Introduction to THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT; Leiterman's Mission Statement; BIGFOOT BOOKS Now on YouTube

BIGFOOT'S BLOG, Late-October--Ooops!--Wait, NO! ...Mid-May 2011 Edition.

NOTE: THIS IS AN OLD BLOG POST WE NEVER GOT AROUND TO FINISHING. 

THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT STUFF JUST OVERWHELMED IT SOMEHOW.  As the summer and the re-opening of the Bluff Creek roads are rapidly approaching, we're just going to give you this piece now as it is, unfinished. It covers the early stages of and introduction to the Project.
***
ANNOUNCEMENT:

The Bluff Creek Film Site Project's videos may be viewed on the NEW BIGFOOT BOOKS' YouTube Channel, or on the BFRO-Videos account.

Go to Bigfoot Books on YouTube!
Currently featuring the audio of our Al Hodgson Interview, in progress.
You'll also find some cool PGF clips and a
walking tour of Willow Creek BIGFOOT iconography and kitsch.
http://www.youtube.com/user/bigfootbooks

*******
THE FOLLOWING WAS WRITTEN BACK IN OCTOBER...

As you may have noticed by the two previous posts, we're finally getting all of these Bluff Creek ducks in a row. Yes, we admit it, too--we have betrayed you all (a little bit) by leaking information first and generally spending way more time than we'd have liked for a while on the BFF (Bigfoot Forums)... read our posts/threads there: EXPLORING BLUFF CREEK BIGFOOT HISTORY and WHERE IS THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM SITE?  (We've posted a lot more extended information up there, so go look into it.) We also got drawn into one of Kitakaze's threads... apologies all around. The good news in all of this is that we have a tremendous amount of unpublished and quite fascinating material coming up for you, and soon, we hope. Bear with us--this post is just the first in a series on what we have investigated and discovered. See our two previous Preliminary Information posts for info. on the background to our Bluff Creek travels.

"There can only be one Film Site."

--Robert Leiterman

Lonesome Ridge, Bluff Creek, centered near the PGF site.

During the summer now passed we were up in the Bluff Creek basin many a time. In mid-September and early October we focussed upon locating the exact spot (to the best of our ability) of the Patterson-Gimlin film site. It may come as a surprise to some, but the site is not absolutely established any longer. The exact location and track-way WERE once known, and it was repeatedly documented by researchers such as Bob Titmus, Jim McClarin, John Green, Rene Dahinden and Peter Byrne, among others including many locals and those working up there on logging and road building crews. There is no doubt about that, as can be seen in the most notable film site photos from the early days. However, in the years since the site was studied most closely, it seems to have been lost to time, buried in dense overgrowth of alders and maples, and at least partially eroded away by landslides and creek flows. We were shocked at first to find out that there were several different locations being pointed to, by the old-time researchers and the internet Google-earthers. We found five different, but mostly very close, locations and a wide array of divergent GPS readings. Not all of them could be true and accurate. Read on, and you will see our process of "rediscovery." So as not to be redundant, we refer you to our many previous blog posts on Bluff Creek and the PGF site--just type those terms into the "Search This Blog" box to the upper left if you're interested. From here in this entry we will assume a certain basic familiarity with the site and the events that happened there. We do NOT question the validity of the PGF and its subject here; we are going on the presumption and evidence, as well as the gut feeling, that it IS REAL.

Photos by Steven Streufert, or video captures from Robert Leiterman's video (black borders or with text in image). All others are historical or maps for reference.

*******

 Perhaps a little personal research history is in order here, briefly. Sometime around the year 2001 we first went camping up in the Bluff Creek basin. Being there at historic Louse Camp brought back the old childhood memories of reading the Bigfoot books at the public library, of having seen the P-G Film sometime around age 10 or 11, and being fascinated with the possibility of such a creature existing. At the time of that trip we had in our possession John Green's On the Track of Sasquatch, and we vaguely decided to try to find the site of the film. Well, it wasn't easy. After trying to hike up the creek we made it maybe a mile and a half, but found only one promising sandbar that didn't seem to come close enough to the mark on Green's map. It was all rather vague, as that mark was on a map without a scale close-up enough to see real detail. We prowled the old, now-closed forest roads along the west side of the creek. We tried hiking down to the creek, only to find ourselves stuck at huge log piles and near-vertical cliffs. We didn't make it up there after the 2003 Willow Creek International Bigfoot Symposium; but then we were a bit glad we didn't pay the $75.00 to go. The group had gotten there, with luminaries such as Green, Bob Gimlin, Al Hodgson, Daniel Perez, Christopher Murphy, Matt Moneymaker, Autumn Williams, Jim McClarin, and many more; and still they could not all agree on where the site of the exact track-way was. This problematic situation was documented in the Doug Hajicek TV show, Mysterious Encounters.The site had changed so much that those who had been there back in the day could hardly even recognize the general area, let alone the actual site of the sighting and film. We are told that even  Bob Gimlin, who was there that day of October 20th, 1967, could not recognize the place at first, and was taking cues from Perez as to its location.

A file photo from 2007, Steve at Bluff Creek.
(Photo by Scott McClean)

 When at last we finally met up with the folks at the 40th Anniversary PGF Celebration, again in Willow Creek, we had been reading more avidly, and had better ideas of where the film site was. Based on advice from James "Bobo" Fay and Cliff Barackman, we headed on down to the site led by Tom Yamarone, with Scott McClean. So there we were, at the bottom of two miles of steep, nasty bushwhack driving, standing down at the creek-level landing, finally at the claimed area of the film site, and then it struck us, looking around at the unfamiliar territory--no one could take us right to the spot and prove it to be the spot. It turrned out that we did make it to the basic area most agree is the right one, but the sense of lingering doubt persisted as we gazed upon a vastly altered and unfamiliar landscape. Nothing looked the same, and no one could give exact directions. Some even think it is downstream, we were told by Yamarone. It became a bit of an obsession with us to discover the truth, especially as it is precisely uncertainties like this regarding the PGF that are exploited by the debunkers as supposed proof of a hoax.

The Crucial Transitional
Guidebook, by Daniel Perez

 In the three years following that conference, we've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to ascertain the history not only of Patterson and Gimlin's time spent in the area, but also the Bigfooting, logging and road-building history of the area. Much of this history seems to be lost to time. Other aspects of it seem vague or contradictory in the memories of many locals who worked up there and many Bigfooters who had been there over the time since the late 1950s when the area became famous for its hairy-hominoidal activities. Though stories were recalled, the exact locations of those events seemed either lost or poorly recalled. This a fact of human memory. So concerned were all involved with viewing the creature in the film, that many neglected to remember the site itself. It was once known well, and was visited and documented regularly by Rene Dahinden, the Swiss-Canadian who perhaps knew the film and its history best. But with the passing of Rene we were left with stories, old photos, an arrow on a topo map in Daniel Perez' Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, but apparently no one who could walk to the site and with absolute confidence put their foot down where Patty had walked. However, many claimed to know, without proof. We are lucky that Dahinden marked the map for Perez, and that Daniel was assiduous enough to preserve and publish it, or we might have lost the site forever.

