Debris from Bluff Creek, Odds and Ends: Last Episodes of Season 2 BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT; Bobo; Kodak Cine K-100 Camera; plus, Questions from Daniel Perez of the BF TIMES

Me and My Friend, the Kodak Cine K-100,
the same camera used by Roger Patterson for the PGF.

BIGFOOT'S BLOG, 
LATE MARCH 2012 EDITION

Before the next season of Bluff Creek adventures begin, I thought I'd better gather up some of the last loose ends from the previous season's efforts. Season Two of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT is now completed (view the last episodes below), and we are working on plans for a major pow-wow of new investigations once the area up there is open again. Snow on the ridges and locked road gates usually keep us out until late June, and then lock us out again in late October. Loads of new information has poured in since we proved and verified the PGF site location, some of it very odd and confounding aspects of the Bluff Creek history. We've been told that Bob Heironimus was in Willow Creek in 1965, which is just too odd to blog about without further data. The investigation continues....

*******

An anonymous (for now) "R.K." sent me a vintage sixties Kodak Cine K-100 16mm film camera, just like the one used by Roger Patterson in 1967. It is an identical model, save that it has a front-loaded lens turret. It is in apparently functional working order, so it may come in handy for research this summer. Here are some nifty photos of that...

The K-100 with the three-lens front turret. Patterson had the single-lens setup.

Ahm a gonna film me one a dem sum-bucks!

Little Bigfoot walks behind the K-100.

Interior of the camera. Click to Enlarge.

*******

The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT, Season Two, Episodes 63-67 

This is Season Two, brand NEW. Back to the Creek Again! Here you will find the "Checking the Grid and Site Draft Map, and Measuring the Big Trees" episode. Part 63. Check it out!

Here you will find the "Measuring the Big Trees and Making Test Footprints" episode.
Part 64. Check it out!

Here you will find the "Robert Survives Solo Camping on the Film Site and Does the Tree Bores" episode. Part 65. Check it out!

Here you will find the "Aftermath Discussion at the Old Bigfoot Motel" episode. 
Part 66. Check it out!

Here you will find the "Robert Interviews our Mathematician/Geologist on the Film Site Math Proof" episode. Part 67. Check it out!

*******

Before he awarded us the BIGFOOTERS OF THE YEAR award, Daniel Perez sent Robert Leiterman and I some questions. Here is that email interview....

QUESTIONS FROM DANIEL PEREZ, the Full Text.

(Parts of this were published between the December 2011 and January Issues of THE BIGFOOT TIMES. Click the name to visit Daniel's site and subscribe.)

Robert and Steven: some questions for a write up in the Bigfoot Times newsletter.

PEREZ: 1) Who made the decision to create The Bluff Creek Film Site Project?

STEVE: It was Ian and I who started this research project by obsessing over small details in the history of Bluff Creek. There were a lot of unanswered questions, and many outright contradictions. This included five main opinions as to the location of the PGF site, and many more minor locations proposed or hinted at by others. As explained below, the official “Project” was started in 2010, when Robert joined us and started filming our research and investigations, and releasing the results on the BFRO YouTube page. I’ve been blogging about it, too, on BIGFOOT’S BLOG. It has been a long personal process for each of us, but our collective work took the last two summer-fall seasons, with preliminary stuff between Ian and I before that in 2009.

PEREZ: 2) When did this project begin?

STEVE: Ian and I were separately heading up to Bluff Creek in the early to mid 2000s, and began working together on this history after meeting at the Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up in 2009. In 2010 we began working with Robert, who wanted to document the process. Three summer-fall seasons, then, went into this Project. I first looked for the film site, using John Green’s sketch in his first pamphlet/booklet, in 2001. Green’s map was rather vague and imprecise. Questions lingered until I was back up there in 2007 with Cliff Barackman, James “Bobo” Fay, and others. From their opinions, guided in part by what Gimlin had said in 2003, and the marked maps found in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK, we tried to find the film site. It was a strange place, at once familiar, and yet very alien. No clear indications were found anywhere of the scenery familiar in brief glimpses in the  PGF itself. The following years were a slow and sometimes agonizing process of trying to pull the real information from the word-of-mouth and presumptuous statements made by various researchers. Ian was there in 2006, where he met Daniel Perez and Richard Henry. His outdoors and navigational experience gave rise to a parallel interest in discovering the site. Ian and I met in Yakima, Washington, but were able to conveniently meet and head to Bluff Creek as he lived nearby in Redding. I’d known Leiterman for a while, and when he heard about our research his own curiosity to find the site was ignited. He became a driving force to get us to apply our research on-site, rather than just hike around and theorize.

Perez, 2007, Willow Creek. Photo by Streufert

PEREZ: 3) Who was part of the project?

STEVE: Ian C., Steven Streufert, Robert Leiterman, with part-time participation of Rip Lyttle, and then Rowdy Kelley toward the end of it. We were aided immensely, of course, by the remaining older locals from the general Willow Creek area, like Al Hodgson and Jay Rowland, as well as many of the old-time Bigfoot researchers like John Green, Jim McClarin, Bob Gimlin… and yourself Daniel Perez, among many others.

PEREZ: 4) Many other parties claimed to know where the filmsite was but nothing bore fruit. Do you think they were doing it to attract attention to themselves rather than the subject?

STEVE: Before what I like to call the “Great Confusion of 2003" (when many major researchers along with Gimlin himself tried to find the site and could not), I think many just assumed that the site was “known.” We found, living here and having the time to try to actually find the spot, that it was NOT known. As it turned out, the spot found in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK was correct, but the trackway course was not found, nor the big trees, nor frankly any of the things actually seen in the film. The last positive ID of these features that we’ve been able to determine was made in 1983, by Thomas Steenburg, who had help from Dahinden. After this it really seems to have become overgrown and lost to time, with Green and Titmus not being able to find it at all by around 1998.

The many researchers who have made the varied claims of “their own” filmsite location seem to have suffered either the confusion of faded memories, or else a certain arrogance that their own “information” and “knowledge” were sufficient, despite a nearly total lack of verification and validation. Those like MK simply made up their own location, with no substantiation whatsoever save that the spot “felt” right to them, and they had heard some snippet or rumor that they felt must be accurate. We found, in trying to investigate this stuff, that there were MANY such snippets, and NONE of them could prove anything. What we saw was an oral history disintegrating into legend. We sought to correct that, and it truly was not easy to do. We sought to establish truth and reality, a real history, which are rare things in the field of Bigfooting, I’m sorry to say.

I have to say that the biggest enemy in this endeavor has been the presupposition of unfounded claims made by some researchers who never even bothered with proof and documentation. Just saying something is so is never enough. As in the case of MK, one false conception can lead to a thousand others following. Attention-getting? YES. It seems to be what drives Bigfooting the most, as we generally can’t seem to produce very good evidence of the phenomenon it give more weight to individual declarations, egotism, and imaginary and unsubstantiated claims to truth without real evidence. Everyone in this likes to call themselves “researchers,” but it is stunning how few of them actually bother to document and really study anything.

