it somewhere else before that book came out.

Murphy sent this to me:
"The info re the processing was in a newspaper article written by Peter Loudon (page 44, 45, Bigfoot Film Journal)."

Peter Loudon, Victoria, British Columbia, TIMES COLONIST newspaper.

Patterson said: "I got them [the film processing] done at a private place. It would jeopardize the man's job if it were told."

Murphy says more, but you should all just break down and buy his excellent books. Some of BF Film Journal may be read here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0_v...t+Film+Journal

What did Al DeAtley say that you think I am mis-remembering?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 14th June 2011, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

I understand yoy think Patty is a real creature, and that you have no more evidence of that, than THEY have of a massacre. But that was TOTALLY AWESOME! (if u actually wrote all that)

D-Bot,

OF COURSE I could have written all of that, but like I said, the parchment scroll with writing in Sasquatch blood was found in a sealed vial buried beneath the Bluff Creek sands. It is a great Mystery, indeed.

Whether one believes "Patty" is real or not, at least the film subject is clearly seen in the PGF. What is NOT clearly seen in the film is pools of blood, Bigfoot hides and bones, gunshots, and bloody hands of Titmus suffering grievous wounds inflicted by a white attack dog. The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot exists, even if you believe it was a man in a suit. The "Theory Formerly Known as Massacre" is wholly a phantasm.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 15th June 2011, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

So Gimlin has had about 4 hours of sleep after a very long and active day, and then he decides to saddle up in the pouring rain and ride all the way back out to the trackway to hunt for bark to put over some tracks? A gesture that is clearly useless anyway with the way the area floods.
The whole "covering the tracks" story makes no sense at all. There's absolutely nothing you can do to preserve the tracks at Bluff Creek in a heavy rain, except film them and cast them, and they had already done that.
Trying to put cardboard or bark over them makes zero sense. Just look at the place and the way it floods.
Even if the soil itself would hold the prints well, the prints would still get filled in with sediment carried by the water.

Had you ever been to the film site you would know that the PGF was shot on a raised sandbar deposited by a major flood event in 1964. It does NOT flood over that area every year, if ever. It takes a catastrophic event and a major plugging of the stream to flood up that high.

We were there when National Geographic put survey tape down where they thought the trackway went. It was right down in the creek banks, below the sandbar. A full year later, last summer, the tape was still there under the small rocks where they had placed it. The flooding tendencies of Bluff Creek are, by my experience, exaggerated and often quite misunderstood by those who've never spent real time there.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 15th June 2011, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I know where the PGF was shot. Why would I need to go there?
I've heard all about how the soil holds prints well.
I've also read Gimlin's descriptions of the heavy rain, swollen creek, and washed out roads that night.
Gimlin said the big flood was in '66.

Without having been there to the film site you are utterly unqualified to make declarations about its flooding, topography, etc. I am telling you that the sandbar is raised up high above the creek. You can see this in the film itself, but it is clearly evident today. You should not presume to know without walking the ground itself. The upper sand bar is clearly the result of a major flood, not your average winter flows. Like a wash, this little creek can become a raging mini-river when it rains, and quickly; but it takes a lot more than that to raise it way over its banks. Even in heavy rains it stays in its general course, which is defined quite well by near-vertical canyon walls in many places, and by bedrock in others.

Down where Patterson and Gimlin were camped it would easily have risen up high enough to threaten their exit route. That doesn't mean it rose to the level of washing out their whole camp. Also, mud slides and rock falls are very common on these logging roads built up in the high mountains, as are road wash-outs along the creekside road. There's nothing extreme about that--it happens all the time, without a major flood. Roads are unnatural and are subject to or the cause of erosion. However, I've been going to the film site since 2007, and Bluff Creek since 2001. I have never seen the creek rise to the point where it would wash out the film site sand bar, nor have we seen any sign of washouts up on that sandbar since we've been investigating the site. In fact, this lack of flooding is the reason that all of those densely-growing new trees are taking over the site of the trackway.

Whatever Gimlin said, he doesn't live around here. His memory said the big flood was in 1966, but it was definitely in 1964. Go here, and click "see all": http://oldphotoguy.com/p648380344, or see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_flood_of_1964. It was a "100-year event," and some say a "500-year" flood.

Murphy says "about 4:00 a.m." and Gimlin says about 5:00 a.m., or whatever--these are just estimates and reconstructed memories. Of course Murphy cannot say definitively what time it was, as he wasn't there to begin with, and there are conflicting times given, and most likely no one was checking a watch to begin with.

Like I said above, the flimsy survey tape left under a rock on the ground survived the entire winter, right there in the creekbed below the film site sand bar. We were very surprised at this. Perhaps in October of this year we will do a test: we'll make some tracks in the upper sand bar approximately the same depth and size of the Patty prints, and then we will pull off some of those big, thick slabs of Douglas fir bark readily available everywhere down there, and we will cover them until we can get back in there in June. I'd bet under such conditions there could still be some sign of the tracks. I don't know if Bob Titmus or others removed the bark when they went there after P and G left. It does seem a bit unlikely that prints would survive a whole winter, just from the rain from above and not flooding, without being covered. My understanding is that when John Green got there in June he did not see well defined tracks, but just the depressions indicating the location of the trackway. With the context of the trees in back and the big log debris and stumps on the sandbar Green sought to find the right location. He didn't need to find perfectly defined tracks to do that.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 15th June 2011, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

What kind of snowpack does Bluff Creek see in a typical winter?

LOTS of snow on the upper ridges and peaks, which are over 4,000 feet. The snow will cover the entire area down in the creek in a heavy winter. This can be seen on one of those MonsterQuest episodes where they fly in by helicopter with James "Bobo" Fay, and cannot get down to the film's sandbar. It's all covered in snow there. It is not subject to winter-long packs, it seems. It would depend, of course, on the severity of the season any particular year. Generally, around here, 2,300 feet apprx. elevations are NOT above the sticking snow line. Snow tends to stick around the 3,500 to 4,000 foot level. By my experience and word from others, the creek level melts away, while the snow stays up high blocking access. We encountered this just this month and late last month, where we could only get in 15 miles before hitting dense snow pack. One of our group snowshoed up to the ridge top, and got a glimpse of the Bluff Creek watershed/headwaters below. There was NO snow left save up on top.

Anyway, it is hard for me to say, as no one can get in there in the winter, save by ATV or snowmobile--the roads are closed, or blocked at higher altitudes by snow.