The Crew at Louse Camp. Yours Truly, "C.I." and Robert Leiterman,
ready to get rained upon.

It was frustrating, surely; but studying this history put us in touch with a good portion of the major Bigfoot researchers who were involved with the Bluff Creek site itself, including most of the aforementioned figures and some newer contacts such as Peter Byrne and Jim McClarin. Armed with their statements and advice, we felt prepared to try a series of expeditions to the mysterious creek basin to find out the truth. It was going to take a lot of Sherlocking, however, as we found with our research associate since 2009, "C.I." (name to be kept anonymous), when interviewing Mr. Hodgson and trying to dig the nuggets of certainty we'd need from the Bigfoot literature... it just wasn't there in a complete form. Maps, logging plans, contemporary roads, dates and other pertinent details were obfuscated by time. 

Various Site Locations, as per various researchers.
Sites identified by Steven Streufert via inquiries. Click to Enlarge!

The history was fragmented, often conflicted, even sometimes intentionally hidden by certain researchers. Luckily, we got involved with CA State forest ranger Robert Leiterman (BFRO), of Fortuna, CA, who was making field videos for the BFRO YouTube site. A project was conceived between the three of us and, we feel, has nearly been completed. We are on the verge of proving tthings... but the full elaboration of that will have to wait for future installments and an early spring day when the site may be photographed without obscuring deciduous tree leaves. We've made what we think are major and fascinating discoveries and conclusions which we feel are pretty darn close to absolutely proving the true and exact location of the film site and track-way, otherwise cloaked in mystery and disagreement for these many years.

Topo map of route down to P-G Film site showing road closures and con-

struction spots. The spur down stems from FR 12N13. Click to Enlarge.

We decided something needed to be done. Before all of this was lost to time and fading memory, before all the old-timers were gone, we were determined to find the actual site and rule out the false ones, all while documenting it on video for presentation to the world of Bigfooting. For now, let us recount the first day and some preceding interviews. Part One of our first summer 2010 trip around the area has already been covered in travelogue form with maps and guides HERE, so check that out (there are plenty of links there covering our previous Bluff Creek trips). I'm going to skip part two of that for now in order to get started on this PGF site investigation series. 

Louse Camp, on Bluff and Notice Creeks

This current entry will cover our second trip, which was partly rained out, but still succeeded in producing many hours of footage to be used in YouTube presentations via the BFRO-Videos page there. See BELOW, where we will present certain supplemental material as APPENDICES. These include conversations with John Green and Peter Byrne, and some of the stuff we posted on the BFF (HERE, if you want to view the whole "Where is the Patterson-Gimlin Film Site" thread). Armed with all the known film site photos, topo maps, and extensive notes and books, C.I and I met in Willow Creek and readied ourselves to set off for the famous Louse Camp to meet Robert Leiterman, who had been up there already for a couple of days preceding us. Of course, right as C.I. arrived in our humble Bigfoot Capital of the World, it stated to rain in a light deluge. 

Pacific Northwest Expedition, 1959. Tom
Slick, Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus, etc.

PART ONE: LOUSE CAMP TO THE BLUFF CREEK BRIDGE

Undaunted, but skeptical of our prospects, we headed up to the hills above the Klamath River. Louse Camp is located right in the heart of the Bluff Creek basin, and is famous for being the location of a myriad of Bigfooting expeditions, including the famous Pacific Northwest Expedition (1959) that had Green, Byrne, Dahinden, Bob Titmus and Tom Slick, it's financial backer, among its members.

Bluff Creek flowing behind Louse Camp,
refreshed by the influx of Notice Creek just above.

We were lucky to get up there without being trapped by the kind of meteorological attack from the skies that nearly stranded Patterson and Gimlin back in 1967. The rain became light and sporadic throughout the night. The next day was another matter. Leiterman had just returned from a long, exploratory hike up the creek to the film site area and back. We heard his tales of adventure over a sputtering camp fire. He told of having found the M.K. Davis-identified "film site," downstream some 500 yards from the "bat boxes" landing where nearly all others agree is the real area of the site. He said he found the site implausible on a number of counts, based upon our previous discussions. This aspect will be discussed more thoroughly in State Two of this blog's presentation. Suffice it to say, the MK site is way too wide to fit what is known about the P-G site, and the trees were too far back to be acceptable as the ones in the film.

Bluff Creek Bridge, up 1 mile from Louse Camp

The next day, our first order of business was to try to figure out exactly where Patterson and Gimlin had set up their Bluff Creek base camp before capturing the creature on film. It has been said and rumored for years that they camped "somewhere" above Notice Creek, which flows just up from Louse Camp. Al Hodgson, when asked about this, told CI and I that it was true, and that there was a ford across Bluff Creek, where one could cross and then head up the creek. He also spoke of the bridge over the creek, up from Louse Camp about a mile, which had not been there in 1967. Heading up from Louse we observed that the road quickly ascended up above the creek along the hillside, with radical steep descents down to the creek below. Tracing this idea all the way to the bridge we found the truth: this bridge was the ONLY place after Notice Creek where one could possibly have forded the creek. So, Patterson and Gimlin must have forded here, to the east side of the creek, and then headed up the creek to find a suitable camping spot. Indeed, we found clear evidence of the old road cuts under the bridge, on either side of the creek.

Wasson's source:
Rene Dahinden!

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.

Under Bluff Creek Bridge, showing old road cut and ford to opposite side.

Down under the bridge we could clearly see the old ford's road cuts on either side of the creek, with an old roadbed heading up the east side of the creek, then fording across up a little bit to the west side. Already we knew that the road was just as we suspected: a winding logging access-4WD track that crossed the creek where needed, not the clean road cut up all the way on the east creek side as has been commonly assumed. The bed of the creek is just not wide enough to accommodate the latter, and it often cuts up against steep, hard rock faces. It is shallow enough most of the year, though, to allow for a multitude of needed fords. Again, as Al Hodgson had told us, the old dirt and gravel road had been washed out in the massive 1964 flood, and had then been re-plowed upstream to allow for salvage logging in 1965 and 1966. Despite all of these years gone by, we could still see remnant signs of this road cut, as well as many sawed off tree stumps and root-balls in the creek's course. Since 1964 there has not been a comparable flood to alter the major features cut out by the one in 1964, which also constructed the famous PGF sandbar upstream. We noted these results, and planned to investigate up the creek once we had returned from our drive up to the PGF site. Our plan to hike up there this day had been dampened by the rain, now again lightly drizzling down. It was clear to us, however, even at this early point, that we were on the right track to finding the Patterson-Gimlin 1967 base camp. In our Stage Two trip we discovered what is almost certainly the right site. More on that next time, though.

Lovely misty view down to Scorpion Creek,
from about 2/3 mile up from the site.