PEREZ: 5) Are you confident that after 40+ years you have located the exact spot?

STEVE: Yes. Indeed. Well, we still have to prove it absolutely to the world. Proof, in a scientific and surveying or optical/photographic sense, is a whole other order of business. The history is ambiguous and contradictory, too. I am satisfied, though, that this is the site, and I see absolutely NO evidence for any other location we have investigated. ALL of the evidence and history, such as it is, points to this one single sandbar on the long course of the creek. There is no doubt in my mind, as I walk on the very course of the trackway on that site. It is big enough, with all the landmarks and proportions in order. Once understood, the site becomes clearly visible (conceivable, at least, though one cannot really see in the way Patterson’s camera did back then), despite these 44 years passed and new forest growth since the filming event.

PEREZ: 6) Of the team, who had that Eureka moment of pinpointing the "big tree?"

STEVE: The “Eureka” moment was really a gradual process realized as a group over a few years. It was I, Steve, who began insisting on that particular big tree and area, and seeing the sandbar and the angle of view in the film toward the “right” side of the sandbar. But I'm not claiming credit for it personally. It was group research, and no one of us alone could have brought this project to fruition. That is why we go by "BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT."

We’d looked in that area before, but always felt that the trees were just way off too far toward the end of the film. We had decided that we would focus on that spot and do a site survey last year, but we ran out of time with the seasons and weather changing. Robert and I were even more convinced when we heard that it was Gimlin who had identified the spot of the first sighting. Ian remained skeptical, thinking the site and big trees were not big enough, and so forth.

I found my way to that tree again this mid-summer (during a time when we were unable to get the group together up there), and gave it a serious new look. I had to change my whole mental image of the film site around to realize it was the correct tree in the right spot. In many ways the image in the film is an optical illusion of perspective, with a  moving subject and camera position. We had to think around “square” models such as seen in Murphy’s diorama of the site. I began pointing out that tree to the others, the biggest one down there in that general spot. Robert agreed, but reserved judgment until we could do the site survey grid. Robert was very determined to get to that level of documentation before concluding anything. Ian wasn’t able spend much time at the spot with us in the one time we were all of us together there this summer. He still has reservations, but I think we’re making a little headway convincing him.

When we did our survey with Rowdy we saw things in greater depth and focus, and the landmarks began to emerge from the “jungle.” We saw the trees for the forest. So many had assumed that that area was just not big enough, but when we measured it the known film distances fit in there perfectly, with all the right pieces of the puzzle. Next to that big tree there were others in what appeared to be exactly the correct locations. When we were there as a group surveying without Ian I showed that big tree to the guys again. Rowdy then insightfully spotted the maple next to the big tree, with a slightly bent trunk. I then identified the spiky snag, which I'd never thought before could still be standing. The "ladder tree" and middle tree were obvious, once the big tree was found. The other background big tree clusters are notably similar, but we have yet to fully study and measure all of them. Measuring anything on that hillside is very difficult.

Robert gets loads of credit for conceiving of and managing the site survey. It was Robert who was most fixated on the stumps, which are other lasting features that will help prove this location with finality. Rowdy helped out in huge ways at that point, in organizing and conducting the site measurements. Rowdy, who has a degree and works in film, has already contributed many new views and analyses that hadn’t occurred to us before he got involved.

Ian’s skepticism and rationalism have been constant guards against false assumption. 

The Process: The arrow in the Perez booklet identifies the end point of the film, pointing specifically to the upper sandbar zone. Gimlin identified the crook in the creek downstream as the first sighting spot in 2003, and more decidedly this summer on site. In 2010 Perez, upon being asked to pinpoint Rene's exact mark on the map, marked this very spot. We had already ruled out all locations downstream, and focused on the upper sandbar when Gimlin arrived here. We had to try to conceive of that sandbar without the new tree growth, trying to see again what Dahinden saw in his "aerial" shot from the hillside. We realized that the big trees had to be farther toward the end of the sandbar, and that the film was shot diagonally across the apparent north orientation of the sandbar. Munns put out an animation recreating the motion of cameraman and subject within the setting, and this was instrumental in our revisualizing the site. We drew a magnetic north axis on site and found it oriented perfectly with the biggest tree there, one we'd previously thought was way too far to the "right" to be the big tree. Upon close inspection, all the other main trees were found, and in our site survey the old stumps and debris piles were amazingly still there.

PEREZ: 7) In the blog site, it is stated, "Though the proof is not officially final..." Who makes it official?

STEVE: “PROOF” cannot be had by mere photography, as the site is a totally overgrown jungle now. Each detail needed to be analyzed by itself, and put into location on our site grid map in order to be seen and understood in context. This was the real, full “Eureka” moment, when Robert finished his map. There was so much more correspondence than we’d ever imagined we’d find.

We have shared our results with Bill Munns, and he has confirmed preliminarily that we’ve gotten it correctly. We are hoping to continue this work on-site in 2012, hopefully with those who have expert knowledge in surveying, cameras and optics, not to mention geology and natural history. We have found innumerable ways in to this subject, and have had to learn much in order to be able to understand what we were seeing and finding. We are all of us amateurs, so we did our best, and at this point we are hoping that others will be able to verify our findings in a fully convincing and professional way that will leave no doubt lingering into the future.

PEREZ: 8) About how many man hours did it take to produce your quadrant map?

STEVE: Ask Robert about that one. We spent three days the first trip, myself one day and Robert two days the next trip, in the map/survey process. Robert spent countless hours working on the maps once he got back from the site.

ROBERT: Daniel--Steven, Rowdy and I had spent approximately 60 man hours of actual work time on the film site gridding the gravel bar for the map during October, 2011. This included compass work, some brush clearing, tree boring (determining ages of trees), gridding and flagging the site with north/south (Y) and east/west (X) axis points and lines, also drawing in the stumps, logs, trees, debris piles and root balls (artifacts) and double-checking our data on the ground (searching/walking/confirming/correcting). See the hourly breakdown by researcher below.

October 22 nd. 2011 total combined 22.5 hours
Robert - 7.5 hours
Steven - 7.5 hours
Rowdy - 7.5 hours
October 23 rd. 2011 total combined 22.5 hours
Robert - 7.5 hours
Steven - 7.5 hours
Rowdy - 7.5 hours
October 30th 2011 total combined 9 hours.
Robert - 5.5 hours
Steven - 3.5 hours
October 31st 2011 total combined 6 hours.
Robert - 6 hours
Approximately 6 + 9 + 22.5 + 22.5 = 60 hours of field work and another few hours transferring the data to the final map.

The lower bend and root balls at PGF site area.
Photo by Steven Streufert

PEREZ:  9) When I told Robert in 2007 I believe it was a waste of time to look for the filmsite because I thought it was all changed forever, you didn't buy into that idea. Was this the result of training as a forest ranger and schooling and general experience about the woods and longevity of trees?

