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 The good news in all of this is that we have a tremendous amount of unpublished and quite fascinating material coming up for you, and soon, we hope.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.

Brief Conversations Regarding Bluff Creek and the P-G Film Site, with JOHN GREEN and PETER BYRNE; More Talk with CLIFF BARACKMAN, SEAN FRIES and DANIEL PEREZ. Preliminary Summary of Site Location Theories

BIGFOOT'S BLOG, EARLY-MID NOVEMBER 2010 EDITION

(From the Vaults of Our Vast Blog/Research Backlog, Here Comes Another One)

The PGF site and track-way location often seem like a moving needle in a very
large haystack. (Paraphrased from a statement Sean Fries made about Bigfoot.)
If you can hide a film site in here, you can surely hide a Bigfoot!

This is 

Part Two in our Preliminary Information Series

 for the upcoming blogs on our recent 

BLUFF CREEK FILM PROJECT. 

Hello All! Here is some more highly enjoyable fodder for your Bigfoot Nerdiness. This blog entry is a collection of background research and inquiries we made in regard to the location of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film site, and the history of Bluff Creek. Little did we know that this issue would generate controversy and politics; but lo! it is already coming our way. Please also see the preliminary information entry, part one, our INFORMAL INTERVIEW WITH JIM McCLARIN. Soon all will be revealed when Robert Leiterman gets through with the massive job of editing over six hours of raw video. These will be presented on BFRO-VIDEOS, the BFRO YouTube page.... soon, we promise, soon! Robert is calling these The Bluff Creek Film Project: A Journey of Rediscovery. What will follow in future blogs and these videos is US trying to discover the real site, prove it if we can, and perhaps to rule out the false ones among at least FIVE variant proposed film site locations. It ain't easy, as we weren't there in those early days; and many who were either can't seem to exactly recall, or present varying views, or have noticed upon returning to the area that it has changed beyond recognition. Crucial early witnesses such as Bob Titmus and Rene Dahinden are sadly no longer with us. We, ourselves, have been to the PGF site about 10 times now, as part of many more general Bluff Creek trips, and feel it is time to express our provisional views and opinions. Just consider what follows from that perspective, and consider the evidence we present. If you have contrary views, do feel free to contact us.

Bob Gimlin on the Bluff Creek "road," or, dirt and gravel trail. On the path
of Bigfooting destiny. Filmed by Roger Patterson.

Since we talked a lot with Mr. McClarin about the Bluff Creek creekside "road," really a logging plow, a cat trail, and then a Jeep path, here for your viewing pleasure is a decent image of BOB GIMLIN riding on that road. It is taken from the very same reel that later bears the PGF Bigfoot segment, and in fact, comes right before it on the reel (as seen in John Green's copy of the film, as shown on the BBC X-Creatures documentary), and was shot that same day, October 20th, 1967.

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

A gaze seemingly from another world.

How, you might ask, can a location as famous as this become "lost"? This is the Bigfooting equivalent of losing track of where JFK was shot or, in personal terms, losing track of the house where one lived as a child. In regard to research seeking to prove whether Bigfoot really does exist as a species, this location may not be so significant--and many indeed have questioned our obsession with this site and area. What does it really matter? To us, though, it does matter--on a primary level simply because we want to feel the magic of the place; but more pervasively it is an important part of verifying the background and context of this famous film. Though many consider the PGF to be a hoax, the fact remains that it is the most compelling and undeniably vivid pieces to the Sasquatch puzzle. It has yet to be replicated, and cannot seemingly be disproved. If this is not a film of a man in a suit, then what IS it? Clearly, it is the moving image of a living creature, one not yet verified by our presumptuous and conservative Science. Therefore, anything, any little piece we may know about this film and its production, and the PLACE where it was taken, is of incredible import to the world of wildlife biology and hominology. We urge you, therefore, to read on....

*********************************
The following conversations were conducted mainly via email, though in some cases are based upon personal conversations as well.

Green in the A-and-E Bigfoot: Ancient Mysteries documentary.
Photo taken from VHS on TV, by Steven Streufert.