A good comparison is Willow Creek. It is nearby, with similar conditions, but a lower elevation than the film site. It compares well to the lower end of Bluff Creek, however. We DO get snow here in the town, which is down at the bottom of the river valley; but it does not stick for very long. Up on the mountain, just about five or ten minutes out of town, one will hit the snowline where it sticks. Bluff Creek is similar, from what I've been able to see in the winter. Down at the Klamath River end it can be quite warm, while up at the high ridges it is pretty darn cold.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 15th June 2011, 04:30 PM

Well, LTC, you were not there, nor was I. So, really, neither of us really know exactly what happened.

Re. the bark, though... have you ever been around Douglas fir? Any stump or log from a somewhat large tree will have these thick slabs of bark one may easily pull off. It isn't flimsy. It can be several inches thick and can come off in huge sections at a time. They are great in the wood stove. One of these could easily protect a footprint, and would be durable and heavy enough to stay there all winter.

The print was there for Laverty to find. What do you mean to imply? That it didn't rain? Or that Laverty hoaxed it? Bluff Creek WILL rise rather quickly when it rains--I've seen it. It's the main watercourse draining a large, steep canyon basin watershed. You're not making much sense here. And oh, did you see the film, by the way?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 15th June 2011, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Bark floats.
Jim McClarin was there, as you, Steve, no far better than most people here. You know he reported 12-16 tracks in wet sand that were lost in gravel of the creekbed.
Wet sand and torrential rain are not friends.

Kit, come down here this summer and I'll show you what I am talking about. You can see in the film's early frames the subject walking on a fairly high raised sandbar. Bark will float when suspended in water, but it is highly unlikely the tracks received anything but rain from above, not flooding beneath.

Laverty and then Titmus were there first, and you can see from the Laverty photos to the Titmus casts an apparent degeneration of the prints' clarity. Titmus cast the ten best tracks, further damaging them. McClarin made it there later, in early November, with Richard Henry. From Henry's drawing of the site the tracks were up quite a ways from the true bed of the creek, away from the flowing water. That is, of course, if we are correct in the site location. The tracks had surely degenerated further by then. By the time McClarin returned in June with John Green, my understanding is that the tracks still extant were mere depressions in the sand. McClarin knew, though, where to look to find the trackway.

Where does McClarin say this about the number of tracks and them being located on gravel? There is a big difference between creekbed gravel and sandbar sand in Bluff Creek. It is clear in the film that the subject is NOT walking in the creekbed nor on gravel. The subject is moving back toward the trees growing on the hill beyond the historic creek margin, and is walking on fine sandy sediment deposited by the 1964 flood.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 15th June 2011, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Then why do I see muddy prints, and Roger casting in wet soil?

If you look at the ground of the sandbar it clearly shows spots that are a different shade due to moisture. Even today there are wet areas up there where water springs up and comes down from the hillside. There are marshy areas and pools up in there. It is not "muddy" in the film. What I see there, anyway, is sand.

LTC, isn't it obvious that the sandbar is raised up from the creek level, in the early frames, before Patterson runs up the bank? Who disagrees with that? In any case, I have been there, and you have not. We showed all of this in our video series.

If you care to watch them, look in "favorites" here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/bigfootbooks

Not making sense? How in the world do you think the basic and simple and clear things I've said today don't make sense? Clarify, por favor.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 16th June 2011, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

It's been obvious what a "sandbar" is since I first heard about Patty.

What that has to do with the muddy footprints and wet ground I see is entirely beyond me, apparently.

This is a footprint made in mud.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...4660e4674g.jpg

LTC, were you to come to Bluff Creek I could show you that what you are seeing is fine alluvial sand. It is dark grey. I have vials of it. It is kind of clay-like when wet. It is not your usual earthy mud full of organic matter.

AMM, I will try to ask Byrne about the airport issues when I see him tomorrow in Oregon.

The "globs" prints they originally came to see were up on the freshly plowed dirt road on Blue Creek Mountain. That IS mud, quite distinct from the sand down in the old flood-deposited creekbed sandbars. That road above was under construction and heavily used, so I would not expect much of anything to last. Much of the trackway was driven or plowed over before even Green and Dahinden got there.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 17th June 2011, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

What in the world makes you think I don't know what the soil at the site is composed of?

Again you try to tell me what I see...

If the prints were in sand alone, they certainly wouldn't have withstood any rain at all.

And they certainly wouldn't have been visible much later.

And much of the sand would have come away with the casting.

Be that as it may, the area is wet.

The area also flooded that night by nearly all accounts.

The soil deposited there today may be very different from the soil that was there in 1967, anyway.

It is not up to me to explain the account of the incident...

What you THINK you see is not necessarily what IS. Isn't that the point skeptics make about the film itself?

I've been there and held that sandy flood deposit in my hands. I know the nature of the raised sandbar. It is normal for mudslides and higher waters in the creek to occur when it rains fairly hard; what is not common is a 100-year flood event. With certainty I can tell you the PGF sandbar was not over-flooded that night/morning of October 21st, 1967.

But "see" and think what you like.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 20th June 2011, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

You can tell me whatever you like...you can be as certain of it as you wish...that doesn't make it accurate.

The area is very different now. A lot more soil has built up now if I recall correctly from earlier discussions and comparisons of trees.

IIRC, more soil had built up in the low areas by the time Green and McLarin recreated the film.

You weren't there in 1967. You don't know much about the place when the film was taken except what you see in the film, and what people who were there at the time said about the area. That is, you know exactly what I know.

You certainly may know more about the area now, but that doesn't mean much at all.

Like I said, if your experiments favor the PGF, it won't matter that it's 60 years later. If they don't favor the PGF, it will be because it's 60 years later, and things have changed. I know I can't win that game.

I live in an area known for it's sandy, red clay soil. It's basically the brick capital of the country because of the red clay soil. I'm very familiar with sandy clay soil and what it's like when it's wet. I'm familiar with even mixes, mostly clay, and mostly sand versions.

I see it is futile to try to talk to you about this.

Go to the site up on the sandbar, brush away the layer of forest debris, and there you will see it right beneath: fine, dark grey alluvial sand.

Some things have changed there, and some things have not.
I have been to the site and researched its history there and with locals, and by interviewing every Bigfoot researcher I can find who might know anything about it; you have not.

What more can I say? None of us know everything, but some things may indeed be known. Some things are better known by actual on-the-ground investigation, rather than sitting around on some online forum and presuming things.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 20th June 2011, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by AtomicMysteryMonster

BigfootBookman,
How did your meeting with Byrne work out?