STEVE: Leaving this one for Robert…

My comment: We knew that the geology and history of the Bluff Creek area could be understood. We sought to discover all we could that would bear upon the stories told about the events from 1958 to 1967 that involved Bigfoot. What we saw in the creek area were the remnants of the 1964 Flood. We then understood that the sandbar, established by that 500-year event (or whatever it was) should still be there in some form. We found no evidence of logging having been done since 1965-66 salvage work post-Flood. Hence, we refuted the things people had been saying, such as: “It’s all been washed away,” or “The trees should be stumps now.” We showed that with persistence reality may be discovered and history documented. We showed that it is idiotic to just assume things as these people did, without any clear evidence for such assumptions.

We were determined not to just say, for instance, that we knew how to get to the Los Angeles urban area. We wanted to get to Norwalk, and then to a certain address, and eventually find the spot of a specific location, like finding Daniel Perez’ house there. Many said that it could not be found, or that it did not matter; but we found many clues along the way, and it was fun playing Sherlock Holmes with these Bigfoot-related mysteries.

ROBERT:  Steven covered some good stuff already. I will add to it. I find that few people have the patience to get down and get dirty in the field. Very few of us have the ability or take the time to double-check what others say about things. Sometimes we find it easier to assume the obvious and go with the flow, giving some statements credence. If three people agree it's got to be fact right? And let’s face it, we’re no longer a society of outdoorsmen and women whose very existence had depended on the ability to read the signs and predict the weather.

As a park ranger, spending time in the forest is my profession. Being able to read my surroundings can be an essential skill. Though not all park rangers live and work in forests, I do. I spend a considerable amount of time in the outdoors and have taken it upon myself to feel more comfortable in them. I have also tried to better understand my home area.

Back to the film site.... I realize a lot of change can happen on a gravel bar in 44 years, but I also realize that certain landscape features like trees, stumps and logs will take time to totally disappear. Much of that is dependent on insects, fungi, the weather, topography and other factors. Nature has its way of making sure of that. If there were once big trees, then there should be the remains of either the big trees themselves or stumps, and some stumps can hang around for a good bit of time. If the downed logs and stumps were no longer visible, then there should be debris pile remains in their place, possibly in the form of logs and stumps. Stumps last longer than most logs. Different tree species break down faster than others. As an example, alders and cottonwoods will break down faster than firs. Determining the age of trees on the floodplain could also help us see the forest despite the 40-year-old newer trees. For the most part, the positions of the artifacts (logs, stumps, trees) shouldn’t change unless they were washed away, buried or hauled away by salvage loggers. All we needed were clear pictures, a good aerial view of the P.G. Film Site (compliments of Rene Dahinden's 1971 overview) to match some artifacts, as well as patience and time. With the photographs in hand, and a little determination, we were bound to find something. As it was, we did find something... a whole lot of somethings that looked an awful lot like the Rene 1971 overview.

PEREZ: 10) The big tree, what is the present diameter and circumference of it? And is it in your opinion still the largest tree in that immediate vicinity?

STEVE: It is the largest tree in the upper sandbar area. Downstream from there we found two other trees of that huge size, but they are of course in the wrong places. Unfortunately, time and the mass of things to do somehow overwhelmed us, and we didn’t get to measure the diameter of the tree. You can see in the photo of it with me in front how large it is. I’m standing right at its base, so rough measurements of my size and the tree behind me may be made. I’d say the tree is about five feet in diameter. It is an old growth Douglas fir, of the top size found in that climate, soil and terrain, but it certainly is not the largest fir I’ve ever seen. I think it is big enough indeed to be the one seen in the film. Hopefully an optical expert like Munns with be able to tell us this with certainty, based upon our measurements.

PEREZ: 11) Was the Eureka moment derived by association of other items that made a match from 40+ years ago?

STEVE: That is explained above mostly. All the factors of history that we could find played into this. We talked to all the witnesses of the site and area that we could find, and investigated some six miles of the creek watershed. We were frankly astonished to find how much STILL remained, however much others assumed it would all be changed. I mean, stumps and big trees, yes, were there, but we also found the debris piles rotting away but still in the same places. We have over two dozen clearly identifiable matching features outlined in Robert’s comparison map done with the 1971 Dahinden “aerial” photo. And there are many more possible ID points to be found with further analyses. Even the empty spaces on the sandbar are positive data points, as it is quite unlikely up there for something NOT to grow on a spot. Hence, if there is no stump or tree over 40 years old on the site now, and the same state existed in 1967, that is another correlation and correspondence. Finding the big tree was great, but it was astounding to find the other trees along the line, one by one, and to see that their layout was a perfect match for what is seen behind the creature in the 1967 film.

PEREZ: 12)  Did the two of you have a physical advantage over the Bigfoot community because you live geographically closer to the area than most others?

STEVE: Of course! For some it is a lifetime Mecca journey to get up there. For me it is an easy day trip. Hence, we were able to return again and again to answer lingering questions and to explore new information, and finally to check and re-check data.

PEREZ: 13) To Robert, are you surprised that this area, once relatively clear, is an "overgrown jungle" today?

ROBERT: You mean young temperate forest? No. We’re talking successional growth, part of the natural cycle. The flood waters gave that bend in the river a clean slate. Sunlight, nutrients, organic debris for shelter against the harsh elements, the proximity of water, all of these were factors. The new layer of sand and silt was a seed bed for the successional plants. After they established themselves, the trees were soon to follow. What we’re looking at now is a forest reestablishing itself in a prior habitat right in the middle of the P.G. Film Site.

PEREZ: 14) Do you think you ruffled feathers with discounting Murphy's location and his physical filmsite model?

STEVE: Well, when I questioned Christopher Murphy about this stuff he was always open and helpful. When I contacted him before his Sasquatch Summit presentation he listened to my points without defensiveness, and then changed his talk to reflect parts of our research. He did a very fine job in making his site model diorama, but we found it ultimately limiting as it created a predisposition to view the perspective and motion in the film wrongly. It was just a recreation of frame 352, based on Dahinden’s measurements. When we cracked our minds out of those shells we were able to look at the actual locations in new ways.

The site location found in Murphy’s books was based on only one visit there in 2003, for only a few hours, so he cannot really be blamed for getting the location wrongly. It was really pretty close, but inexact. In any case, he was getting cues from others there, so any confusion in his books or internet statements only reflects the difficulties that PGF site location research faced at that point. It is not his fault, really, and he’s been a gentleman about it… unlike many others who have acted as if this were a PERSONAL ISSUE. It is not, and it should not be. It is about facts, not egos.

PEREZ: 15) Where many of the stumps noted in the original P-G film and noted by later researchers still there?