PART TWO: UP TO THE RIDGE, DOWN TO THE FILM SITE AREA

Warning sign of things to come on 12N13H.

Heading up Forest Road 12N13 from the bridge, up to the top of the ridge where it meets with the "H" spur road, we expected an easy ride down the recently cleared, trimmed and graded dirt road. However, the rain gave us concern... that dirt could easily turn to mud. Sure enough, it did. We found that the formerly nicely flat roadbed had been roughed up by tractor trails of some large, heavy equipment. Down the way just over a mile the road got worse and worse until it became a muddy slurry and mess in places. We had to stop, park the truck, and walk on down, a distance we knew would be about a mile through the muck, and a deadly slog back on up, too. Walking down the road, though, provided us with a slow-motion way to view down into the creek basin above the site and from the east heading down. This was, later, to give us the real, best clue we needed to locate the true site.

Once a rock slide, always a rock slide.

One bit of good news (temporary, see latest developments in State Two) was the plowing through done on the infamous rock slide. This slide has notoriously been the bane of PGF site visitors, especially those without high-clearance four-wheel drive vehicles. Last summer this was the spot of the near-death experience of Craig Woolheater and Sharon Lee (see our previous posts on the Believe-It Tour visit), as their rental van got stuck spinning its wheels after a photo-op and nearly slid off the side into the precipitous near-vertical drop down to the creek.

You Shall Not Pass. Robert at the
end of the PGF road's line.

Now, to die on the P-G film site may seem a glorious way to go, but we assure you no one feels that way as the wheels slip and slide on those jagged Bluff Creek rocks, and the world slips gut-wrenchingly sideways. Anyway, for this one moment, we thought the problem was solved; but as we found out later, the US Forest Service had a decidedly different idea.

Leiterman considers the impact of
man upon nature and geology.

Down the road a bit we found the culprits of this mayhem--two tractors, a bulldozer and a huge Caterpillar. They dozer was actually parked IN the road, blocking it entirely for any prospective intrepid motorists. From here on down it would be on foot for everyone. Down farther, in the formerly marshy bog formed by a culvert-diverted creek that flows down into the film site area's gulch, we found they had torn out the culvert and torn the hell out of the spot.It was not clear to us what they were up to, but it appeared at this time that they were simply upgrading and replacing the culvert. Little did we know! But more on that later, too.

Once the road crossed here; now it
is returned to its natural state.

After the creek one descends down to the old landing where the "bat boxes" are. This used to be the easy park-and-camp option for PGF site pilgrims--no longer, unless you pack it in. This is where Peter Byrne said to look in my recent email correspondence with him (see Appendix B below for full discourse). The rain increased, saturating us and our gear. You'll note a fogginess enters the photographs here as my camera got wet. Darnit, so did my tobacco. Anyway, here at the bottom we were at our first on our list of prospective film site locations--and it really seemed almost too convenient, here where one could once just get out of the car and gaze at Bigfooting Mecca.

The toppled science experiment's bat
houses lay beneath these trees.

SITE ONE: THE PETER BYRNE SITE:

The Famous "Bat Boxes," across from the claimed
Peter Byrne film site.

In preparation for this expedition I had sent out email inquiries to many of the major first generation players in Bigfooting still living. We received a very cordial response from both John Green and Peter Byrne. John Green, who said he had only been to the site twice, in 1968 and in 2003, stated that when he was last there he could not even recognize the place, and could not spot the "Big Tree" seen so prominently in the film. So, despite the fact that the place was clearly well known and documented at the time, it was lost to at least one of its major researchers. Hence, we had high hopes in hearing what Mr. Byrne had to say. He'd been there many times, though not as many as the late Rene Dahinden.

Watch for the full series featuring our expedition on the
BFRO-Videos site on YouTube, or through BFRO.net.

Brief Summary:
Laser reading 97-98 yards across south to north, 100 yards in bat box camping area.
Trees that match Byrne's distance are way too high up the bank.
The creek is on the north side of the sandbar, not the south.
Though the area's dimensions match almost enough to the known film site (using a shoe horn to fit it, as C.I. likes to say), the creek and sand bar are in the wrong places, there is no "big bend," no "rootballs," and no level bank or sandbar at all where Byrne indicates.

Photos with black borders or titles are screen captures
from Robert Leiterman's first edit video results.

We found the tree described obviously by Byrne, pockmarked somewhat unusually with woodpecker holes, but it was at most 100 feet, not 100 yards across: too close; and the stumps he described are right next to it, not at the greater distance measured by Dahinden.  To reach up to the larger trees on the hill above the creek and sandbar would have had to have been some 30 or 40 feet higher--just not plausible, and exceeding the already high level of subsidence mentioned by Byrne in his email. The creek is in an old, established bed, at the lowest point of flow, and there is no indication of any major event that could have changed this geological fact.

The 300 feet or so needed to fit the film site in is here, but the creek would have had to have flowed way up against the south edge of the bat boxes landing, an area that is significantly raised up from where the creek is flowing.

SITE TWO: THE CHRISTOPHER MURPHY SITE

The site is still too narrow, if we assume that the big tree here is one of the ones in the film. The creature would have had to start its walk down in the narrow gulch seen to the left. There is no "big bend" in the creek below that site either. In fact, the bend with rootballs is seen ABOVE the site located in Murphy's book, followed by a straight line in the creek headed west and downstream.

Lower Gulch below the Big Bend. For Murphy's site to
work the first sighting would have to have been in here.

In this narrow part of the creek there ARE a lot of big old firs that have fallen down across the creek due to erosion and rock slides on the north bank. However, if these were the trees in the film, as proposed by the Murphy site location, they are simply too close to the creek to allow for the big sand bar seen in the PGF. Also, there is no logical way the creek could have flowed some 200 feet or so to the south, as that direction features and upgrade and the start of some low hills. A creek cannot flow up on a higher course if there is an unobstructed lower course it can access.

C.I. using his trusty laser sight to measure the dimensions
of the proposed Christopher Murphy film site location.

Laser readings 55 yards from creek to back trees, some 60 yards to the trees on the south bank. Again, this site fits "with a shoehorn," but the creek is way too far to the north, and there is no room at all for any of the known features of the old sandbar, the big bend or the root balls described by Gimlin. The big trees identified with this site are high up on the bank at least 20 feet up the hill--way too high, even allowing for sandbar subsidence. Most crucially, there is no hill going up high enough on the south bank, and yet close enough to the site, to allow for the angle of view seen in the 1971 Rene Dahinden photo which we used constantly for comparison on these trips.

Clip from Murphy's book, showing
where he thinks the site is supposedly located. In
actual fact, this is WAY off from Dahinden's mark.