The OREGON SASQUATCH SYMPOSIUM was a a very cool, but very strange event this year.

Most strange was the chain of defections from the speaker roster. First Gimlin couldn't make it, then we arrived to find that Byrne wasn't going to show up, and Lenny Green the musician was bailing out, and then Scott Nelson the cryptolinguist remained cryptic and distant by also cancelling.

The beer there was fabulous, though, as were all the nice people of the Church of Bigfoot hanging out in the cathedral of the mountains and trees. Most of the speakers and attendees followed the metaphysical pipers Lee Trippet and Henry Franzoni off into the ethers. The only one with feet firmly planted on the wholly earthly plane was Cliff Barackman. Perhaps it is this tendency that scared Mr. Peter Byrne back into his rabbit hole?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 20th June 2011, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy

Bigfoot Books,

In the past you have been upfront in stating that you think you have found the site of the PGF but cannot state with certainty that the site you have idenitfied is the actual PGF site. Is that a fair statement of your past position?

If so, is it now your position that you know, with certainty, the site of the PGF? If so, what is your evidence? If not, then your statements regarding soil/sand composition of the sandbar are moot, are they not?

We have ruled out the false and extraneous site claims, and we have narrowed it down to one basic site area constituting one large sandbar. This is the site claimed all along by Perez, based on Dahinden's map mark. Within there are three claimed locations. We want to give all fair consideration experimentally, but all three lack proof of the exact trackway. We are very close to absolute proof if we can verify the background trees and film
dimensions on the spot we are looking at currently.

The sandbar IS known. The site is fairly large, though. It amounts to analyzing a couple of football fields at most. Do you think I ever seriously considered the MK Davis location, a spot he chose basically only because it "felt right"? No. But we did have to allow for the possibility in order to rule it out of the legitimate picture. See?

We know the general site, unless it was filmed on Mars or in Yakima. What we are trying to prove is the exact trackway. Besides, the same basic post-1964 flood conditions apply all down Bluff Creek.

Our analysis is on my blog and in our video series, and upcoming. I am not going to go over all of it again here.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 20th June 2011, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

When flowing water is involved soil composition can change dramatically within a few feet. For example, the soil on the upstream side of a large boulder, or fallen tree, will be different than the soil on the downstream side, so unless you know EXACTLY where the footprints were placed you have no idea what type of soil is involved.

Water from the creek does not flow up on the sandbar.
We know the range of where the subject walked from the aerial view Dahinden took of the site. It is well back from the creek. At the appropriate distance from the creek and background trees we found a sandy substrate. What more can I say?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 20th June 2011, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

You don't know any such thing, imo.

You believe that you know.

The place was quite different in a just a few years.

http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...and-bluff.html

Tell me how you think normal winter rains can exceed a hundred year flood and I might consider your position. How does water rise six or seven vertical feet and surpass the greatest flood in known history of the area? Frankly you know nothing about this area in a real or experiential way, so why do you continue with this argument? Old topo maps show what I am talking about. This demonstrative information will be forthcoming. Please be patient and refrain from being a jerk and I will be happy to post it here. Look, I'm trying to be helpful, not to prove myself right about everything absolutely.

What are you saying has changed in the last few years?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 21st June 2011, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

You don't have a basic understanding of sandbar creation, do you?
Here you go, Sandbar creation 101.
At one time water flowed over the area in question. Every year soil carried in the water fell onto the area. As the soil built up, over many years, a 'sandbar' was created.
So, I say again, unless you know exactly where the footprints were placed you know nothing about the soil type.

OF COURSE I understand that. However, you don't seem to understand the nature of Bluff Creek and the effects the 1964 flood event had on it. I'm sure that some form of sandbar existed at the film site before the flood, but the flood was an exceptional event that left lasting marks on the area. This included the destruction of the bridge over the Klamath as the creek burst its banks and created a new channel into the river. There were jams of logs and debris at certain spots along the creek's course that caused backups of water. These are clear and evident HISTORICAL signs left on the land for all to see. Up at the film site there is a distinct crook in the creek caused by geological features. This area was apparently, from all we can tell, plugged up and restricted to the degree that an exceptional amount of sand and gravel was deposited up on a high level above the normal creek level.

That's all I can really say, that and the fact that one may walk up the creek and see signs of its history everywhere. We are trying to unearth documents showing this from the Forest Service and other agencies, that will hopefully reveal historical features of the creek before and after the flood and the PGF.

Of course, I am not a professional geologist, hydrologist, or whatever, and I am not claiming to be one. I am doing my best to understand the nature of Bluff Creek and what happened there over time. I have no desire to sit here and argue with those of you who have never been there, whose sole goal seems to be to tear down anyone else's efforts at learning and understanding. If you have something constructive and helpful to add I'd appreciate it, sincerely. Otherwise I'd suggest you refrain from commenting from ignorance at a distance and trying to prove how oh so clever you think you are.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 21st June 2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

BFBM
I get the impression that you and others aren't fans of Byrne, why is that?
Why wasn't Bob G able to make it?

It is part of the old feud between Green, Byrne and Dahinden. Byrne once punched out Dahinden out behind a McDonald's restaurant after a meet-up for intended reconciliation that was arranged by Rick Noll. There are current alliances with one or other researcher, and folks do tend sometimes to divide into camps. Some people will not appear at an event if the other enemy faction is represented. You won't see Green and Byrne in the same town, let alone the same room. And then there is the "southern" crowd gathered around MKD who despise anything "Canadian." It's rather odd, sad, amusing, etc.

I have nothing against Byrne, though you'd probably find me more in the Green camp than the "Beachfoot" Byrne-fan gang.

Gimlin had his own personal reasons, and it is not my place to divulge them here, to the extent I know of them. Basically: he was busy, and cannot say "yes" to every Bigfoot event out there.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 21st June 2011, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

BFBM, let's cut to the chase.
Are you claiming a 6 or 7 foot high sandbar during the filming of the PGF?
Or what?
I think you must be, because your posts indicate that there hasn't been much flooding since, to change the height of the sand bar.
That is, the sandbar was created by the "big flood" and it remained that way until this very day.

From what we can tell the creek has sunk deeper into its bed than conditions in 1967, post 1964 flood. If you stand in the creekbed NOW the height of the sandbar bank (past the gravel creek edges) is at head/eye level in places. It is quite high, but still an obvious old creek-formed sandbar. So, there you have it. For what it is worth.