STEVE: I’ve answered this above. We need to get someone with high-level optical photo-analysis skills and software to look at this, but from Robert’s comparison work we’ve shown, I think, a level of correspondence that goes way beyond randomness and is in the highest level of certainty. This is just eyeball work, though, done while constantly having to adjust one’s assumptions trying to approximate the true film perspective in comparison with the site map and overview hillside photo. It isn’t easy to do. As far as we can tell at this point essentially ALL of the bigger features of the film are still present there, and are to be found in more or less exactly the same position and similar condition now as they were in 1967.

PEREZ: 16) Did the woodpecker holes that Peter Byrne said where there in 1972 on the big tree something that strengthened the case for the correct site?

STEVE: Well, Byrne’s memory of how to get to the film site seems to have faded over the years since he was there and it was recognizable. We know from his photos that he was there on the right spot. He took the best photos documenting the site. But since then he has been taking people or guiding them to the spot right at the road bottom, at the bat boxes. This is wholly implausible, much like the MK Davis location, for near-total lack of corresponding features and a landscape that is totally different from that in the film itself. One thing he DID remember was the pock-marked bark of the Big Tree. This is EXACTLY what we found when we identified the tree. Apparently these are holes made by woodpeckers trying to get at bark beetles and other insects infesting the tree. This may indicate weakness in the tree, so it may be quite aged and on its way out sometime in the not too distant future.

We are going to try to get a core-bore of the tree’s rings next summer, and of course this time we will have the required two people and time enough to get a diameter and circumference measurement of it. That is the funniest aspect of this research: just as we think we’ve discovered something or the solution to some mystery, we find that a dozen new avenues of research open up requiring further investigation. Something tells me this Project is not over, and will continue on for many more years.

One thing I’d like to say here is that Bob Gimlin was RIGHT. After all the researchers had become lost and confused, Bob, who had only been there once before 2003, was able to re-identify the site. This is a real kick in the pants of those who constantly want to say that Gimlin has poor memory, or that he is confabulating. ALL ALONG THE WAY we found that Gimlin’s accounts of the locality, the scene of the filming event, and the features found down in that creekbed were essentially CORRECT.

We have to give credit to Rene Dahinden, especially, as it was his memory and research dedication that were preserved in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK. To you, too, Daniel, we are very grateful in that you actually bothered to document that recollection before the site was lost entirely to time. The clues preserved added up to enough for us to find the site again.

PEREZ: Anyway, those are my questions. Should you have additional comments, just jot them down as I would like to go to press with this soon.  Best, Daniel Perez

Daniels 2007 table at the Willow Creek PGF 40th Celebration Conference.
There in the middle is Daniel's K-100 Kodak movie camera, very similar to ours.

We had NO idea that he was thinking of giving us the "Oscar" of Bigfooting at the point of this interview. Do keep in mind that this was done before we had final mathematical confirmation of the site geometry. We have that now, such that we now have absolute proof that we have found the correct location. What will follow is further measurement and hopefully more useful perspective on the film itself, and its strange, hairy subject.

*******

Recently Bobo, from FINDING BIGFOOT, stopped by BIGFOOT BOOKS. Though he is a friend, I couldn't resist getting him to sign a promotional card for the show for display in my shop. Here it is:

James "Bobo" Fay signed this card for Bigfoot Books.
Kids visiting the shop LOVE this thing, as they love the Bobes.

Unfortunately, Bobo was recently mauled by a Bigfoot on The Soup, but somehow survived to continue filming episodes of Season Three of the show. He is in Louisiana now, and we have word that they are heading to Australia for the Yowie, and to Southeast Asia as well. Wow! Here is the video of the attack:


And listen to a podcast episode from SAVAGE HENRY, a Humboldt humor magazine, to hear the "real" Bobo, complete with drinking games, here:  Episode 10 of SHIT Talkin'.

Until next time, SEE YA!
****************************************************
ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS! 

Me Mute.
No Me No Speak.

****************************************************
This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2007-2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if 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. 

BIGFOOTERS OF THE YEAR, plus Season Two: BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT Videos; Announcing... The Coalition for Reason, Science, Satire and Sanity in Bigfoot Research

Page One, December 2011 Bigfoot Times
Click to Enlarge and Read, Right-Click to View Full Size or Save.

BIGFOOT'S BLOG
Mid-January, 2012 Edition


A BLUFF CREEK MEGA-ISSUE, 
Once Again....

The 2011 BIGFOOTERS OF THE YEAR award has been announced by Daniel Perez, of THE BIGFOOT TIMES newsletter. Here in this blog we will let Daniel tell the story with a free copy of the December issue. Click the images to enlarge and read them. Robert Leiterman and I would like to say thank you to Mr. Perez for recognizing the value of our long labors on this issue of Bigfooting history and geography. We'd also like to extend this award and all the due credit for it to those who were also part of The Project, founding member Ian C. and concluding member Rowdy Kelley. Also, thank you to all of you who helped us along the way. To all of the naysayers up and down that creek, well, neener-neener to ye.

The long-lost-in-confusion site of the Patterson-Gimlin Film on Bluff Creek has finally been found, and definitively identified by the members of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. A mathematical proof using trigonometry and geometry has been done by a geologist, comparing our site map and the 1971 Rene Dahinden "aerial" photo of the site. The final draft of this in formal proof form is in, and after review will be posted here soon for all to see, in the next entry of this blog. Work will continue in the coming year, no longer to verify, but now to further explore and identify the aspects of the film site. We are planning a major congregation of researchers to arrive sometime in the summer for further analysis and documentation. You can probably expect a Season Three of our YouTube video series presentation. For now, see the first part of Season Two, below. Also find below a preliminary statement from our site data analyst, a radio appearance I did recently, and a link to the new, revolutionary Facebook group that has been founded to fight the lunatic fringe in Bigfoot Research.

Page Two, December 2011 Bigfoot Times
Click to Enlarge.

Page Three, December 2011 Bigfoot Times
Click to Enlarge

Page Four, THE BIGFOOT TIMES, December 2011 Issue.
CLICK EACH PAGE TO ENLARGE AND READ.
(Right-Click to View Full Size or Save)
This issue has been authorized to distribute, read and save freely as
a holiday season gift from Mr. Daniel Perez, Bigfooter extraordinaire.

*******
YOURS TRULY ON BLOG TALK RADIO, BIGFOOT TONIGHT.

Recently I was the guest on this show, which you may access via podcast archive or streaming online. In it we mainly talked about the PGF and Bluff Creek issues, but of course this talk inevitably led to MK Davis calling up on the live show. He dug himself even deeper into a "bloody pool" and made a massacre of the historical truth. Little more than an hour after that on-the-air radio conversation, I received notice from MK's blog that he is RETIRING from Bigfooting. Well, I must have done something right, eh? All credit to the early work of Mr. Davis, and best of wishes to him in the future, but I am simply going to say here that: We Were Right. Bob Gimlin Was Right. Rene Dahinden was right.
Listen through this link, or via the player box below: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bigfoottonightshow/2011/12/19/special-guest-steven-streufert

Listen to internet radio with Bigfoot tonight on Blog
Talk Radio

*******
HERE ARE THE FIRST SERIES OF SEASON TWO OF THE VIDEOS FROM...
THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT: A JOURNEY OF REDISCOVERY

Season Two: The Bluff Creek Film Site Project Part 46, Old Bluff Creek Road. Out Now!