A BRIEF TALK WITH JOHN GREEN

We consider John Green to be the "Moses of Bigfooting." His early books clearly did more to advance the subject than anything short of the PGF itself. He did this with logic and wit, taking the subject seriously rather than sensationalizing it. If it weren't for his involvement in the field and during Onion/Blue Creek Mountain track-way finds, and his contact with Roger Patterson, there most certainly would never have been a PGF. He was one of the first researchers on the scene documenting the film site, though ultimately fellow Candian, Rene Dahinden, was the one to document it most thoroughly over time. From what we can tell, John was on the film site with Jim McClarin in 1968, then sometime around 1998 to 2000 with Bob Titmus, and finally went there in 2003 with the attendees and speakers of the International Bigfoot Symposium. Sometime before the last date the site had changed so much that Green could no longer recognize it with surety. Rather than trying to be a big shot about it, he admits this, and we find that honorable and true to his character and integrity. Green was also an original member of the Pacific Northwest Expedition into Bluff Creek in 1959.

BIGFOOT BOOKS (OUR LETTER):

"Hello again John,

Might I ask you a few brief questions? A few associates and I are going back yet again this coming weekend to Bluff Creek, our goal being to record and document a trip from Louse Camp to where we all think the PG film was filmed.

Could you tell me:

* when you were last there did you feel certain that you were on the right spot?

* if so, what signs did you see that would confirm it?

* was it upstream from the flat at the bat boxes? Or downstream, as MK Davis thinks it is?

* how far up? At the big gulch with the logjam and rootballs, or perhaps a bit farther? If down, how far?

* did you find the "big tree"?

* how far from the current creek position is it, and how much is left of it in a level state as seen in the old days?

If I send you a close-up topo map could you put your X on it? I've already asked this question of Perez, Barackman, and a traveling companion of MK, as well as many of the California BFRO guys. Al Hodgson feels that the site visited in 2003 is incorrect. I feel that your perspective on these matters would be invaluable,  especially as a new generation is moving in, and there are some wildly divergent opinions. Your reply before Friday would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

Best regards, Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek"

JOHN GREEN:

"I am not certain that I was at the right spot, because I could not find the big tree. Otherwise I would have been sure, as I could only find one place where the level area in the bottom of the valley seemed sufficiently wide. If that is the right place then the creek has changed course from the one side to the other and  eroded the entire site of the action away. Keep in mind that I was just there once, in 1968, and did not try to find it again for about 30 years."

BF BOOKS: Hi again John,

This kind of thing makes me worry we will never again be sure of the place. I mean, the exact location of the film trackway.

I wonder, do you have any other photos of the film site, aside from the more common ones that one sees on the internet? What one normally sees is the thing with Jim McClarin in it. Any others, especially those documenting the trees and surroundings, would be absolutely helpful to us. We'll be up there on the 18th of this month.

I've been asking around, though you are the one I'd trust the most without Rene around anymore. I sent a similar email to Peter Byrne, but I'm not too sure of his opinion after reading the Todd Neiss account where they quickly found the film site in only 15 minutes, and supposedly found the "big tree" that no one else has yet to locate with utter confidence.

After talking to Daniel Perez about this at length, I'm not too sure that his "X" on the map really corresponds with his location of the place on the ground. Do you recall, when you were there with him in 2003, did he actually settle on a single spot? And was that upstream from the "big gulch" where the creek splits into two streams at the logjam area? His "X" on the map is upstream from that area.

Green on Blue Creek Mountain, 1967

Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated; and we would give you all the credit you deserve for it. I'll be writing about the trip on my blog, and Robert Leiterman is going to film it for presentation on the BFRO videos page on YouTube.

Thanks, and best regards, Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek

JOHN GREEN: "I have nothing further to contribute, and haven't even much recollection of the area as it was in 2003 {?}. I don't recall much about the location Dan picked out, except that it was in a wide area but there was no sign of the big tree there. If the tree had been logged there should be a stump, and if it fell down it should still be there and there should be a large hole, but nothing of either sort was found. Rene and Bob Titmus both knew how the site had been transformed through their repeated visits, but when I was down there with Bob about 10 years ago he was not able to hike in. He told us to walk the old road across the west hillside and we would be able to look down on the site, but we never saw anything recognizable and when we went down and walked back and forth along the creek we only found the one area where the level bottom of the valley was wide enough. In 1967 the creek was close to the east (?] side of the level area, but in the intervening years it had eroded its way close to the west side, so it must have washed away the actual site.