I'm told by various locals and old-timers that the site had a lot more gravel and sand in it from back in '64, but that the creek has slowly subsided via erosion and wash-away back down into its bed. There is little water flow other than rain or snow that would affect the sandbar, though it does have seeps and small hillside springs at places. There is a small marshy bog with standing water and ferns right up there. Parts of these areas have subsided. In other places there is higher ground, and in these one may indeed dig a hand in and pull up what seems to be nothing else but original 1964-deposited fine sand. A lot of it is bound in the roots of trees, and becomes visible when these younger alders tip over.

Cue: Sardonic chuckles from the JREF peanut gallery.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 21st June 2011, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

So do you know if he is going to any conventions this year?

I seriously doubt it, Mr. Parnassus. Gimlin is getting older, and he does have a life beyond "Bigfoot." The Sasquatch Summit was probably enough for one year.

All you other guys, look: I don't want to argue anymore, and I'd appreciate it if you'd see that I'm ONLY trying to discover the truth(s) about Bluff Creek, just like you. I'm not even trying to "prove" the film is real or whatever. I could be a good resource even for you skeptics if you'd just learn to ask productive and nicely worded questions and drop the straw man attacks.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 22nd June 2011, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by parnassus

So do you know if he is going to any conventions this year?

Oh, I forgot... There is one sort of "secret" meet-up Bob would surely go to (health permitting), but that is only in the maybe stage at this point. It will be in Willow Creek if it happens.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 22nd June 2011, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

.

At what point does this become simply the riverbank?

That is a very crucial question. One of the main reasons the site is "lost" today is the fact that the traditional sandbar is raised, set back from the gravel creek bank, and now covered in young forest. Upon going to the site people naturally look for sand and gravel. That is the current creek bed, not the ground of the film. This mistake has been made most notably by National Geographic in their American Paranormal: Bigfoot, and by Christopher Murphy in 2003 and his subsequent books. They both stood at the creek and didn't bother heading back into the trees to find the real sandbar and background old growth firs as still exist there as seen in the film.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 2nd July 2011, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Ha ha! Except for the fact you have ruled out a hoax from consideration, and I mean even the slightest consideration. That is, you are trying to discover the "truth", so long as it has a bigfoot existing.

It's pretty hilarious to see someone say that there are "troubling" aspects to Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin's story, like namely its impossibility, and pretend they have no capacity to fathom a hoax. Why is someone willing to go to their grave before consideration of a hoax? It is hardly some bizarre belief, as if we were suspending belief in gravity or the earth being round. It is by far the simplest and most complete explanation of what happened. So why is a hoax impermissible?

Well it is a rhetorical question. Not because I meant it to be, but because there isn't a reasonable answer that can be given for why a person refuses to even consider a hoax.

ABP, I have to consider that possibility all the time, and I do not rule it out of the picture. What I can say is that the depictions of the area as in Greg Long's book do not match Bluff Creek and the film site area, and I have indeed tested them. Gimlin's description does match very well. We are operating under the hypothesis that the film could have been real; but that is not a dogma. If we found any evidence supporting a possible hoax we would present that, too.

Long's scenarios may work in Yakima to some degree, but they clearly falter in Bluff Creek itself.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 2nd July 2011, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

What you mean is that after 35 years Bob H's recollection of the distance from the highway to the camp faded. And that you have cherry-picked some versions of the many stories told by Patterson and Gimlin ( some immediately after the fact) and supplemented them with stories made up by others to come up with a highly improbable if not impossible patchwork tale that might allow a believer to somehow maintain his faith.

Oh, ok, Parnassus. You're always right. Whatever.

Let us just leave it at that: Bob Hieronimus' memory has faded, and we can't trust anything he says. He just doesn't recall that he was sitting on his ass in Yakima that weekend watching TV.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · #**6907**

Originally Posted by parnassus

Irrational but revealing comment

It was a joke, O Wise Guy.

Bfbm

BigfootBookman · 2nd July 2011, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Your use of the subjunctive tense here is telling: If we found/we would present... as opposed to If we find/we will present....

By your choice of words here, it is evident that you've already dismissed, or at least minimized to the point of practical non-existence, the possibility that you might find any evidence of a hoax at Bluff Springs.

Wow, now JREFs are mind readers!!!
AMAZING!

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 12th November 2011, 01:16 PM

Gimlin said this summer that they exited via the old creek road south from Louse Camp. Shortly down there something like a half a mile they hit a major new rock and mud slide. Attempting to turn the truck around it mired and slipped in mud, hanging precariously on the ledge with the creek right down below. Gimlin had to walk back and up Onion Mountain road to retrieve a backhoe to pull the truck back up on the road bed. They left out over the mountain road heading down toward Fish Lake and Weitchpec.

You guys have become accomplished Science Fiction writers in my absence. Impressive... speculations!

BigfootBookman · 12th November 2011, 02:51 PM

If Gimlin said he had tea with his breakfast this morning you guys still wouldn't believe it, even if we filmed it!

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 12th November 2011, 02:52 PM

All he has done is clarify which road they took when. Given that only recently we have proven up that the old creek road even existed in that spot, obviously no one really even knew which roads Gimlin had been talking about all those years.

We found the old road bed, thin surfacing material still there, the old culverts, and yes even the big rock slide at the point described by Gimlin. He has not walked that old road, now a scant trail, and we have yet to publish our findings. The old "Bluff Creek Trail" ends at this spot heading to near Louse Camp on some maps, including Google Earth.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 12th November 2011, 05:04 PM

LOL, JREFs. Among Bigfooters I am generally The Skeptic.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 12th November 2011, 07:19 PM

Actually, my position is that I don't really know, but it fascinates me. I am agnostic about most human claims to knowledge. I am skeptical of unfounded assertions that strike me as ridiculous, including many made by so-called skeptics. What I do on a daily basis when I am barraged by blobsquatches and stick structure photos is pull out my bullcrap detector. It is clear to me that many here on JREF simply want a straw man to make them feel smarter than the average bear. I am not a fanboy of Gimlin, but I would consider him a good man and a friend.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 13th November 2011, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by wickie

Actually, all we want is REAL proof. Not, " AAh man, I just stepped in poop...must be bigfoot" or sounds of coyotes getting it on... must be bigfoot, or even " My neighbors, cousins, hairdresser saw a 10' monkey-man at a McDonalds drive-thru...must be bigfoot.

Funny, I want the same thing, and have been kicked out of Bigfoot groups for asking for it.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 13th November 2011, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

One of my favorite hobbies is studying manipulative behavior. Bigfoot threads are great because you get to see manipulative behavior about the thing I love most, which is the forest.