NEW VIDEO: Bluff Creek Film Site Project, Part 47!!!

See the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film Site area as it is today. Study a little history while you're at it. Part on an ever-ongoing series....

The continuing melodrama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. This is Season Two, brand new. Here you will find the "Devil's Advocate" episode. Part 48. Check it out!

The continuing melodrama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. This is Season Two, brand new. Here you will find the "Bickering in the Creek" episode. Part 49. Check it out!

The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. This is Season Two, brand new. Here you will find the "Initial Considerations of the Bigfoot Trackway" episode. Part 50. Check it out!

The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. This is Season Two, brand new. Here you will find the "Considering All Options ad Infinitum" episode. Part 51. Check it out!

The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. This is Season Two, brand NEW. Here you will find the "Every Tree at the Edge of the Woods is a Possibility" episode. Part 52. Check it out!

The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. This is Season Two, brand NEW. Here you will find the "Stumbling over Stumps and Right into the Big Tree Discovery" episode. Part 53. Check it out!

The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT. This is Season Two, brand NEW. Here you will find the "Discovery and First Analysis" episode. Part 54. Check it out!

Videography by Robert Leiterman. Research by Steven Streufert, Ian C. and Robert Leiterman, with invaluable assistance in the endgame from Rowdy Kelley.

You may always use this link to find the full series on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Bluff+Creek+Film+Site+Project&oq=Bluff+Creek+Film+Site+Project

*******

The Comparisons of Leiterman. Here Is the 1971 Film Site from the Hillside,
Compared with the Survey Map of 2011. Forty Years, and Still There.
CLICK TO ENLARGE.

PRELIMINARY MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF OUR PGF SITE DATA

A professional geologist is running a mathematical look at our site identification, and so far the results, only a first glance, really, have shown a very high level of certainty. He has only looked at one cluster of features, and found a 90% correspondence between the map of today and the Rene Dahinden "aerial" photo of forty years ago. This level of matching over the course of four decades on the site is simply astonishing. Beyond a shadow of a doubt now, this is the PGF FILM SITE. A full mathematical/geological write-up paper will be forthcoming soon. Here is what the fellow, Jaime S., has said, after only the first few hours of looking:

"I did some quick trigonometric comparisons between the Dahinden photo and the new PG site survey and it looks like they match up pretty good. I only focused on the tree stump cluster marked J,I,G, and H. I was able to match it up to an accuracy of about 90% (just for that particular group). The lens on the camera from the Dahinden photo is distorted a bit from spherical aberration (about 5-10 degrees toward the edges of the photo) but i am pretty sure i got the interior angles fairly accurate. I'll work on it more tomorrow and see if i can use some other objects in the photo to compare the trigonometry which should bring it up around a 97-99% positive match. Might take me another couple days to do write a proof but it shouldn't be a problem. I'll e-mail you again tomorrow with some diagrams and calculations."

The Site Survey Map of the Now Known PGF Site.
CLICK TO ENLARGE.

Not to brag, but THIS IS AN EXAMPLE of where Science, Logic and Reason may take us. Despite decades of false claims, we were able to prove more than just our opinions. And we documented it thoroughly in ten foot grids on a map that are now capable of producing real mathematical data. This is real PROOF. I hope that the lesson learned from this process, which took four years and is still ongoing, is that persistence pays, that it is worthwhile to do history, and that rational analysis is preferable to wishful thinking and egotism.

If only we could apply such methods to finding incontestable proof and knowledge of Bigfoot, eh?

ANNOUNCING...                                              *******

Coalition for Reason, Science, Satire and Sanity in Bigfoot Research

THE ONLY FACEBOOK BIGFOOT GROUP THAT MATTERS

JOIN NOW. Click the link above.

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

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

Me Say You Join:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartbigfoot 

That all me say to you now, hu-man. We talk when you read 200 email a day. It fun.

You survive, you be worthy. You say, Bigfoot not serious about Science? Well, that  true. Me just like to see hu-man brain hurt. Me just happy with good Bigfoot woman, good beer me steal from Book Man. Me not need Logic when me just live on land, eat what me find, pick cave and me sleep there. Some say Bigfoot "hu-man"... What, you diss me? You not like Bigfoot get feeling hurt.
****************************************************
This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2011-2012, 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.

Merry Abominable Christmas! Plus... AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVID PAULIDES OF NABS; More on BLUFF CREEK MASSACRE THEORY, TIMELINE ISSUES

MERRY ABOMINABLE SNOW SEASON TO ALL!!!

(Is that PC enough?)

Perhaps you remember this cool Abominable Snow Monster of the North, from the 1964 Rankin/Bass stop-motion animated TV special  production, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer." This was probably our own first exposure to hairy cryptid hominoids, predating our first viewing of the Patterson-Gimlin film. Plus, you've just got to love the Island of Misfit Toys!

And now, Squatchploitation continues to new, Himalayan pinnacles! View Jack Link's company's TWELVE DAYS OF SQUATCHMAS animation and song. We here at Bigfoot Books do promote, however, a mainly vegetarian diet. We're not sure that Bigfoot would want to eat beef jerky, given that it is loaded with nitrates and is most likely made out of disgusting byproduct parts from carcasses and may contain harmful prions that would cause Mad Sasquatch Disease.

NEWS FLASH: This week we knocked off an appreciative email to Daniel Perez regarding his latest issue of BIGFOOT TIMES, and now he's posted it on his blog. READ IT HERE, or go and bookmark BIGFOOTTIMES.NET now. We mainly talk about the PGF in the letter to the editor. Go and subscribe to BF TIMES, it will do you some good, for sure. This month Daniel announced the very well-deserved selection of BILL MUNNS as "BIGFOOTER OF THE YEAR." It is our feeling that we now have the data and historical perspective to do a full re-evaluation of both the film's Bigfoot subject AND the timeline issues. To us Bigfooters this should be of singular importance: that we put the puzzle pieces together and throw out the ones that obviously don't fit. What remains is the truth of the matter, all "Bluff Creek Massacres" be damned (unless, MK and Dave, you can actually PROVE that thing!).

Check out Munns' CREATURE GALLERY. And the essential site for new data on the Patterson-Gimlin Film, THE MUNNS REPORT.

WHY DOES DAVE PAULIDES HATE US??? Our Recent Experiences with Mr. NABS.

