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. |
*********************************
The following conversations were conducted mainly via email, though in some cases are based upon personal conversations as well.
 |
| 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?
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.
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 |
 |
PGF General Consensus Site Area, Detail, MK to Barackman |
* 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. |
, 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.]
[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.]
*********************************
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:
TALKING WITH CLIFF BARACKMAN
 |
| Cliff Barackman presenting at the 2010 Oregon Sasquatch Symposium. Photo by Steven Streufert |
"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.
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
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:
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
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.
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.
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:
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!
****************************************************
ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!
****************************************************
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.
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?
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. |
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.
" wise man-shaman some others speak of. This was a plausible account of what it is like to actually KNOW something about these beings. If we believe they exist, should we then also not believe these things are possible?
, a fine and engaging read. The book contains many elements that will raise a skeptical eyebrow, or two; but it is not just the story of encounters with Sasquatch, but also of one woman's shamanic and spiritual process. The accounts in the book are verifiable in that many a neighbor, a non-believing father, some Bigfoot researchers, and a young child all saw them, and their footprints and other remains and signs.
contains none of this. It is similar to 
.