Jim McClarin or Al Hodgson might be able to help. [ED. NOTE: Excision of one sentence for reasons of privacy.] I still think the only reliable test is if someone can locate a place wide enough for what the film shows and with a big tree close by on the hillside. "

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

Byrne in the A-and-E Bigfoot: Ancient Mysteries docu-
mentary. Photo from VHS on TV, by Steven Streufert.

A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH PETER BYRNE


Peter Byrne first found a Yeti track in 1948, so he has been at this business for quiet a long time. He was involved in the Tom Slick-financed Abominable Snowman hunts of the mid-late fifties, eventually being brought over by Slick to take over the Pacific Northwest Expedition here in our Bluff Creek area. He has been one of Bigfooting's most public and recognizable figures, always presenting a striking and somewhat heroic image in his fedora, ascot tie and safari suits. He is known to have been at the PGF site in 1972, and then off and on over the years as he retired from and then re-entered the field. Even at his advanced age now, he visited the film site again just this year.

(This is fundamentally the same letter sent to Green. Below find Mr. Byrne's responses in CAPITALS.)

Hello again Peter,

Might I ask you a brief few questions? A few associates and I are going back yet again this coming weekend to Bluff Creek, our goal being to record and document a trip from Louse Camp to where we all think the PG film was filmed.

Could you tell me:

* when you were last there did you feel certain that you were on the right spot? Todd Neiss says so in his account.

* if so, what signs did you see that would confirm it? Are there photos?

PETER BYRNE: LAST THERE? LAST WEEK.

AND, SIGNS ... THE TREE GROUPINGS, ESPECIALLY ONE TREE THAT APPEARS IN THE FOOOTAGE, VERY LARGE AND OLD NOW (100 YEARS).

THERE ARE LOTS OF PHOTOS OF THIS PARTICUAR GROUP OF THREE TREES. ONE OF THE BEST IS FRAME 352 OF THE FOOTAGE.

* was it upstream from the car park flat at the bat boxes? Or downstream, as MK Davis thinks it is?

PETER BYRNE: NO. MK IS WRONG. THERE ARE TWO BAT BOXES, NOW BOTH DOWN. (VANDALS) FROM THE NORTHERN MOST OF THE TWO BOXES ONE CAN DRAW A LINE DUE (NOTE, MAGNETIC) NORTH DIRECT (ACROSS THE STERAM) TO THE LARGEST OF THE TREES. DISTANCE? ABT 100 YARDS.

* how far up? At the big gulch with the logjam and rootballs, or perhaps a bit farther? If down, how far?

* did you find the "big tree"?

PETER BYRNE: THE SAND BAR ON WHICH THE 67 FOOTAGE SUBJECT WALKS IS GONE NOW AND HAS BEEN REPLACED BY THE STREAM ITSELF. SO WHERE THE STREAM IS NOW, THAT IS WHERE THE SAND BAR WAS. THE SAND BAR YOU WILL RECALL EDGED THE HILL, IN THIS CASE THE HILL THAT RISES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREAM. BUT NOTE, IN ELIMINATING THE SAND BAR (WASHING IT AWAY WITH FLOODING ETC) THE STREAM HAS NOW DUG ITSELF A 20 FOOT DEEP BED. SO THE ORIGINAL LEVEL OF THE SAND BAR, WERE IT THERE NOW, WOULD BE 20 FEET ABOVE THE WATER OF THE STREAM OR, NOW, THE SAME LEVEL ON WHICH THE BAT BOXES LIE. AGAIN, NOTE, THIS MEANS THAT THE BIG TREE AND ITS COMPANION GROUP (OF TWO) WHICH ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE FOOTAGE AS GROWING OUT OF THE SURFACE OF THE SAND BAR, NOW HAVE ROOT SYSTEMS 20 FEET HIGHER THAN PREVIOUSLY. ALSO FOR YOUR INTEREST SOME OF THE STUMPS (TWO ANYWAY) WHICH APPEAR IN FAME 352 ARE STILL THERE (AS OF LAST WEEK).

* how far from the current creek position is it, and how much is left of it in a level state as seen in the old days?

PETER BYRNE: IS WHAT? THE TREE? SEE ABOVE.

Also, how did you access the site in the old days?