Anyway, it looks like we have stepped into the middle of a major bigfooting shitstorm. We'd interviewed David Paulides earlier, hoping to get him to open up on some of the more controversial issues he has raised or that surround his attitude and public behavior and written statements. However, he declared he'd only talk about non-controversial things. So, we talked a lot about Ray Crowe and the Track Record product that NABS has recently released. However, at the end of that blog we placed a small "Coming Soon" slug about an interview with his arch-rival, Daniel Perez. Dave became angry. "Disappointed" was how he put it, bluntly. And for what? Just for interviewing Mr. Perez, and not being "loyal" to Mr. Paulides. Apparently, Dave does not understand the concept of objective and investigative journalism.

As soon as the Perez article was published he seemed to flip his wig. He thinks we are Perez' spy or something, as we'd sent a question Dave had asked us on to Daniel, as Dave was questioning Daniel's sources in regard to an issue of the P-G Film timeline. This is NORMAL in any field of inquiry... to INQUIRE. But just because we sent that question to Daniel, and Daniel replied back to BOTH Dave and us, now Paulides thinks that we were forwarding his emails to Perez. Perhaps Dave, using his awsome "investigative abilities and training" could have looked at the email more closely and seen that it was not US who sent any preceding material to Perez, but rather it was Daniel who chose to add Paulides' email to the reply list. Instead, he got it all wrongly, like he does often enough in his two books. Read more closely, Dave.

Now, in Paulides' book, we are "disloyal, a backstabber, dishonest, not to be counted on," etc. So, we may as well write what follows. He even rudely implied that we might not pay him for products he'd sent for the store. He accuses US of ignoring facts and not doing research when, in fact, it is HE who won't read our email, who won't consider any of the information included below. He'd rather think he is the first to interview Al Hodgson, or the first to read the 1992 Green-Gimlin interview. Sorry Dave, you're a late-comer to this party (so are we). All this despite the obviously discoverable fact that it is his own misunderstanding and hot-headed emotional reaction that has led him to this point, he has cut off all communications with us and vows to never do another interview with anyone ever again. “NABS,” his "group," even had a special "meeting" the next day with humble us as Issue #1 on the agenda, and they are now establishing a no-interview, no media policy. Dave seems to like to do things this way. Perhaps it gives him that grand feeling of power that he misses getting from law enforcement?

Well, NABS, good riddance, we suppose. With an attitude like that who really WANTS to hear from you, anyway? But it is incredibly rude to just cut off communications like that, after unjust recriminations to boot. Dave, you should be glad that I did NOT write the kind of fairly critical review of your two books that I WOULD have written had I not been interacting with you via email and in a business relationship. Perhaps now I will go back and write those. Believe me, I liked those books in great part, but they are not, um... PERFECT. Not at all. Some of the factual and grammatical errors are, frankly, embarrassing.

It is sad, Dave. Look, who defended you in every case we could, against constant criticism from others around in the bigfooting community? Who promoted constantly and sold your books, not to mention maps, patches and stickers, in our shop? Who gave you a full blog entry to say whatever you wanted and to promote your product, The Track Record? Who edited your grammatical and spelling errors out of that interview so that you would look better in it? Who got this product set up on Amazon.com for sales there, and designed a nice product listing page for you? Who has an ad flier in his window promoting your new book and a large sticker promoting your organization? Who also got your book placed in the stock of the most popular bookstores in Humboldt County based solely upon our recommendation? Who still has promotional links on our blog for your website? That was US, Dave, WE at Bigfoot Books did that for YOU. Now, Dave, who is backstabbing whom? Who is being disloyal? It certainly is not us! It is you who, in apparent paranoia, is doing it to us. And we've heard repeatedly about how you have done this kind of things to other bigfoot researchers. Cut enough bridges, Dave, and who will eventually be left on your "side"? NO ONE.

We first encountered Dave, we are certain, when a man whom we later recognized from the author photo on his book came in to our shop here in Willow Creek, sometime in 2007. His first book had not come out yet, and no one knew whom he was at that point. He didn't announce to us that he was a "professional" Bigfoot researcher, but rather played the part of the tourist and tried to pick our brain for information. We'd asked him what his interest in Bigfoot was, as he seemed curious about ours, and the subject in general. He said he was just looking into some things, now that he'd retired from being a police officer, that he'd always been interested in but didn't have the time to explore. He played naive, as if it was casual interest, and he'd just begun to think more seriously about it. Actually, it seemed to us, he was trying to hide his identity, using his supposedly awesome interrogative and investigative skills. The professional thing to do, when encountering a colleague in any given field, is to INTRODUCE yourself and your projects and area of interest. Rather, we were left later with a sour feeling, especially as many of our ideas for our own research projects then seemed mysteriously to turn up in Paulides book. Now, we're not saying that he stole them, necessarily; but it just doesn't ring with collegiality and openness of discourse that should exist in any growing, collaborative field of knowledge. Rather, it seemed the behavior of a spy, a snooper, especially as, when we later came into contact with him to sell his products, he never once let on that he had met us nor been in our shop before. Beyond sneaky, this seems almost duplicitous to us. It's just  plain odd.

He's alienated a lot of others, including numerous folks we know personally. Here's what BIGFOOT FIELD REPORTER, Sharon Lee, had to say about Dave's behavior at this year's BIGFOOT DISCOVERY DAYS:

"Finally, the most difficult presentation to sit through was that of David Paulides. Now, I am pretty new to this world of bigfoot research, 6 years. I have not had time to read every book written on bigfoots because almost EVERYONE has written a book. So, I had no idea who this Paulides guy was, but I guess I should have! In his words, he is the best researcher. His organization is the best. He doesn't consider individual people researchers. He insulted Michael Rugg, the host of the event, by telling Mike that he was not a researcher, but just a museum curator. He then went on to talk about what a bad rap he gets, and how no other organizations will step forward to work with him. Gee, I wonder why? This guy had no shortage of arrogance! I felt really badly for Mike Rugg. He has dedicated his life to bigfoot research and to be insulted at his own event that Paulides was invited to, was so disrespectful."

Image: Bigfooter Elders at the 2003 Willow Creek International Bigfoot Symposium, including Bob Gimlin (in hat), Al Hodgson, and John Green (in back, hidden).

In a public comment Believe It Tour's Brad Pennock reported, "Yeah, David Paulides talked a lot about how the Patterson/Gimlin story details didn't add up, but then emphatically stated he believes the Bigfoot in their movie is real. WTF?" This goes along the lines of what Paulides has been  promoting non-publicly, using an email rumor campaign: the "BLUFF CREEK MASSACRE THEORY." Yes, Dave claims that he came up with the very same theory that MK Davis propounded earlier, but to have found it independently, in some archival materials and film found in the Western Bigfoot Society/Ray Crowe archives that NABS  had purchased. The rumor campaign? Much like MK's tactics, it was conducted within the Bigfoot researcher community, and began to spread out like a virus. There was nothing really new here--we'd heard all of it before from MK either personally or over the WWW. However, as outed and published on CRYPTOMUNDO by Loren Coleman, and then in the BIGFOOT TIMES by Daniel Perez, there was apparently something more sinister going on here, something more like defamation, and it was aimed at the most respected names in the Bigfoot field.