There IS one big tree behind this spot, as can be seen on this blog (picture link HERE), but this tree is way too close to the fairly narrow sand bar at the bottom of the big bend that centers around a small feeder creek that flows down into Bluff at this point. It sits down on the sand bar near the current creek's bank, but there just isn't enough room to place this as the main "big tree" in the film. This spot, by the way, is where the National Geographic filming team landed their helicopter in 2009 to film and scan the site. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be the right location, and we tried to tell them that when we were down there then, to no avail. On this year's trip we even found their flagging tape wrapped around a rock, still there right in the creekbed, despite a whole winter's raised water.

Christopher Murphy's exploration of the film site he proposes, done in 2003, can be looked at here on Hancock House's site: FILM SITE ALBUM. We challenge you to compare his analysis, based on one visit, with the results we have come up with after some dozen visits.

See our videos on the BFROVideos site under "Uploads," as well as on THE BIGFOOT BOOKS YOUTUBE PAGE, under "Favorites." 

Watch for upcoming presentations to be done on this blog. "To Be Continued, Indeedy."

Steve, propounding again, upon the too-small dimensions
and missing features found on the Murphy site. Better than
Byrne's, but it lacks landmarks and proper orientation.

Above the Murphy site are found some big root balls, not
below the site, as Gimlin describes. No big trees in back either.

Pointing at Rene's Mark on the Map, upstream from the
Murphy site, for sure. Photo capture from Leiterman video.

*********************************

APPENDIX: STATEMENT OF ROBERT LEITERMAN ON THE BLUFF CREEK EXPEDITION MISSION
(As also sent to BIGFOOT TIMES' Daniel Perez, published in the October edition)

Leiterman, from his upcoming video release on our trip.

10-29-2010

Daniel,

Good talking with you on the phone yesterday. Thanks for getting back to me so soon. As you already know, I have been a subscriber to Bigfoot Times for several years now. My latest video project is on the Patterson/Gimlin Film Site entitled … Journey of Re-discovery- The Bluff Creek Film Site Project. I’ve been working mostly with Steven Streufert from Bigfoot Books (Willow Creek) and Ian from Northern CA over these last few months.  Our group’s motivations might be different but our goals are similar, relocating the film site 43 years later despite the environmental changes.

You have worked painstakingly hard over the last few years dealing with the film site subject matter. Your Bigfoot Times at Bluff Creek (1992) publication is excellent work, placing your self into a knowledgeable position on the subject. Despite your dedication and documentation there are a hand full of others, for whatever reasons, who still insist that the film site is either located above or below the area in which you have painstakingly established. I understand why you feel the way you do when you hear the echoes of doubt from a small minority vocalizing across the internet. I also realize that dumping even more documentation into their laps may not change their opinions either. With that said, the project I have taken on is a rediscover for my self, a journey for understanding. With the help of Steve and Ian, I’m video documenting the process. I feel the video footage will allow others with an interest in the subject, to join in with a discovery of their own.

As you know, there can only be one film site. While looking over the literature, interviewing those who were there, and examining what remains of the scene, we are looking forward to the outcome. The several days I have already spent with hunger and fatigue in the heat and rain: following what is left of the Bluff Creek Trail up the creek, pondering campsites, crisscrossing the alleged film site locations looking for the big trees, locations of old stumps, gravel bars (existing or not), deposits of alluvial sand, bends in the creek, woody debris, large root balls, and matching historic photos, has been an adventure in itself. And yes, I’m fully aware that 43 years have worked their magic. While I’m at it, I’m developing a better understanding of the historic event and the surrounding topography. I only wish I had started this journey years earlier.

 Despite all of my effort, some say I’m wasting my time, that the answers may never be found, erased forever by time, that there is nothing more to learn from rediscovering that moment. I disagree. Putting your self right there in the thick of it does something to you. To walk through the cool clear water, to hear the echoes in the creek canyon, to go back in time, to grab a hand full of alluvial sand and tell your partner … “Patty walked here!” To watch them grin ear to ear and nod their heads in agreement as they look curiously over their shoulders. And before you know it, you’ve taken one more step closer to imagining how Patterson and Gimlin must have felt that autumn day. For me, the bottom of the dark, forested canyon still has meaning. 

For those planning a journey of their own to the Bluff Creek Film Site be advised that the last mile or so of 12N13H has been permanently been put to bed. On the weekend of 09-18-2010 the road was freshly graded and the heavy equipment lay parked about. By the weekend of 10-09-2010, the heavy equipment was gone and the road had a new ending. With about a mile to the bottom, a enormous new earthen berm was there to greet us. The rest of what use to be the road had been out sloped, portions covered with trimmed vegetation to help protect the exposed soil from erosion, culverts were removed and the creeks reestablished back into their own channels. Give yourself more time for exploration. Avoid wet weather, the fresh graded soil turns quickly into mud. Be prepared to put in a little more effort to reach the film site. Think of it as a way of reconnecting.  Reaching the bottom will feel that much more rewarding … it’s the hike out that’s going to suck! ---Robert Leiterman

"Watch for Robert’s soon to be uploaded  Journey of Re-discovery- The Bluff Creek Film Site Project and his other video projects on the B.F.R.O.’s (Bigfoot Field Research Organization) video channel."

Some preliminary theories we've come up with, along with the
major proposed site locations and landmarks.

One Proposed Location. Photo aligned to creek, not quite to scale.
The cluster of trees in back, plus a downed tree on the sand bar, and
stumps in the right locations make this location promising. It looks
just about perfect as a match for the "aerial" Dahinden photo.
The first sighting would be just to left of the photo border.

****************************************************
ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

Me so very happy you hu-man looking in wrong creek for me! Like NABS Dave say, you not find me there anytime more. You look in Hoopa, you find me. That right! Me hang at Golden Bear Casino ever night, and you not know! JHa Ha Ho Ho! They have good food all night, and not ever question how furry me are, not how stinky, so long as me have token for machine. See? Dave right after all!!!
****************************************************
This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2011, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if notification, credit, citation and a kindly web-link are given, preferably after contacting us and saying, Hello, like a normal person would before taking a cup of salt. No serious rip-offs of our material for vulgar commercial gain will be tolerated without major BF stomping action coming down on you, hu-man.

BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT SUMMATION SERIES up now! LARRY LUND Mini-Interview, Taking on BLEVINS, and What JOHN GREEN Said About It

Roger Patterson with his drawing, demonstrating height.
Image courtesy of Larry Lund.

BIGFOOT'S BLOG, Early March 2011 Edition

ANOTHER....

***PGF SPECIAL***

Here in this issue you will find links and player boxes full of our latest BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT SUMMATION SERIES videos. These are, we promise, the last ones from Year One of the project. Is 45 of them enough for you? Well, watch out. Many more will be coming up this summer. 

*

Also, see below for some tasty pictorial pleasures courtesy of longtime Bigfooting archivist and historian, LARRY LUND, who also gave us a little interview on the topic of one of the Patterson-related images you will see below. Lund clarified a lot of the possible confusion caused by the vacuous speculations of one LEROY BLEVINS, erstwhile conspiracy theorist and pareidolia-maniac. We'll get to the Blevins issues sometime in the future, but for now, see below for a preliminary taste of his ahistorical illogic. See below, under the video players, for some extensive wordiness on these topics. READ ON, if you DARE....