PETER BYRNE: NEVER DID. THERE WAS NO "SITE" IN MY DAYS THERE ... 1960 THROUGH 1962, YEARS BEFORE THE FILMING. I HAVE BEEN TO THE SITE SINCE THEN MANY TIMES, FOR RESEARCH, PHOTOGRAPHY, MEASUREMENTS USING AMONG OTHER THINGS AL HODGSON'S SON RICK AS A MODEL.

If I send you a close-up topo map could you put your X on it?

PETER BYRNE: I'LL TRY. BUT ITS NOT HARD TO FIND THE SITE. ROAD 12N10H (VIA 12N10 FROM ORLEANS) [Ed. Note: Actually, it's 12N13, and 12N13H, off "Eyesee Road," the G-O Road, from Orleans.] GOES RIGHT TO IT...AND IS 4 x 4 DRIVEABLE. THE OTHER WAY IS TO GO TO LOUSE CAMP (WHICH I AM SURE YOU CAN FIND) AND WALK UP THE STREAM UNTIL YOU COME TO A LARGE (40 FEET + HIGH) ROCK OUTCROP ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE GORGE. THE SITE IS ABOUT 350 YARDS BEYOND THAT.

I've already asked this question of Perez, Barackman, and a traveling companion of MK, as well as many of the California BFRO guys. Al Hodgson feels that the site visited in 2003 is incorrect. Many area locals around here all seem to offer different locations, too. I fear that the site may soon be "lost" to posterity if we do not act. I feel that your perspective on these matters would be invaluable, especially as a new generation is moving in, and there are some wildly divergent opinions. Your reply before Friday would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

The famous Peter Byrne Photo, Al Hodgson's Print, 

given to him by Peter Byrne as a gift (it features Al's son);

photographed at Al's home, 2010, by Steven Streufert.

PETER BYRNE: I'LL ATTACH A PHOTO OF THE SITE WHICH I THINK (TOO SMALL TO SEE IT IN MY FILE) IS FROM ONE OF MY VISITS IN 1972, WHEN THE SITE WAS STILL INTACT OTHER THAN LOSING THE BIRCH TREES [Ed.: Alders and Maples, actually] SEEN IN 352.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Peter, I'm thinking about this more, and wonder:

Your location of the site across from the bat boxes implies that if you are standing at the parking area there looking north, right by the fire ring and all, the creek would probably have been flowing where you parked your truck, more or less, in order for there to be sufficient space for the sandbar and the dimensions of the film. Is that correct?

PETER BYRNE: THE ANSWER TO THIS LIES IN THE WIDTH OF THE ORIGINAL SANDBAR. THIS MAY HAVE BEEN RECORDED SOMEWHERE; I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS. OR WAS. SO... TO TRY AND DETERMINE WHERE THE CREEK WAS IN OCTOBER 1967 JUST TAKE THAT MEASUREMENT, WHATEVER IT IS, AND MEASURE OUT FROM THE BASE OF THE HILL. THAT WILL GIVE YOU THE SANDBAR'S ORIGINAL LOCALTION.

The "big bend" of which Gimlin speaks would have been downstream from the camping area, and the retreat of Patty (after Titmus) would have been near that tiny creek that flows into that "big gulch" there today, which is where Murphy locates the site. Right?

PETER BYRNE: YES BECAUSE GENERALLY SPEAKING THE OLD COURSE OF THE STREAM HAS NOT CHANGED; THE BENDS, UP AND DOWN, NORTH AND SOUTH, ARE STILL THE SAME AS IN 1967.

I'm wondering if 20 feet of erosion is possible, too. Down in the gulch there seems to be some six feet of descent of the creek from the old sand on the bar, which is easily recoverable by digging one's hand down at the roots of the alder trees in there.

PETER BYRNE: LET ME ASK MY COMPANIONS OF LAST WEEK WHAT THEY THINK THE NEW DEPTH OF THE CREEK IS. I DID NOT MEASRE IT. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A BIT LESS THAN MY ROUGH EYE MEASUREMENT OF 20 FEET.

Anyway, we will definitely be checking your location. Any further tips would be of great help, especially a recent photo of the big trees.