Daniel Perez and Loren Coleman both published and quoted Paulides as writing (yes, we got a variant of these odd emails from him, too),

"I actually got my hands on a fairly old copy of the PG film, full framed with segments on it nobody has seen. It is in the experts hands and many of our impressions of what actually occurred is playing out. I actually believe that John Green and Gimlin are harboring a very, very dark secret, really."

The "Secret"? It is a theory that claims John Green, Bob Gimlin, Rene Dahinden, Roger Patterson and Bob Titmus participated in the slaughter of a Sasquatch family, and that the clip known as the PGF is just a small piece of the killing action. In stating or at least implying things like this, Paulides is not only scandalizing the names of these two elder statesmen of Bigfooting, but he is also besmirching the honorable memory of nearly all the late greats, who aren't around anymore to defend themselves against such outrages: Patterson, Dahinden, and Titmus. He is not just dragging their names in the dirt, but more: he is accusing them of MURDER. If you buy into Dave Paulides' notion that Bigfoot is fully HUMAN, then what else can we call the slaughter of a whole family of them in Bluff Creek? This is serious shit, and ex-cop Dave should KNOW BETTER.

Dig even deeper into this crazy "Massacre" theory if you'd like. The best place to start is probably where it ends, really--the page on Cryptomundo.com where JOHN GREEN GIVES HIS RESPONSES to Paulides' accusations and MK's ideas. There are handy links in this article which will take you back into the story.
Or read MASSACRE MANIA CONTINUES for more info and graphics on the MKD theory.
AND READ THIS NOW: The Massacre at Bluff Creek; Bill Miller debunks the massacre with the help of John Green's original film, found on the West Coast Sasquatch Reasearch site. But be careful: it's through the looking glass in there!

"The more I try to explain the stranger it seems that anyone could think this stuff up, let alone actually go public with it, let alone have anyone else believe it." -- John Green, August 24, 2009

Linda Martin, on BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS, had some interesting points to make in her entry, David Paulides Responds to the Bigfoot Massacre Issue. She, too, has told me she has been CUT OFF from Dave's holy communication. Oh well, Linda!

And this, perhaps the real source of Paulides' anger, is what Daniel Perez had to say re. the misguided "Massacre" theory in his September 2009 issue of BIGFOOT TIMES: "M.K. Davis, sorry to say, has already lost all credibility and now David Paulides isn't very far behind." Then Perez quotes John Green from a September 5th statement: "Can you believe that Paulides could actually have been involved in criminal investigations with serious consequences? The mind boggles. I don't understand these people, but I don't think it's likely Paulides will now be taken seriously by legitimate researchers."

And then a reader of our blog, asking for total anonymity, sent us the following statement:
"I'm guessing Paulides hates or is hated by a lot of people. His writing and research are awful and he's got incredibly thin skin, even for the Bigfoot community. It's scary to think this guy was a cop. I wouldn't trust him to investigate my missing newspaper."

Dave, if you've gone and shot yourself in the foot, you shouldn't blame it on others.

Images: Both from the 2007 Willow Creek PGF Celebration, by Steven Streufert. Above, the Bigfoot swag table including Roger Patterson's book and bust of Bigfoot statues (one of these is now in our possession!); Below, Bigfoot footprint tracks provided by Cliff Barackman, including some of the PGF Patty.

Be sure to check out NABS/Dave's "Blog #67 Professional Investigations" found by scrolling down on the NABS BLOG page. Here, among other things, Dave finally admits (after many earlier claims) that he was not the first to utilize affidavits in Bigfoot research. Nope, it was John Green. Here Dave makes the most hypocritical statement we can imagine. Talking about OTHER researchers he ends up simply describing himself: "...the world of Bigfoot is one of the most dysfunctional arenas in any spectrum imaginable. It’s a place where many can’t work together, most don’t have friends, a majority of research “groups” are a group of one and almost all have an ego the size of Texas." Mr. Paulides, if you want us to believe you, stop being so secretive, so combative, so arrogant, so presumptuous and... show us these "Experts" already? Who ARE they? Are they even there? What are their credentials? Is NABS really just Paulides and Pratt with some financial backers and a lot of hot air, or can we really believe in the credibility of your evidence and methodology? It is hard to believe in its value if it is hidden behind what seems like the smoke, mirrors and stage curtains normally used by magicians and charlatans and snake oil salesmen. Come out into the open Dave, share the world with other researchers and thinkers in the field, don't be something like a paranoid recluse. But you're going to have to play nice....

What follows is the discourse from after our own fiasco with Dave, with data following that was originally meant to be published as a brief interchange here on this blog, with our open letter to Paulides, and pieces of our discussion that we can publish--our own words and synopsis of his--without asking his permission.

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

AN OPEN LETTER TO DAVE PAULIDES OF NABS:

13 November 2009

Willow Creek, CA  (Revised slightly Dec. 23, 2009)

Dave,

I wish you would not be so angry. About what? I did not forward your mail to Daniel. I simply asked him a question you had raised about the mailing/sending of the PGF. This is NORMAL in an inquiry, to ask questions, to debate and mutually consider evidence.

I cannot help it if you and Daniel Perez are enemies. I do not deserve to be treated the way you are treating me, simply because I interviewed him. Your reaction is really rather extreme, and if you asked me, unworthy of a researcher and author of the stature you want to be.

If you would take a step back from your knee-jerk emotional reaction you would see that I never took sides between the two of you, and simply asked both of you about your ideas and opinions. I had no obligation to defend your work after Perez’ comments, but if you’d look you would see that I DID defend you in the interview. I am not responsible for Daniel’s views. I gave you the right of rebuttal, which you refused, to your own detriment, I think.

If you asked me, I would say that your attitude does NOT further the cause, nor does it make you look good in the bigfooting community. We are all in this endeavor together, and trying to be secretive, combative, alienating others, displaying arrogance, and not being open with research results surely will not help us find Bigfoot and the truth any time sooner.

Here is an option, one I consider much more amenable and mature:
We should just drop the anger and the argument, carry on like before with the things we do.

Look:
* I never acted as a "spy" for Perez.
* I never tried to set you up or betray you.
* I never sought to take sides with you or him.
* I acted in good faith in wanting to know what you and he think.

So far in my interviews I have chosen subjects I am in touch with. I bought a bunch of books from Buhs, so I asked if I could interview him. You and Daniel both were writing to me so I figured it would be cool to interview both of you. MK Davis and Bobbie Short both commented on my blog, so I figured I'd interview them. I am talking to Matt Moneymaker lately a bit, and have asked him, too. There is NO CONSPIRACY in these matters, save my own intellectual curiosity and desire to get to the bottom of things, to the truth. You should not take offense to that.