*******
What we don't understand requires humility of us. 
That which we do understand requires responsibility.
*******
THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT
The Summation Overview Series. Videos # 37 to #45
Recently, the members of the aforementioned project from last summer and fall met in Cinnabar Sam's Restaurant in Willow Creek to discuss what we had seen, what conclusions we had come to, and where future investigation might lead in our quest to find the true PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM site location. We've found one thing consistently to be true: the more one looks into this strangely convoluted issue the more confounding it becomes. It drives some insane, on both the believer and the skeptical sides. Some of the history is so contradictory that we ourselves often feel despair of ever finding the true site, or the true sequece of events. Still, we have some darn good new leads, and we will persevere into next summer. After about EIGHT HOURS worth of YouTube video (more than a European art film's worth), we sure hope we haven't scared you off!!!
*

*BRAND NEW SERIES!* Here is video number thirty-seven of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. Check out our new sub-series of SUMMATION videos, shot at Cinnabar Sam's restaurant in Willow Creek. There should be five or so of these, and then on to the coming summer.

Here is video number thirty-eight of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. Here we go over the topo and road maps to show you how to get around in Bluff Creek basin and find the PGF site area. Check out our new sub-series of SUMMATION videos, shot at Cinnabar Sam's restaurant in Willow Creek. On BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube.

Here is video number thirty-nine of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. Here we go over the topo maps and new developments and leads found since our October on-site filming. Unpublished photos from Larry Lund and Thomas Steenburg may show new views and clues of the PGF location. This is our new sub-series of SUMMATION videos, on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube.

Here is video number FORTY of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. More poring over old maps, aerial photos and books, hopefully helping us find the true PGF location. Some new research directions are indicated. 

Here is video number FORTY-ONE of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. Poring over maps, general thoughts on what we can rule out, and analysis of factors of old logging and creedbed movement over time. Also, did Byrne smoke ganja in India?

Here is video number FORTY-TWO of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. We find common features among the old PGF site photos spanning ten years, including old stumps and prominent downed logs.

Here is video number FORTY-THREE of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. Geeking out on old photos again, we come to some conclusions and ideas for future research. This is our new sub-series of SUMMATION videos, on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Trust me, this series is almost done!

Here is video number FORTY-FOUR of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT, believe it or not! Here we belabor the issue of the TIMELINE of events surrounding the filming of Bigfoot in Bluff Creek. Was it possible

Here is video number FORTY-FIVE of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. Here we ask, What have we learned? Plus, Rip Lyttle Speaks! Do beer and marijuana work as field research tools and Bigfoot attractants? Find out! This the last of our sub-series of SUMMATION videos, on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. That's all folks, for now, believe it or not!

Music: DOG PARTY; Growls and Stick Breaks: JAMES BOBO FAY
Videography and Production: ROBERT LEITERMAN
Research and Nerdiness: "CRAZY IAN" and STEVEN STREUFERT
Guest Star: RIP LYTTLE
Hidden in the Bushes: PATTY BIGFOOT
Thanks to ALL who have helped us in any way! Yes, even you, too, Bobbie.
If you have any additional information or experience going to the real, true PGF site, do CONTACT US HERE.

Thanks to the BFRO for hosting all of these on their account, and for the fine background support they always provide in The Quest.
If the player boxes above don't work on your computer or phone just visit BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube, and look under UPLOADS, SEE ALL.

See the links to the upper left side of this blog to access the earlier videos in this series.
*******

We'll let this one speak for itself. Leroy Blevins has made a large number of silly claims about the history of the PGF. For a year and a half now we've been correcting him in his errors. Every time we do, it seems, he changes his web site and things he's "found" and "seen" in the film and related footage. He is really good at after-the-fact self-censorship using the Orwellian memory hole that is the internet. Here is just one of those issues. The others we will get to later, in a future blog entry.

Here's a BRIEF EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH LARRY LUND (and Some Conversation with LEROY BLEVINS)

Lund, with buddy, Dahinden

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Hi Larry,
In Greg Long's book you are credited as the source of that photo of Patterson and Gimlin with Bob Hieronimus and the other guys from the days of the filming of Roger's docudrama in Yakima. You know, the one where they are sitting on horses in a line next to a big tree. Do you know who originally took this photo?

A guy named Leroy Blevins, prone to conspiracy theories and other fallacies regarding the PGF, is going around calling this the "Larry Lund Photo," and claiming that it documents who was there in Bluff Creek in fall 1967 or whenever, when "the hoax" was perpetrated. (At least, that is what he *originally* claimed; now he is saying other things, as usual.) He claims you took the image.

As far as I know this was not taken by you, and was not in Bluff Creek. Blevins thinks it proves there was a hoax. I think not. I've told him so. Could I get a brief statement from you I could quote to him regarding this issue? It would be greatly appreciated.
Best, Steve, Bigfoot Books

IN YAKIMA: Roger Patterson, John Ballard, Jerry Merritt, Howard
Heironimus, Bob Gimlin, and Bob Heironimus (1967, courtesy of Larry Lund)

From the Facebook discussion today, with Leroy Blevins, for your reference:

Steven Streufert: Leroy is a man in a suit.

Leroy Blevins: And Bob H is the man in a suit in the PG film.

Steven Streufert: Maybe, but I doubt it. He can't even say WHERE the film site really is. Anyway, MAYBE Leroy has a suit AND a time machine with a link back to 1967?

Leroy Blevins, Sr.: Pareidolia Genius

Leroy Blevins: You know that's funny about me and a time machine. But, what you don't know is that the film known as the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot film was nothing more then a piece from Roger Patterson documentary that he was filming in 1967. Now Bob Gimlin never talks about the documentary and he tells a story that he have not seen Roger in some time and out of no where he comes to him and ask him to take him down to Bluff Creek when in fact Bob Gimlin was with Roger a lot when they was making Roger documentary film. And you can see Bob Gimlin with a wig on in a photo taken by Larry Lund. Plus in an interview Bob Gimlin himself said he had nothing to do with the camera and that Roger had the camera with him the whole time. Even to this day he don't use a camera or even know how to use a camera. This was told by Bob Gimlin him self. The words out of his own mouth.

Steven Streufert: What difference does it make? He was making a docu-drama, and also went out on serious expeditions. Nothing odd there.
ALSO: that photo was not taken by Larry Lund, it was provided BY Lund to Greg Long. I believe it came from Jerry Merritt originally.
Gimlin may have misspoken, or doesn't remember everything perfectly--that is totally normal. There are holes in every story all through history.

Leroy Blevins: Now how can Jerry Merritt take a photo and also be in the photo? The photo of Roger and Bob with 4 other men on their horses was taken by Larry Lund. He owns that photo. When I came across the photo it said and a lot of places on the net said photo by Larry Lund.