PETER BYRNE: THE BIG TREES ARE NOW HEAVILY OBSCURED BY BRUSH AND HARD TO PHOTOGRAPH AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, THE SINGLE BIG TREE (SEE FRAME 352) IS DISTINGUISED BY FOUR THINGS. ONE, ITS OBVIOUS AGE. TWO, ITS GREAT SIZE. THREE, ITS BARK WHICH IS HEAVILY INDENTED BY WOODPECKER HOLES. AND FOUR, ITS COMPANION TREES, AS SEEN IN THE 67 FOOTAGE AND AS SEEN IN MY PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN 1972 (I'LL TRY AND FIND ONE AND ATTACH IT HERE). ALSO, AS OF NOW, ITS POSITIVE DIRECTION FROM THE UPPERMOST (THE NORTHERN MOST) OF THE FALLEN BAT BOXES WHICH IS CLOSE TO (MAYBE FOUR DEGREES LESS) MAGNETIC NORTH. USE A GOOD COMPASS, STAND CLOSE TO THE EAST BANK OF THE STREAM WITH YOUR BACK TO THE UPPERMOST (NORTHERN MOST) OF THE FALLEN BAT BOXES AND TAKE A BEARING; YOU SHOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE FINDING IT.

The old map from Byrne's book,

strangely out of correspondence

with any known landscape features.

Or, was Peter keeping the location 

secret? And where is/was that bridge?
Click to Enlarge.

I asked these same questions of John Green, but he could not say at all for sure, and did not get a clear sense of where the site was when they were all there with Bob after the 2003 symposium in Willow Creek. Bob was not positive either. Daniel seemed to know, but where he was differs from the mark on the map of Dahinden. None could identify the big tree. Hence, you seem to be the only one with a positive identification, save for newcomers who were not there in the days you guys were.

PETER BYRNE: GOOD LUCK. LET ME KNOW HOW YOU DO, PB.

PS/ CANNOT IMMEDIATELY FIND THE PIX I WANT TO SEND YOU. WILL SEARCH LATER TODAY AND SEND. IT IS ONE FROM '72 THAT HAS ALL THREE TREEES IN IT.

*******

PETER BYRNE: THIS PIC (1972) SHOWS THE BIG TREE PROBABLY BEST. NOTE ITS COMPANION TREES, STILL STANDING TODAY.

STEVEN ONE LAST NOTE...

IN MY NOTES TO YOU ... MY ESTIMATION OF THE DEPTH OF THE STREAM (ITS CHANNEL DEPTH, NOT ITS WATER DEPTH) FROM THE LEVEL OF WHAT USED TO BE THE SURFACE OF THE SAND BAR, IS VISUAL ONLY; WE DID NOT MEASURE IT. NOW MY ASSOCIATES IN CONSULTATION TELL ME THAT IT IS PROBABLY LESS THAN 20 FEET; MORE LIKE 10 OR 12 FEET. OVER TO YOU.  PB

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

OUR SUMMARY OF P-G FILM SITE LOCATION THEORIES:

The Heart of Bluff Creek, and Lonesome Ridge

Here are two maps of the upper Bluff Creek basin, the confines of which are known to be the area where the famous PGF was shot in 1967. However, there is much dispute as to the EXACT location. The first map is a wide view, just up from Louse Camp. The second map, not to wholly bias the answers, shows the more precise area where most believe the location is.

PGF General Consensus Site Area, Detail, MK to Barackman

In studying this so far we have found the following.

* MK Davis feels the site is 500 yards or so downstream from the "bat boxes" at the landing below the dirt road seen in map 2.

* Peter Byrne says it is is right across the creek from the nearest bat box at the bottom of the road.

* Christopher Murphy thinks the site is right at the bottom of the "big gulch" bend seen in Map 2, just east of the little creek.

* Daniel Perez was seen identifying the site and investigating just up from Murphy's location.

* Perez' BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK places the site, according to Dahinden, upstream just a bit, on the second segment of sand bar, just below the "bowling alley" (where the creek juts directly north).

* Cliff Barackman (and ourselves, sometimes) believe the last choice to be correct. Associates and I are currently investigating this and documenting topography, dimensions, extant background trees, etc.

* Others, such as some locals like Al Hodgson, think it was shot WAY downstream, more towards Louse Camp. None seem to agree on this locally.

* A few speculate that it was shot up at the top of the "bowling alley," or perhaps even so far upstream and to the east as Scorpion Creek (off the maps provided here).