Marketing yourself as "unsure" is an attempt at what the literature calls "plausible deniability". Deceptive people try to frame everything they do in a way that lets them deny what they are doing. So you maximally advocate bigfoot while pretending that you aren't.

"Maximally" doesn't mean advocating every idiotic hoax. It means a calculus that advocates where it can be gotten away with, and not advocating where it is so idiotic you lose any shred of credibility. So you look at a picture of a cow turd and say "no that isn't a bigfoot", and we're supposed to be impressed with your skepticism.

A person must get points on these other fora for the personal insults peddled here, for derailing threads, and mocking people for trying to figure out what the pathological liar Roger Patterson and the pathetic sidekick Tonto pulled off. My wife has me limited to two fora and she's right - I'd never get anything done otherwise. But I can imagine.

But hey - I'm just a loser in a cabin in the woods, so whatever...

BushMan,

You seem to have outsmarted yourself.
It is amusing how much you'd like to know while really knowing nothing about me or my motivations. Far from derailing this thread, I have tried to contribute to it from first hand experience, but have been met by snide mockers seeking a cliche to tackle.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 14th November 2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by parnassus

BFBM
Can you show us a diagram of the roads you are referring to?

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/...ost__p__117308

The red and turquoise lines show the way in and the way out as described by Bob Gimlin.
(SEE ATTACHED IMAGE BELOW, or follow link.)

Gimlin confirmed the entrance and exit routes this summer.
"Down Onion Mountain road to the bottom, turned left."
That would be just outside of Louse Camp, or at the current (not there in 1967) Bluff Creek Bridge near our theorized campsite if that is what he meant by actually hitting the creek level.

The exit route in turquoise shows the dead end at the mudslide on the old creekside road, where he says their truck got stuck and was hanging precariously above the creek. We investigated this road earlier in the summer this year, and found clear signs of a road: flat roadbed cuts, old culverts, and thin surfacing/sealing material still on the ground in areas.

Re. the PG camp area, I'd like to clarify: In my interview with Jim McClarin he was unsure of whether the horse signs (hay and manure) found at the current "bat boxes" area were really the remains of the guys' camp. He admitted it could have been further downstream, and that perhaps that location closer to the actual film site could have been an assumption. We took clues, sparse at best, from Barbara Wasson's book, and tried to find evidence of a camp somewhere a half mile or so upstream from the current bridge over Bluff Creek. We just happened to find a piece of rebar embedded in the ground at the first and best level spot in that distance range. We thought that maybe, just maybe, Rene might have put it there when he was surveying the film site in 1977 (and supposedly put metal bars in the ground to mark it) with Barbara Wasson in tow. We do not think this "half mile from the bridge over Bluff Creek" statement came from Gimlin, as Bob was not even aware of a bridge being there during his time in Bluff Creek. So, how would he have known to refer to it? On the other hand, Dahinden was in some kind of intimate relationship with Wasson at the time, and actually would have gone to the site with her right up from the bridge, inevitably passing through the possible camp site area. I still think that Rene was Wasson's source on this matter, Parnassus, but I admit it is far from proven. The Wasson quote is ambiguous, and she may have been combining source material from Rene telling the story about Bob Gimlin, not drawing the location directly from Gimlin.

From my blog:
We knew from Barbara Wasson's book, Sasquatch Apparitions (pg. 68), that the following was the case, in this slightly grammatically ambiguous sentence:

"Bob Gimlin awoke [on October 20th, the day of the filming] one sunny day in their camp some one half miles or so north of where the bridge ABOVE Notice Creek crosses Bluff Creek."

Deciphering that sentence we knew it could not be referring to the Notice Creek Bridge, but rather this one. The bridge ON Notice Creek does not CROSS Bluff Creek, but rather Notice Creek. So, we took it that the bridge ABOVE Notice Creek HAD to be the one that is one mile north of Louse Camp. Confirming this, and comparing it with Robert Leiterman's GPS reading from the previous day we found that the half mile up Wasson mentions, combined with the 2.5 miles up from their camp to the film site generally mentioned by Bob Gimlin, made a perfect match with Robert's apprx. 3 mile result. Hence, they could not have camped at the Louse Camp area--that would have made it a nearly 4 mile ride.

Also, my neighbor, Jay Rowland, has confirmed to me that his job kept him camped at Louse Camp all summer and early fall that year, 1967. He was actually there as resident attendant to watch equipment, etc., and Lyle Laverty was with him. He never saw Patterson and Gimlin up there. They could not have camped to near Louse Camp, then.

The Jim McClarin interview:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...-mcclarin.html
Excerpt:
Jim McClarin September 19 at 6:06pm
As I recall we were able to drive down to Roger and Bob's camp downstream from the site. When I went there in '67 after returning from BC and the showing of the film to the science gathering, we saw hay leavings where the horses had been kept as well as plenty of droppings and hoofprints along the way up to the film site. I think the film site may have been between 1/4 and 1/2 mile upstream from the camp. Coulda been further. I'm not certain but, since we went in a jeep, we may have 4-wheeled it in to the site. Tere was no mistaking the site since the prints were still quite visible, it matched the scenery from the film, and plaster bits remained from Bob Titmus casting a series of the tracks.

Steven Streufert September 19 at 7:44pm
That's puzzling. There is a camp site right down from the film site, about a quarter of a mile, but Roger and Bob are supposed to have camped 2 or 2.5 miles downstream, according to various accounts. Barbara Wasson said the camp was a little ways north of the bridge over Bluff Creek, down near Louse Camp. Just yesterday we went there and found the only spot around where someone could camp, so we thought perhaps we'd found it. The problem is, all the books say so many different things. We're pretty sure of the site of the film, but it seems the controversy will never go away.
Wasn't there a dirt "road" all the way up the creek? It seems to me much of it would have to have gone right through the creek, or ford across it constantly as it winds back and forth against it's banks.

Jim McClarin September 20 at 6:29am
OK, it's possible that they were not camped where I thought they had been camped. But where we saw hay leavings and piles of horse dung at the point where a dirt road led down to the creek bed was nowhere near 2 - 2.5 miles downstream of the film site. As I recall we drove right to the apparent camp site without any false leads so I must have had explicit directions from Roger or perhaps from Al Hodgson who Roger had talked to following their exit from Bluff Creek. I'm not sure if this was before or after their drive to the McKinleyville airport to ship the film back to Washington.