Leroy Blevins: But what does it matter who took the photo or not. The photo still shows what it shows. No matter who took the photo.

Steven Streufert: I didn't say Merritt TOOK the photo, I said I thought Lund GOT it from Merritt. I have sent an email to Lund to get his official statement about this and WHERE and WHEN it was taken. You will be surprised, Leroy, unless you now think the PGF was shot in Yakima in the summer.
The photo shows what it shows, which is the cast of a fictional film being shot months BEFORE and separately from the Bluff Creek expedition. WHERE IS THE MYSTERY, man?

Leroy wrote:
"You know I was told by Bob H the photo was taken by Larry Lund in 1967. The photo was taken 15 miles behind Bob H home. This is what he told me. The documentary that Roger Patterson was filming was done in 1967 even the contract he signed was signed on May 26, 1967.
However Bob Gimlin never talked about the documentary and he acts like he had nothing to do with the documentary. You know the funny thing is I don't base my research on what these men tell me. I base my research on what I found and can see. As you even know the story they tell it has changed a lot over the years. Just like even Bill Munns telling people he worked on the original film when in fact he worked on a copy of the film. Now here is one for you. Who is the person that owns the rights to the Film? and I mean the Patterson Bigfoot film."

Steven Streufert: What do you "see" there?
Let's see what Larry says.
The rights are basically 50-50 Patricia Patterson and the Dahinden sons. No?

A typical Blevins image job. Can you see the Gimlin-Blobsquatch? Can you
say, "PAREIDOLIA"? Can you see the "man" "next" to "Gimlin"?
Hint: "he" has red "hair" and is looking to the left side of the photo.

Steven Streufert: Though Patterson also sold rights later to ANE, Dahinden won them in a lawsuit he filed originally with Gimlin.

Leroy Blevins: Will from what I am told by John Green he said
"ownership is in dispute"
Now this means with no one claim full rights to the film that anyone can use the film.

Steven Streufert: Rights were established in court, and the film IS NOT in the public domain. You can read much about this in Long's book. Rene owned print rights, to the extent that he didn't allow most earlier books to use more that frame 352. Patricia still receives payments for the TV/film uses. Legal rulings are clear, no disputes really remain. Though Green may feel there to be a moral right, which Dahinden basically stole by litigation.

Munns said he worked from Patricia's 1st Gen copy of the film, by the way. He knows darn well that the original is missing or locked in a lawyer's vault in Florida.

Steven Streufert: Confirmed by Lund. HE DID NOT TAKE THE PHOTO. it was shot on Merritt's camera, handed to a guy helping out on the film so Jerry could get in the picture. IN YAKIMA, too. MORE LATER.....
Steven Streufert Word just in from LARRY LUND, it will be published with permission.

Here's our "analysis" showing that "Gimlin" wasn't the only
"guy hiding in the bushes." We even found baby Bigfoot.
As Blevins would say, Pictures SHOW, words can lie.

And so, we contacted Larry Lund. His reply….

LARRY LUND: Hi Steven,
Yes...You are absolutely correct. I did not take that photo of the cast lined up on their horses. I wasn't even there. The copy rights were signed over to me by my late friend, Jerry Lee Merritt. Jerry was my brother-in-law's (Gene Vincent-Be-Bop-A-Lula) lead guitar player a few years after the photo was taken. As Jerry told me, he handed his camera to one of the men helping on the site and it was this man that snapped the shot. That's all there is to it. As far as all of that other chatter about Bob Heironimus and the suit, that was blown apart years ago by many who knew him and his stories. He used to order videos and books from me years ago. His brother is one of the riders in the aforementioned photo. Most of what this Leroy Blevins has written is false. Rumors are terrible things, but certain people will listen and believe them to the end. We, who experienced these days at a closer range, know better and all we can do is ignore the false stories. Life goes on! Hope this helps.
All The Best,
Larry Lund

BIGFOOT BOOKS: That helps, greatly!
May I publish this on my blog? And do you have a convenient digital copy of that image?

An older Blevins image claiming that the Yakima horses photo and the Patterson
cast photo were shot in Bluff Creek on the same spot. NOPE! Click to Enlarge.

Perhaps, just to be clear to Blevins: Was it taken in Yakima?
To your knowledge did any of those guys go to Bluff Creek save for P. and G.?

A side question:
Where do you think Roll Two went, and where is the full original PGF Roll One?
Was there ever a Roll Three as Blevins claims?
Thanks!

LARRY LUND: Here is my photo, but Not taken by me!
And yes, you may publish this in your blog. The truth is out there...all you have to do is look for it and accept it for what it is.

Do you have this one Steven ?

John Green, Grover Krantz, Peter Byrne and Rene Dahinden, in a decidedly
non-Apocalyptic idiom. Drawn by Eric Devroeg. Thanks to Larry Lund!

This was drawn by a very close friend of mine, Eric Devroeg, who passed away just a few years ago. He was in his mid-30's and a previous student of Grover's. He lived near me and close to Jerry Merritt's. The drawing was simply ment to honor some of the people he admired in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch field. You may post the photo, but to use it in any commercial way, you need to obtain permission from his mother, my friend, Sally Bartlett in southern California. Write me for any contact information.

And I just noticed another part of your email I didn't answer. You asked about a third roll of film. The answer is no....not directly related to the Patterson/Gimlin film of the creature. Roger had shot lots of other scenery and horse footage. Rene pretty much had everything when he bought the movie rights and we watched them several times over the years. I even have a little video copy he gave me of Roger pouring a cast, but we could never prove it was a track from the Oct. 20th 1967 sighting. There are just too many blow hards out there claiming they have all the answers. They simply do not and most don't have a clue to what really went on and what real eveidence we all have.
Too many fakes...hoaxes...and phonies out there. Claims are easy to make but very seldom are they proved. I always say, we have lots of evidence....but not one piece of absolute Proof !

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Are you saying you've seen the entire two film rolls? Can you describe the contents as sequentially and point-by-point, to the best of your memory? This is important not only regarding Blevins but also the MK massacre.
Also, it applies to the timeline, used by many skeptics trying to refute the PGF. If you can clarify any of this it would be monumental. Especially if the film is not lost....

Larry Lund visiting Bigfoot Books, with Nita and Rip Lyttle

LARRY LUND: Regardless of what is on those "Lost Feet" of film... MK Davis has hoaxed and faked and altered his way along the "Fame Trail" way too long. I have watched Rene Dahinden's excellent copy... or should I say copies... since MK was in Pampers and not any of the old 16mm film versions had any red running down the Creek ! Just go back ten years, Pre-M.K.B.S. and B.S. does not stand for just Bobbie Short. There is and never was any red flowing water or still puddles in the original films.

The place to go for the "Other Roll" is the BBC, as Roger let them use it in a documentary in 1968 or 1969, I believe. I am really not sure what year, but Rene Dahinden had a copy of it, which may have been handed down to his sons Erik and Martin. It certainly wasn't in the 14 boxs of things Rene left to me.