Weigh in: take the images and in your favorite image processing program put an "X" or arrow to the spot you favor. Any supporting reasons or evidence, text or photos, as to why you believe such would be greatly helpful to all. Note: the "bat boxes" are just to the other side of the small creek entering the gulch, past to the west where the road is shown ending on the map above. The road actually goes down past that little creek a few dozen yards, as drawn in below.

As a Preview to Upcoming Blog Entries, Here is a Sketch of
Our Preliminary Findings of the Various Site Location Theories,
with a few common landmarks. Do CLICK TO ENLARGE VIEW.

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

TALKING WITH SEAN FRIES

Sean with Cliff Barackman, 2007 PGF 40th Anni-
versay Celebration. Photo by Steven Streufert.

We talked with SEAN FRIES, Bigfoot researcher from Weaverville, CA, and he told us the location of the "M.K. Davis" Film Site, with which he agreed. Sean has spent many, many days in the area around Bluff Creek and in the mountains of Trinity County around his hometown. He has maintained a somewhat independent status as a researcher, though he was for a time affiliated with NABS. He told us that he has basically retired from the field of late, after having had a close-up face to face sighting of the Creature in Question. It looked more Neanderthalian than ape-like, he told us. Sean's writing may be found as included in Who's Watching You, by Linda Coil Suchy.

Sean had been there with M.K. Davis on a hike all the way up Bluff Creek a few years earlier. The came to this spot downstream from the area most feel is the PGF site and felt it to be right, going against the general consensus of most other researchers. It is, according to Sean, 500 yards downstream from the bat boxes camp site landing, at the bottom of 12N13H. (This site has been located and confirmed by us--see our future blog entries, and in map, above.) We had this little exchange, among many others, with Sean....

SEAN FRIES: I still haven't placed it yet [the commemorative bronze plaque to be placed on the spot M.K. thinks is the correct film site], Steven but will soon. The BFRO site is BS--just look at how steep the canyon walls are there, its way too steep.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Sean, perhaps you'd like to go up there sometime? I'd just like to get your perspective on the site. I'm planning at least two Bluff trips this summer, with other BF people you would surely get along with (unaffiliated, I mean). 

It's not just BFRO that says it's upstream, but also Mr. Perez, on the word of Dahinden. And Barackman, now non-BFRO. Pretty darn convincing, no?
The associate I'm going up there with first, in fact, fairly firmly suspects that the site is downstream, as you do. So, that would be a very interesting and productive trip.

SEAN FRIES: Sure, I would be willing to go up there with you.
[Ed.--That trip hasn't happened yet. It would be nice, though, to truly verify the site and come to a collective agreement as a research community before any "official" plaque is installed.]

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

TALKING WITH CLIFF BARACKMAN

Cliff Barackman presenting at the 2010 Oregon Sasquatch
Symposium. Photo by Steven Streufert

Last summer, 2009, we sought to clarify the location of the site and exact trackway, as we'd been going up there for a couple of years without any absolute certainty. In the course of this inquiry we talked with many researchers. Perhaps most helpful was CLIFF BARACKMAN, out of Portland, OR. Cliff provided this witty little synopsis for us by way of a professional biography:

"I'm entering my 17th year of field work. I've bigfooted in more than a dozen states and provinces.  I've recorded this and that.  I'm trying really hard to film one.  I have a website and blog.  I've been a guest speaker here and there.  I've done some media appearances.  You know, that sort of stuff." 
Enough said, perhaps; but we consider him one of the very best field researchers in the world. He loves to be outdoors and so, he says, he does it for the FUN. A good attitude to have when looking for the Bigfoot in a haystack. Here is the exchange we had with him, along with the mark he made on the topo map we sent him.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Howdy Cliff (and Daniel), 

I'm working on a little project trying to compare the exact locations various BFers claim as the actual PGF site. I figured I'd ask you two first. Personally, I feel I've been on the very spot Patty stood, but I find it a bit disturbing that I can't prove it.

I've looked around on BFF, for instance, and found that people believe all kinds of weird locations are the spot. When GPS coordinates are given they are nearly always different. Perhaps, if you have a photo editing software program, could you mark an "X" or draw a trackway on the most precise spot you think is accurate? It took me about two minutes in Photoshop to do my own version.