Had Bob Hieronimus gone to the film site up that creek road some three miles from the ford (now bridge) area, he surely would have remembered it as being an arduous ride. It was not a short distance off a comfy road as I recall him describing it in Long's book. Anyway, next year we will produce a video following Bob H. directions into and around the Bluff Creek area. It is my feeling that his directions put one somewhere near Fish Lake, at least some 20 miles from the film site on rugged dirt roads most of the way.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 14th November 2011, 09:28 PM

There was a road up the creek from where the bridge is now. Many locals have told me that, including my main source on these matters, Al Hodgson. The canyon narrows in that spot, so there is nowhere else the creekside road could have gone up there. We are still looking for an old map showing the creek road all the way up. There have obviously been changes in the creek there as it narrows down to the bridge area. However, we found only one flat and large enough area near the bridge that would be adequate for a camp including truck and horses. There was a lot more sand and gravel back then, which is observable all along the creek north of Louse. There remain old sandbars, and it is mainly there and in small hillside cuts that signs of the old road are evident. If P & G camped right by the bridge it could be that the campsite has washed away. They would, though, have been seen by workers if they were that close to the main road.

If they were anywhere near Louse they would have been heard and seen. The hillside is steep from there up the mile to the crossing, and that would have prevented creek access. Camping up from the current bridge would have given them privacy from the work zone up Onion Mountain road from Louse to the job site on Blue Creek Mountain. Rowland told me he never saw them, so I seriously doubt they were anywhere near main roads during daylight.

The creek crossing is where the old road went right up along the creek, but drawing a diagram of that detail is impossible without an eyewitness from back then on site now, unless one wants to simply guess. The fact is there are sparse and conflicting accounts, and guessing in an informed way is about the best we can do about the camp site location.

Roger Knights has mentioned a source that puts the camp just downstream from the current bridge, which is plausible, but I have yet to pin that source down.

Just because there are quotes from Gimlin in that chapter from Wasson does not mean that the entire accounting came solely from Gimlin. I don't see how you feel justified in saying so. It starts with a brief bio of Roger, obviously cobbled from varied research sources not just Bob, and then it moves on to the filming event drawing largely from Bob at that point. The later part coming from Gimlin makes sense, as after all Bob was there. Bob was never there, however, at the time there was a bridge over Bluff Creek in the area in question. Hence, the obvious source for the sentence about the camp location is Dahinden. McClarin or Green are the only others in Bigfooting who could conceivably have had a clue, but Dahinden not only was apparently in a relationship with Wasson, but also knew Patterson well enough to have figured out the camp location. No one knew more about the area in regard to the film than Rene did. It remains a mystery, however, when all the accounts are weighed.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 21st November 2011, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Just out of curiosity, how do we know this?

Christopher Murphy had the print of this photo, from one of the Dahinden sons, on loan. He told me that "1971" was written on back. The landmark trees and stumps are clearly identifiable in the image. Rene was there on site in 1971, 1972, 1977, and other later trips.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 22nd November 2011, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

That's all we have to verify the date, and it's only the year?

Those years, 1971, 1972 and 1977 are when Rene is known to have made trips up there. Murphy conceded that it might have been taken on the 1972 trip, but that "1971" was written on the back of the image. The aerial shot could not have been made in 1977, as from those (not publishable) photos one may see that the seedlings have really grown up rather large already, and are starting to take over the sandbar.

Re. River's theory (I've been conversing with him about it) I can only say that camera perspective is quite deceptive. With our site survey map, and some optical help from Bill Munns, we should be able to document the track-ways of both the subject and the cameraman as in the actual film, represented on the site as it is found today. Can we really see tracks in an image taken nearly four years later? I doubt it. This may just be "blobtracksquatching."

Our experience in making this site survey is that it is very difficult indeed to see in a way that replicates the camera perspective of the film. Many optical illusions exist in the film, which appear quite different when you are actually on the site walking among the stumps and log piles.

See our map and film site photos here:
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...iscovered.html

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 22nd November 2011, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/art...eneinwalla.htm

That article is from 1987 and by then it is true he'd been back, and again in the 1990s, too. However, I have no dates or documentation of those trips. I'm trying now to gain access to the Dahinden archives, and perhaps have some of it housed here in the Willow Creek Museum. Perhaps it will reveal more. Barely any of that stuff has reached the public in ten years, so I hope some of it was preserved. Larry Lund thinks it is in a basement or closet somewhere. Lund has some boxes, but it seems to be all of Rene's pop cultural detritus. As I understand it, from things John Green has said, Rene had troubles getting into the USA until the 1971 trip, but I may be wrong about the date. He was in the USA when the film was shot, in SF promoting the Blue Creek Mountain tracks; but he came to Willow Creek and then directly to Yakima, passing up a grand chance to witness the site at a prime early time. Rene's family do not seem too keen on Bigfoot these days, but they did appear at John Green's Sasquatch Summit this year... a favorable sign.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 28th November 2011, 01:25 PM

Tell us the REAL story then, Bobbie.

BTW, dead Douglas fir, of which there was plenty on that sandbar, has bark that peels away in large, heavy slabs. The sandbar was elevated above the creek flow and not subject to being washed out in normal years. What record do you have of flooding in Crescent City for that date? Could you be thinking of 1964? Plus, those aren't white birch on the sandbar. Those are red alder and broad leaf maples. The background from the early part of the film changes because the camera angle changes. Murphy told me he got that aerial image from Dahinden's son, and it never appeared in print until after Rene was dead. I could go on, but I don't have all day.

We left two test tracks on the sandbar this fall. We will see if they remain in June.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 28th November 2011, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Well, Roger is casting in mud, and the trackway appears to go through mud. So I kinda' think water may have been in the area.
You left tracks?
How deep were they?
How did you make them?

First, it is not mud on that sandbar, but fairly fine sand mixed with small gravel, with a thin layer generally of organic forest material. See the photos below.

There IS water, moisture in places, on the sandbar, where it springs up from the watertable below. There are small bogs on the sandbar in places, where ferns have taken over, mostly on the lower part to the west of the film site. Also, it is apparent that there is some runoff from the hillside behind, as it has caused mild erosion at the base of the hill. These test prints were made where it is very, very unlikely there will be any over-wash or flooding from the creek, unless there is a monumental weather year. We are talking an elevation of around six feet up from the current creek level. The creek has eaten its way down into the gravel since 1964's massive deposits. It would take another very major flood like that to crest over its banks to that degree.