All I remember from back then was a bit of film showing John Green with another man and a couple of dogs, which was supposed to be down in the Bluff Creek area. Then the short footage of Roger pouring a track cast, which I already mentioned we can't prove was from Oct. 20, 1967.

Hope this helps, but I truly don't believe this thing will ever come to a definitive answer. Those of us who been there since the begining, almost 44 years now, mostly believe it is a true account of what happened. I understand that the Newbies and hanger-ons that come out of the woodwork on a semi-daily basis think they have all the answers... but so far they have nothing and have proven nothing. Either way, I hope it is solved sometime in the new future. Too many good people have wasted a good portion of their lives on this one mystery.
You may print this anywhere you wish.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: I keep hearing that Roll Two was sent to the BBC, where it was cut up and lost, with only fragments surviving in their finished documentary. I also hear that Patterson incorporated some of this BBC work into his own "Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman," which he took on the road in theater showings. As far as I have been able to ascertain, both of these films are "lost." However, I have a nagging feeling that someone must have copies of them sitting around, either Al DeAtley or the Dahinden sons.

There is much dispute over whether the Patterson pouring the casts footage is from Bluff Creek at the time of the PGF, or if it is a reenactment of the pouring of cast that he did either before the film was shot of after it.

I'd really like to know the full contents of both reels of film, to refute the suppositions of conspiracy theorists and debunkers. As you know, we've spent a huge amount of effort trying to reconstruct the history and to find the film site, even the latter being now in dispute. It can get frustrating. People seemed not to care about the full context at the time, so concerned were they with and fixated upon the creature itself in the film.

The Green and dogs footage was from earlier, in August and very early September, according to Green's books and what he has told me. Of course, MK thinks this was when the PGF was shot.

John Green has vague recollections of the two film reels. The first he has parts of, showing scenery. He seemed to recall the second, with the scenes of Gimlin jumping off the log and the trackway prints. I'd like to reconstruct what was on those apprx. 5-minute rolls, as exactly as possible. Any memories you can bring forth would be very helpful indeed.

LARRY LUND: Yes, it would be very nice to put it all together and get to the bottom of the mystery of what really happened back then. Unfortunately, the number of people who have tried for these last 44 years, would "Boggle The Mind" as Rene would say. And still nothing proven. Too many different stories and people mucking up the mix along the way. You even mentioned Al DeAtley and, surely, if there were copies made of the other reel or reels, he would have them. That small list would have to include Rene and John. But over the years I have not heard or seen any definite proof that copies were even made. It was said that Roger gave the original roll to the BBC and the rest is History. Never copied and never seen again. I have been in this from the begining and when it comes to this part of the adventure... I know nothing more than you do.
Let's just promise to keep each other informed, should we hear more.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: It boggles my mind indeed to think they never duplicated the entire reels. Is that what you think? That they only copied and cared about the Bigfoot part? Whatever happened to the original being "locked in a vault"?
In the later BBC X-Creatures documentary Green is shown projecting a reel that looks about the right size to be a full copy. It has the scenery and packhorses. What do you think of that? Was Patterson just too ill or lazy to copy the trackway and casting roll before sending it to BBC? Was he just "over it" by then and past caring? I'd bet anything that DeAtley has the original touring film copies. It made them money, so he would have kept it. No?

LARRY LUND: As far as Green showing that reel, it was probably not "The Copy Reel" as things like that are usually not used for these shows, I know because of the ones I have done for so many years. Most things are props and when it comes to old film, it is prefered not to actually run the real thing. Hard to say either way.
I always thought that there were a few copies of those rolls made, but do not know for sure. It would be the sensible way, but also, Roger wasn't the best businessman. I just really don't know.

The Search Goes On..........
*******

Blevins sees a "hat" in the lower frame of this footage of Gilmin on Bluff Creek
Road. However, it would only have been there for about 1/8 of a second. Can
any man move that quickly? He also sees a "Sasquatch" right to left of Gimlin.

And then Blevins chimed in, despite all reason…

Leroy Blevins also commented on his link:
Good you have words to show from Larry Lund. But what can you show me that I was wrong was you there at the time of the filming? was Larry Lund there at the time of the filming? Show me the proof and not just soem more words told by someone. For words are just that words. Wrods can be added on just like stories people can add to that story aswell. I believe in what I see and not just words people tell you. I need to see.

Leroy wrote:
"As you show here in words by Larry Lund that ok maybe he did not take the photo but he did claim (horses and actors) and he said( cast lined up on their horses) You see even by Larry Lund he claims Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin as actors. With Bob H. come on all the PG film was nothing more then a part from Roger Patterson documentary he filmed."

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Words and documents are what history is made of. Pictures are subject to conjecture and imagination. Lund was NOT there; Merritt was. See the photo credits in Long's book.

Leroy Blevins: Your wrong again I did not say this photo was taken at Bluff Creek [ACTUALLY, HE DID, BUT HAS NOW CHANGED HIS STORY] I said the photo was taken just 15 mile up in the woods behind Bob H house. He told me about the photo. And he also told me where the photo was taken at just 15 mile up in the woods behind his house in Washington. Now do you understand me.or do you need to add word to the story I told you to make people believe in you. Just like to know.

Proof lies in this older Blevins image that he thought the Patterson
docu-drama was shot in Bluff Creek. NOPE, NOT REEL TWO, Leroy!

Bigfoot's bLog, from Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek: Leroy, as a MATTER OF FACT, you DID say it was taken in Bluff Creek. I have the old email to prove it. You have changed your story so darn many times (each time I correct you it seems you have a new web site) that I think it is clear that YOU are the hoaxer, not Patterson. Or, at least, Bob Heironimus is a liar, or does not remember anything correctly.

Bigfoot's bLog, from Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek: Anyway, Leroy, it was ALREADY well known that this photo was taken in Yakima, and that it was from the docu-drama project Patterson was doing earlier that year, 1967. THEN he went to Bluff Creek later in the year. It could perhaps have been included in his film project, but that was essentially abandoned by October. The trip to California was an EXPEDITION, not a film project. I recall ever too clearly how you once claimed that the footage extant from the docudrama showing Jerry Merritt and others was shot in Bluff Creek, and was part of PGF Roll Two. NO IT WAS NOT. You said again that the tree in the above photo was the same "Big Tree" shown in the PGF and the image of Roger holding the print casts. THEN you went on to claim that the ARGOSY article included these images from Yakima and the docu-drama, not only saying that (which was INCORRECT, as I showed you), but that they were taken in Bluff Creek. You can only change your story so often before people with just begin to think you are full of bull and hot methane gas.