Also, if you know the locations of these I'd really be happy to know:
    * Jerry Crew's footprint find, the famous one
    * John Green and Dahinden's Bluff Creek sandbar prints
    * Onion Mountain and BCM trackways
    * MK Davis' supposed "downstream" film site location

I want to see a map of the entire Bluff Creek watershed with accurate BF sites located. This, when done, would be available freely to all in the BF community, and I think would clear up a lot of silly controversies.
Thanks so much, whatever you can do!
Best, Steve, Bigfoot Books

CLIFF BARACKMAN: Hey there.
 The pic with Wally, Derek, and I was taken at about the middle of the east/west section right before the "bowling alley" turn.  It is facing north.  The pic of the thick stuff was somewhere in the middle of the path of Patty. Good to hear from you.  Cliff

Yours Truly and Cliff, after a couple of beers, after the OSS.
Photo taken by "C.I."

[Ed.--to view Cliff's North American Bigfoot Blog entries on his trips to the PGF site and Bluff Creek use these links:

GOING BACK TO CALI,

VIDEO OF PG SITE 2010, and

BLUFF CREEK 2009.]

BIGFOOT BOOKS: [Speaking of our previous blog on the National Geographic filming crew landing on the PGF site area] Well, the helicopter had landed just past the log-jam area at the big bend just upstream from the bat box area and the alder forest next to it. On the gravel there they had markers for the GPS localities they thought were the film site. One by the helicopter on the north bank, and then another upstream a few hundred yards up, before getting to the spot you're describing. They thought that where THEY were was the actual film site. But where you guys are is a bit upstream from there, right? In your opinion or based on your information, where did Patty START walking? Does she finish walking right before the "alley" spot? 

Up across the creek from where you guys are in the picture is a fairly high bank (going north), as I recall, with some fairly thick foresty stuff in there on what feels like old river bar ground, high sand and gravel content up there. If I am correct about your location I walked around up in there last year, and got a very good "read" of the location as pretty similar to what one can recall in there of the film.

Downstream the forest is mostly alders, but up where you are, up on the raised area from the creek, there were more firs, I found. I guess the downstream part could be the very start of the film, up where you guys are in the pictures the end. But what if it all took place back away from where the creek bed is now? I got that feeling when I was up in there. In the film Patty is really pretty close to the canyon wall to the north.

And why is this even controversial? It's strange. The ground itself has moved, and the trees in the film are apparently all gone or so changed as to be unrecognizable.
Keep up the good work, on the hunt and on your blog & web site!
Best, Steve

CLIFF BARACKMAN: Hey there. We were upstream from the spot the helicopter landed.  I believe, though I could be wrong, that the spot the helicopter landed is thought to be the filmsite by Chris Murphy and a few others.  My info comes second-hand from Dahinden through Perez.  Dan showed me the map that Rene drew on pinpointing the location.  This was seconded by Bob Gimlin when he went there with Bobo.

Others, such as Byrne and MK Davis have gone to the site in recent years and thought the location was downstream from the bat boxes, but this is based on what the creekbed looks like today, not then.  As you noted, it has changed dramatically. Thanks on the kudos for my blog.  It's fun.  I like yours too. Cliff

Ed. -- and in a separate reply...

Cliff's mark on the map, just right of the Dahinden bump.

CLIFF BARACKMAN: Hi Steve, Good to hear from you. I'll help you however I can, of course.  John Green might be of more help on most of the spots you'd like to pinpoint.  I'm pretty sure I can show your the PG site and give you an indication where MK Davis' erroneous location is.

I sent back one of the maps you sent along.  I added the red dot where I believe the PG site is.

Though I've been there and could tell you if we were walking there, it's hard to pinpoint MK's spot on that other map you sent because I don't remember the creek splitting like it shows.  It's right about that spot, though. If I remember correctly, MK went there with Don Young, D-man [name edited for privacy], and Sean Fries. You probably know Sean since he lives in Weaverville [Ed.: excision].  He's gotta stop by your shop every once in a while. [Ed.: He does, indeed.]

I know this wasn't much help, but at least it's something.  Let me know if I can be of any more help to you.
Take care, Cliff.

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

THE DANIEL PEREZ INFORMATION

Daniel Perez speaking at the 2007 PGF 40th Anniversary
Celebration, Willow Creek. Photo by Steven Streufert.