We left tracks made by my boot, size 11, stomped and wriggled into the sand, one to about one inch of depth, another to about two inches. These were done in spots with no tree cover so that we could imitate the conditions apprx. 1967 when the sandbar was predominantly cleared out by the 1964 flood. We marked them with flags. More than likely no one will make it down there before we do in the coming late spring, when the snow melts from the roads. The roads in were closed and then snowed over shortly after we were there on October 30th.

Below I've also included an image of the "big tree" as it is today.

Re. the Gimlin/Cantrall account, I'd say we do not know if Gimlin meant they were following these tracks on the same day as the filming. The story goes that they were cruising the ridge roads at night (this would be Onion Mountain, Blue Creek Mountain, Lonesome Ridge or 12N13), and riding up the creekbed road that day. MK doesn't really know what he is talking about, re. the soil types, as up on the hills one would not find sand and gravel as in the creekbed, but rather the dusty mud such as that in which the famous 1967 ridgeline trackways were deposited. I'm not trying to make excuses for stories told here, but I'd really like to know what the context of the conversation was and what the exact words of Gimlin were before I'd make any hay from this tale. I understand Thom is not talking publicly, but he may tell me if I ask nicely.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 29th November 2011, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I clearly see a couple of "Patty tracks" that were made in mud.

This one, for example.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/...4660e4675g.jpg

Plus the one Roger is casting in the mud. Presuming he's casting right after filming Patty, which may not be accurate.

Call it mud if you like, but it is wet sand. Not beach sand, but as Parnassus says, it has an almost clay like quality of plasticity when moist, and holds its form well. It is grey with a slight blueish hint if wet. Look at my test tracks above. That is the same material. In some areas it is really very fine siltation, and it would have had more fine grain closer to the big flood.

I can send a tiny sample of real PGF site Bluff Creek sand to anyone here providing a self addressed stamped envelope and a very small plastic baggie. Bigfoot Books, P O Box 1167, Willow Creek CA 95573. It would be nice for me if you would also mention your JREF user name in a note.

My test tracks were made just south a few yards from the spot River is claiming for the track casts Patterson took.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 29th November 2011, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by River

I really like the test....
I think there is a lot more information to be gained even at this late date. Some even still from the site.

And, we are STILL looking for the massacred Bigfoot bones buried in the sandbar in that very same area you are looking at, River. Let me know if you find a femur protruding from the sand, OK?

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 30th November 2011, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

It's wet clay/sand, which is mud, imo. I live in the middle of NC, which is known for it's red clay and sand soil. So well known, that brick making is a major industry around here. When this stuff gets wet, no one calls it wet sand because it has some sand mixed with it. It's called mud. It holds prints very well, and for a long time.

One of us has been there, and one has not.

It consists of fine particulate rock, otherwise known as sand and gravel. There is very little organic material in the substance of which the sandbar consists. I would not call it mud. It is not sticky, gooey, or slimy. It is grainy. It is surprising that plants can survive in it long enough to get their roots down to real soil and the water table below.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 30th November 2011, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

mud [mʌd]
n
1. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) a fine-grained soft wet deposit that occurs on the ground after rain, at the bottom of ponds, lakes, etc.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/MUD
(mŭd)
n.
1.Wet, sticky, soft earth, as on the banks of a river.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mud
It's mud.
It's also obvious that there is absolutley nothing interesting going on in the world of bigfoot if we're arguing over what is or is not mud.
Maybe it's time for another good hoax, other than the Ketchum nonsense.

Gee whiz,

sand (snd)
n.
1. a. Small loose grains of worn or disintegrated rock.
b. Geology A sedimentary material, finer than a granule and coarser than silt, with grains between 0.06 and 2.0 millimeters in diameter.

AND

Definition of SAND
1 a : a loose granular material that results from the disintegration of rocks, consists of particles smaller than gravel but coarser than silt, and is used in mortar, glass, abrasives, and foundry molds
b : soil containing 85 percent or more of sand and a maximum of 10 percent of clay; broadly : sandy soil

AND (http://geology.about.com/od/sediment.../aboutsand.htm)

Technically, sand is merely a size category. Sand is particulate matter that's larger than silt and smaller than gravel. Different specialists set different limits for sand:
Engineers call sand anything between 0.074 and 2 millimeter, or between a U.S. standard #200 sieve and a #10 sieve.
Soil scientists classify grains between 0.05 and 2 mm as sand, or between sieves #270 and #10.
Sedimentologists put sand between 0.062 mm (1/16 mm) and 2 mm on the Wentworth scale, or 4 to –1 units on the phi scale, or between seives #230 and #10. In some other nations a metric definition is used instead, between 0.1 and 1 mm.
In the field, unless you carry a comparator with you to check against a printed grid, sand is anything big enough to feel between the fingers and smaller than a matchhead.
From a geological viewpoint, sand is anything small enough to be carried by the wind but big enough that it doesn't stay in the air, roughly 0.06 to 1.5 millimeters. It indicates a vigorous environment.

VERSUS

"MUD"
1: a slimy sticky mixture of solid material with a liquid and especially water; especially: soft wet earth.
Synonyms: guck (or gook), mire, muck, ooze, slime, slop, sludge, slush.
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mud)

There IS a difference.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 30th November 2011, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Been where?

I think I have seen about 11 different claims of having found the location.

Going to BLUFF CREEK would be a start, LTC.

However, we are the ONLY ones who have done more than just wag their mouths about it. Look at our site grid map, perhaps.
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com...iscovered.html
We have found and documented the true film site, not just expressed an opinion like MK Davis or whomever.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 30th November 2011, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

What are the odds that 40 years later, the soil is the same composition?

That sandbar was created such as it is by the 1964 Flood. It has been our observation and result of much research that the marks of that weather event are evident all along the creek, some having been left more or less unchanged since that time. Obviously, some things change, and others remain. The salvage logging of 1965-66 left many marks, for instance, that are still there all along the upper creek area. From everything we have been able to observe there is no evidence of over-wash of that sandbar since before the PGF. It has lost some of its edge gravel/sand due to creek meandering, but the creek has sunk far down below the high flood deposits. There are no streams or major erosive factors flowing on the sandbar. It is substantively the same, and consists of the same base materials as it was found to have in 1967.

I'm not making outrageous claims here. We have been there and done the best we can as amateurs to understand the processes of geology, forest regrowth, and other such factors. I'm simply trying to share that information here, not argue about mud. It is simply a fact, though, that that sandbar is not made of gooey, sticky muck, high-organic plant matter content, or whatever. It is a geological, alluvial deposit that remains consistent with the history we know of Bluff Creek. It is sand and gravel.