Leroy Blevins made a costume that he thinks proves the PGF is a hoax. This blurry and inconclusive "reproduction" is truly a feeble attempt, showing little verisimilitude at all. They replicate the shaking of the camera and a brown figure walking at a distance, but little else. Here is Blevins' absurd "recreation" of the PGF in his suit:

We'd put a web site link up here for Mr. Blevins' Bigfoot "debunking" work, but he seems to change his site address every time we prove that he has been wrong in his assumptions. This has happened several times in the last year and a half. Anyway, one may view his nutty and grammatically flawed presentations via his YouTube account HERE. Does Leroy believe in Bigfoot? Yes, he does. Bigfoot descended from the EDOMITES!
Or go HERE, and read around a little bit, back and forward, in the forum.

*******

Leroy Blevins likes to brag about how John Green says his PGF "suit recreation" is the best he's ever seen, and implies that this somehow means that Green agrees with his theories, even to the extent that this means Green thinks there WAS a suit used to hoax the film. Well, what did JOHN GREEN really say about this and other related things? We asked...

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Hi John,
A brief few questions, if you don't mind...
I'm wondering, does your copy of the PGF, as seen being shown in your home in the BBC X-Creatures documentary, contain the ENTIRE film roll as shot by Patterson? Or is in an assemblage of clips?
If it does have the whole roll, is it possible that it could be published somehow?
If it doesn't, do you know if one full copy still exists?

There are some skeptics--and NOT of the MK Davis sort--who are wondering why this part of the film roll has been "suppressed." There are also folks claiming that the film was not shot in mid-late October, a point I
think is absurd based on the foliage in the scenic shots.

I'd imagine there is no reason it hasn't been published other than that it was not considered significant compared to the Bigfoot part. However, Roll Two WOULD have been highly significant... is there any chance that this roll was copied and exists somewhere, as the original was apparently lost to the BBC or ANE?

There are others claiming that Patterson was in Bluff Creek over Labor Day, 1967, and that he faked the Onion/Blue Creek Mountain tracks. In your book you say he was in Mount St. Helens then, with Gimlin. This is an established fact, right? To my knowledge Patterson was in the Bluff Creek area only in October that year... isn't that so?
Best regards, Steve

JOHN GREEN: Rene and I certainly had the entire film roll to copy and I believe we did that, but it was over 40 years ago. I don't remember it containing anything other than the shots of Bob or Roger riding up the creek, then of the creature, all of which were copied. The only assemblage of clips was the film Rene and I put together for lectures using some of Rene's earlier footage, which led to Davis, Paulides, etc. thinking they had found something previously unknown. .

I am sure Pat Patterson's copies would include the whole roll, and it is up to her as to publication. I have no knowledge of any part of the roll being "suppressed," and certainly didn't see anything on it there would be any point in suppressing.

Anyone claiming that Patterson filmed the creature at an earlier part of the year than when the fall colors were evident must be colorblind.

I don't know what happened to the second roll. It certainly has not surfaced in the past 40 years, but it did exist. I and many others saw it at the University of British Columbia showing. .

I can't claim personal knowledge of where Patterson was around Labor Day, 1967, (or any other time I was not with him) but when we tried to contact him we were certainly told that he had been off Sasquatch hunting in western Washington. To suggest that he or anyone else faked the hundreds of Blue Creek Mountain tracks, with ample evidence of flexible feet, in a single night, is idiotic wishful thinking. In a half century no one has been able to demonstrate ability to do anything remotely approaching that.

Blevins DID make a pretty good suit. However, he doesn't follow known film site
dimensions in his recreations and theories, and no real comparisons can be made.

We asked him about certain Blevins claims.....

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Hi John, This fellow Blevins is saying that you do not believe the PGF shows a real Bigfoot. I assume that is not so, but perhaps you could provide a brief statement as to what you believe so that I may contradict his argument? I find that talking to this fellow only leads to further confusion on his part, as he then just extrapolates more false conclusions from any real data provided.

By the way, I've been talking with Jim McClarin, and his information and memories have been very helpful. We will be back at the film site the weekend after this one to finish our filming and documentation. I'll keep you posted as to what we find. I'm pretty sure we have located the big background trees and maybe the original Patterson camp site.
Best, Steve, Bigfoot Books

JOHN GREEN: I have tried reasoning with Blevins, to no avail. Nothing left to do but ignore him.
Of course the PGF shows a real bigfoot, and I have certainly never said otherwise, to him or anyone else.

From an earlier, related talk with Mr. Green...


BIGFOOT BOOKS: Hello John,
I am interviewing one Leroy Blevins, who claims a whole lot of crazy things about the PGF (much like MK). I am wondering if you can, to the best of your recollection, recall anything about the following:

Was there a "Reel Three"? Blevins thinks so. Can you tell us exactly WHAT was on Reel Two, other than the tiny clips we have of the footprint casting and Roger by the tree? I mean, perhaps a brief synopsis. Blevins thinks that footage of the "cowboy" guys in the Yakima area,  as well as that photo of them lined up on their horses (taken by Jerry Merritt?) made for the docudrama Roger was planning, were actually taken in Bluff Creek, and supposes they appeared on Reel Two. Obviously not, right? What source might we cite that could confirm Patterson or DeAtley might have had the film developed privately, outside of the regular Kodak processing offices? I can't recall on that one.

Like MK, Blevins is conflating disparate events, films and photos, and is also trying to debunk the "timeline."

Oh, one more thing: What was on Reel One, besides what we can see in that BBC X-Creatures documentary, where you are shown running the film on your projector for the host at your home? We see Roger riding by the red-leaved trees, Bob riding up the dirt road or wash, and some tree footage. What else was there? Blevins is coming up with conspiracy theories about those Yakima cowboy guys being there at Bluff Creek, and particularly a "hat" appearing in the footage of Gimlin riding along with the packhorse. It's crazy stuff, but I feel it needs to be refuted.

Any help or quotable statements on these matters would be extremely helpful,
Best, Steve, Bigfoot Books


JOHN GREEN: Sorry Steven, I'm afraid I can't be much help. I have never before heard any suggestion of Patterson taking a third reel but of course that doesn't prove he didn't. As to the second reel, I remember well that it showed the depth of the creature's footprints compared to the horse prints, because I argued with a zoologist at the time about that, but I don't recall anything else. I saw it only once, 43 years ago, and it was what was on the first reel that was important. The second reel certainly did not show anyone other than Bob and Roger, or show both of them together. Couldn't have missed that at the time or forgotten it since.

 

I don't know how much of the first reel is in the X-Creatures documentary, but what you have described covers everything, just some scenery, plus taking shots of each other riding, then the creature sequence, then the film runs out

 

DeAtley told us in the beginning that there was a reason he could not say how he got the film developed. We assumed he paid someone to do it in an unauthorized way. Later he has said he can't remember. 

 

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? 

 

The "hat", of course could be claimed to be a hat or anything else anyone imagines it to be.

John Green 

*

Well, that's all folks, for now! We'll get back to the Blevins carnival later.

**************************************************** 

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

Me let Leroy and Steve handle angry this week. Me go read JREF now.

**************************************************** 

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