We have talked quite extensively with Mr. DANIEL PEREZ about this. He is definitely our favorite journalistic historian of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. Read our interview with him, linked on the upper left side of this blog. We have to say, his work is absolutely fundamental. He's been into the subject since the age of 10, and began studying it seriously when still in his teens. While we were sending off for autographs to baseball players, Perez was corresponding with all the big-name Bigfoot researchers. Hence, he bridges the gap between the early 1960s and 1970s research and the current day, via his contact and friendship with Rene Dahinden among many others.

His booklet, BIGFOOTIMES: BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK is absolutely indispensible. Everyone must have it (and we have them for sale at Bigfoot Books!). We first found the general site area based upon his booklet (with some help from Bobo and Tom Yamarone), bearing the mark on the map that Rene made. Hence, the general location was without doubt preserved, thanks to the perspicacity and tenacity of Perez. Still, when first standing with Scott McClean on the very spot where it was supposed to have happened, we both still felt rather lost. We just could not see anything at all familiar in that first glance, save that it was a wild place with a winding creek in a big mountain canyon.

The location in what we are calling the General Consensus Area (see map above) ranges up and downstream a bit when we try to locate the actual track-way taken by the creature in the film. In the images below one may see that the location varies a little in presentation; and then, there are the accounts that emerged from the 2003 International Bigfoot Symposium trip up there, stating that Perez was downstream farther than the mark, indicating that the site was there rather than up at the exact marked point. Many there agreed, others disagreed. Some such as Al Hodgson felt the location was not at all correct; others felt it was off just because no familiar landmarks were readily apparent. Some simply thought it was a touch up or downstream from where the Symposium group had gathered. Later, Bob Gimlin himself, when up there with James Bobo Fay, put his seal of approval on the upper sandbar location.

PGF BIBLE, no doubt.

We asked Daniel about this, trying to clarify whether Dahinden meant the "X" or arrow on the map to indicate the beginning, middle, or end of the track-way. We also asked him about the information provided by Peter Byrne, as above. Here's the relevant exchange:

BIGFOOT BOOKS: I'd appreciate your perspective, truly. Also, I really wish we could clarify exactly what Rene meant by the mark: the start the middle or the finish of the film trackway? On the ground these things are very important, whereas on a map it looks good enough for government work.  I do not dispute the general location but rather seek the EXACT trackway path. Thing is, the X of Dahinden has to be more at the end segment, not frame 352.

DANIEL PEREZ: "Never got clarification w/ re to this from Rene. As for Peter, he is old and probably out a bit on his geography of the filmsite. dp"

Hence, though Daniel gets the location of the site correctly, the direction of Dahinden was not absolutely specific about the disposition of the course of the film subject. This is CONFIRMATION THAT DANIEL DID NOT GET THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE TRACK-WAY FROM DAHINDEN. However, they did not have commonly available GPS units in those days, and perhaps Rene felt that the mark was good enough, not knowing that there would be so much overgrowth and change in the area, leaving the location of the trackway ambiguous. Back in the days of Green, Titmus, Rene and the others, all one had to do was go there, and the site would be obvious when seeing the gravel/sand bar and the big tree in back. Now that stuff is obscured or altered. And opinions have in recent times begun to diverge. We hope to clarify all of this, so do keep up with our upcoming posts and the videos.

One last mystery remains for today. The above image is the most recent one from Daniel Perez, which he provided to us when we asked for an exact point at which Dahinden had place his mark. Note, in observing the image below, that the arrows in the two images point to two slightly different places along the creek. What is going on here? Is the site slowly moving downstream?

From Bigfoot at Bluff Creek: the arrow pointing to the UPPER sandbar.
Aerial image from 1973. USGS, as with the map below.

Another map from the Perez booklet, showing magnetic north on the compass.
The site? Also the upper sandbar. CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE VIEW.

Here's one more oddity: A Google Earth image found on Bigfoot Encounters, showing the "film site" downstream near the bat boxes landing. Clearly, the site is flowing downstream with the passing years!

And here, view M.K. Davis and crew on their version of the PGF site. We're not sure what the logging cable means, but we've asked MK about it. Yes, that is M.K. behind the video camera...

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

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

What me say, hu-man? You talk so much, hu-mans, me not want to hear another word! Me go now and grunt and howl. It more honest. It more true. Plus, it bring me Bigfoot mate.

****************************************************
This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2010, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings will be tolerated for non-commercial research purposes 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.