I do find it presumptuous of some who have never been there to make proclamations and theories from afar, without full knowledge, sitting at their computers on Google Earth, or staring at cruddy low-resolution photographs and degraded film clips. It is that simple. I'm not proposing the existence of an unknown primate here, but just a 47 year old sandbar. I'm trying to be helpful to you all by providing my perspective.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 30th November 2011, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by GT/CS

What is the significance of finding the site?
I understand finding it is fun and cool and such, but what good is it other than to charge footers a fee to see it?

The significance is that we have tried to establish truth and reality, beyond speculation and conjecture. This is, I have to say, a difficult thing to do when working with Bigfoot issues. We have studied history and natural processes, and understood the area and the events that happened in it all the better, which to me, at least, is enjoyable in that it is my home area, and a rather beautiful place in which to spend one's time. I think we have shown that things are knowable, and that knowledge is not just the product of theory and opinion.

If Bill Munns or whomever can use the site location and measurements we have come up with, or any other factors of that environment, to better understand the film and its subject, all the better. This might be helpful to believers or skeptics, and I frankly do not care which. We've put our stakes down there, and we have better evidence for our location and position than anyone in the world at this point. It is a study in process, and I'm still fascinated. That's really all there is to it. I can only add that it would be grand to talk to Rene Dahinden's ghost at this point.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 30th November 2011, 07:30 PM

What is clearly of no use is trying to talk reasonably to the few here who think they own the place, and don't know the difference between sand and mud or an ass and a mule. I never claimed anything about the test prints, which I made as a lark, and actually at the request of a JREF member. Oh well, I tried. But some here are just plain illogical anti-bigfoot bigots who can't even accept geological information from a first-hand source on the ground in a place they've never been but about which they love to proclaim knowledge.

He who crows loudly from ignorance does worse than the liar.

BFBM

BigfootBookman · 1st December 2011, 01:31 PM

Ugh. Hopeless.

All you guys want is a straw man. I could tell you that the sky is blue over Willow Creek today and you would not believe me. I've tried to talk in good faith with you guys, but rather than skepticism I only encounter prejudicial bias and bad faith mockery. A whole lot of the arguments made here are every bit as speculative and imaginative, illogical and irrational, as any of those from the Bigfooters, frankly. I have no problem talking with real skeptics. In fact, I am one. It is not that which bothers me. What I encounter here is bad faith discussion. What I see here is not a sincere skeptical pursuit of the truth and reality, but rather a gluttony for schadenfreude, a desperate desire among a small clique of petty intellectual bullies to feel superior to someone, anyone... so it may as well be anyone who even considers thepossibility of such a thing as Bigfoot. Ask River, here--I have no problem with skepticism and critical analysis. You guys are welcome to your mud. I'll take the sand.

I never made any claims that my footprints made on the Bluff Creek sandbar were some kind of "scientific study." I did it for amusement and mild curiosity. It is only meant to "test" one of the small stories in the annals of the PGF; and since a few people asked me to do it, I did.

BFBM

BigfootBookman

Originally Posted by parnassus

Bfbm

Oh..... come..... now...
Someone who posts 45 (!!!) videos of himself (!!!) and links to them constantly really is in no position to criticize the motivations of others on the Internet; amirite??

It is NOT about "me." What your problem is, "Parnassus," I suppose I will never know. Should we produce videos with no people in them? That would be very entertaining.

You've been playing that same ad hominem harp at me since I first encountered you on the old BFF. Give it a rest already. You make John Prine look bad.

I give up. This is ridiculous. I'll leave you to chew on all your old tired bones.
Anyone wanting to contact me can do it via PM. I'm done with trying to be nice with you guys.

BFBM

BIGFOOT'S bLOG

BFB's Pages

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

A Miscellany of Posts I've Made on the JREF FORUM Regarding the PGF and Bigfoot: PART ONE, More Recent Stuff

1 comment:

18th May 2011, 06:22 PM	#6701
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome You keep asking Leroy to cite his information for his claims, but you won't... If you refrain from posting your beliefs for fear of ridicule then why on earth are you here, why be in the debate at all? Gilbert, I have not MADE that claim here. BFBM

30th May 2011, 05:22 PM	#6823
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Yes, we know... Yes, I know that you know; and I just wanted Ms Short to know that we all know, too. And no extent of beating around the bush with implications, nor removing her film splice page on BF Encounters that bore that image at the bottom as a conclusion, will change that fact. BFBM

22nd June 2011, 12:09 AM	#6892
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	Originally Posted by parnassus So do you know if he is going to any conventions this year? Oh, I forgot... There is one sort of "secret" meet-up Bob would surely go to (health permitting), but that is only in the maybe stage at this point. It will be in Willow Creek if it happens. BFBM

#6907
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	Originally Posted by parnassus Irrational but revealing comment It was a joke, O Wise Guy. Bfbm

12th November 2011, 02:51 PM	#7429
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	If Gimlin said he had tea with his breakfast this morning you guys still wouldn't believe it, even if we filmed it! BFBM

12th November 2011, 05:04 PM	#7441
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	LOL, JREFs. Among Bigfooters I am generally The Skeptic. BFBM

13th November 2011, 12:00 AM	#7452
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	Originally Posted by wickie Actually, all we want is REAL proof. Not, " AAh man, I just stepped in poop...must be bigfoot" or sounds of coyotes getting it on... must be bigfoot, or even " My neighbors, cousins, hairdresser saw a 10' monkey-man at a McDonalds drive-thru...must be bigfoot. Funny, I want the same thing, and have been kicked out of Bigfoot groups for asking for it. BFBM

21st November 2011, 10:20 AM	#7511
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 Just out of curiosity, how do we know this? Christopher Murphy had the print of this photo, from one of the Dahinden sons, on loan. He told me that "1971" was written on back. The landmark trees and stumps are clearly identifiable in the image. Rene was there on site in 1971, 1972, 1977, and other later trips. BFBM

29th November 2011, 12:32 PM	#7603
BigfootBookman Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Willow Creek, Humboldt County, CA, USA, Earth Posts: 235	Originally Posted by River I really like the test.... I think there is a lot more information to be gained even at this late date. Some even still from the site. And, we are STILL looking for the massacred Bigfoot bones buried in the sandbar in that very same area you are looking at, River. Let me know if you find a femur protruding from the sand, OK? BFBM