This:
The only thing I really ever said to Perez about you was that I thought the "massacre" theory was kind of crazy, back when MK was spreading it around; and I asked him why he thought you'd gotten involved with it. I admit, I was and am truly puzzled about that; but you would not answer those kind of questions. If you close doors then I am forced to inquire with other researchers, books, or internet sites. Do you want to have your say or not? Other than that I didn't go divulging private words to him. You asked about his sources on an issue, and I asked him about them. Where's the crime, Dave?

I mean you no harm. I do not want to be your enemy. I'm glad you're out there doing your research, and am open-minded to all your other ideas and theories. I enjoyed your books. I promote(d) them and your organization every chance I have (had). I have been ON YOUR SIDE all along, in these regards.

I believe:
You have misunderstood me, and reacted to something that was not even a problem at all, save in your own mind.
To see threats that are not there, to act out against them, this is what is called "paranoia."

If I have done you any harm tell me what I've done and I will apologize if it was really wrong.
Really.
Don't make more out of this than is there.
I sent an email to Daniel to ask him about the Murray Field issue, no more.
I DID say in there that I agreed with him that there is a basic PGF timeline that makes sense, and that if you remove certain inconsistently remembered or reported things then it is more clear. I DID NOT MALIGN YOU TO HIM. What exactly do you think I said that was a slight against you? Or are you imagining what I MIGHT have said? Is your imagination running away with you? Well, I didn't say it.

Yes, OK, this is just my opinion. I do not think that they took the Bald Hills route. That is not to say anything bad about YOU. Can we not disagree about certain things??? To discuss ideas and conduct a serious study of anything requires that we not take things personally.

Really, I am not trying to take sides on this just to get web hits, as you imply. Why would I need web hits? I don't make a cent on doing this, you know. What I really want to know is: WHAT IS THE TRUTH? The truth about the PGF timeline. THAT is what I care about. YES, I have read the Green-Gimlin interview you mention, a number of times. I agree, there are problems with the time statements Bob makes. I am VERY CURIOUS as to why so many differing statements were made by various people. But that DOESN'T mean that P. and G. or Al Hodgson were... LIARS!

Read this one, then, yourself: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm
by Christopher Murphy

I have another email where I have compiled all of this stuff [ed. note--see this below] I've been noting about the timeline, which I am going to send to you. In there I am making honest analysis and questioning things. I do sincerely hope that you will read it. This is some kind of toxic issue. Every time I try to talk about it a whole lot of people get pissed off to high heaven.

I do NOT sit around with Daniel Perez joking about you. BELIEVE me, OK? I do not want to alienate you. That is absolutely NOT my intention. In my opinion I have done you NO wrong, okay? Please tell me, why are you so angry at ME? I think you are getting angry where no anger is due. I am NOT backstabbing you.

If I have done some actual harm, please: PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. At least try to make sense.

Best,
Steve, Bigfoot Books
*********************************************

What follows is an interchange that was going on right before Paulides “banned” us from his sacred presence. We have taken out Dave’s actual words, as he does not want us to publish them. We have, instead, given a brief paraphrase of them for context only. His statements are summarized under “YOU” below. Make of this what you will--it is a fragment of a sadly aborted discourse, and we hate to just waste the material. Our words are in capitals, only because we wanted to intersperse our words into his email as a mode of reply--we DON’T mean to be yelling by using this mode, we just don't want to retype it and remove it from its original context.

Image: The winding, often confused road Bigfooting usually takes. A sign on Bigfoot Towing, in Happy Camp, CA.

*********************************************
Dave: Here is what I have to say about what you said about the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film and Timeline, in your first email, before you became enraged, interspersed in CAPITALS:

BIGFOOT BOOKS: DAVE, THERE IS ILLOGIC, INCONSISTENCY, AND INCOMPLETE CONSIDERATION IN MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAY IN YOUR EMAIL.

YOU: Dave too literally assumes that we have to believe Gimlin or not, totally missing that there is ambiguity in memory, and he may not have paid ultra-close attention to ALL details of that day. Questions Perez sources, which is what we asked Daniel about. Questions issue of bringing film to airport.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: ALL GIMLIN IS SAYING, IN MY VIEW, IS THAT THEY WENT TO TOWN TO *DELIVER* THE FILM. TO SAY "MAIL" COULD EASILY MEAN, "PUT IT ON A PLANE." ESPECIALLY AS HE SAYS HE DOESN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE THEY WENT. YOU CAN'T BE TOO LITERAL OR NITPICKY IN INTERPRETING ORAL STORIES. IT IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE, HOWEVER MANY AFFIDAVITS YOU GET SIGNED. YOU KNOW WELL, WITNESS REPORTS DIFFER WIDELY.

YOU: Dave questions how P. and G. could have gotten casts, etc. when it was raining so hard that night. Totally not getting that it only rained later, in the early morning. Dave seems not to have really absorbed the primary sources on these matters.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: THEY HAD GOTTEN THE CASTS OUT, TWO OF THEM, THAT AFTERNOON. GIMLIN COVERED UP THE PRINTS BEFORE THE RAIN GOT THAT HARD. IT WAS A DELUGE AS HE RETURNED TO CAMP, SPRINKLING OR JUST STARTING TO RAIN AS HE LEFT, AS ROGER CONTINUED TO SLEEP. THE RAIN CAN CAUSE MUDSLIDES ON BLUFF CREEK ROADS, ESPECIALLY THE MUD ONES, WITHOUT EVEN BEING THAT BAD. THE ROAD CAN HAVE PROBLEMS WHILE THE FILM SITE SANDBAR DOES NOT, SEE? THE CREEK WOULD HAVE STAYED IN ITS BANKS IN A NORMAL RAIN, ONLY A REAL 100-YEAR TYPE FLOOD WOULD INUNDATE THE ENTIRE SANDBAR.

YOU: Dave thinks it unbelievable that Gimlin went back to the film site (2- 2.5 miles on a dirt logging road with the sun beginning to lighten the sky) that night, in the rain, and that he should have been too afraid to do it with Bigfoots running around. (We think Bob was tougher than that, for sure.)

BIGFOOT BOOKS: HE DIDN'T WALK, HE RODE THE HORSE. AND THAT 2 MILES OR SO WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER WITH THE WELL-LEVELED LOGGING ROAD THERE AT THE TIME. HE HAD THE CASTS ALREADY. THE ONES YOU KNOW OF, THE TEN, WERE CAST BY BOB TITMUS, 9-10 DAYS LATER. BECAUSE BOB HAD COVERED THEM UP WITH TREE BARK THEY STILL HELD FORM TO BE CAST LATER. AND RE. THE THREAT OF "BIPEDS," WELL, MAYBE HE FIGURED SHE OR THEY HAD LEFT THE AREA. AND FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN AND HEARD OF GIMLIN... YES, HE DOES INDEED HAVE NERVES OF STEEL. HE'S A TOUGH GUY, AND BRAVE, AND NOT A LIAR, EITHER.

YOU: Dave thinks they were at Hodgson’s between 8:00 or 9:00, when they were there around 6:15; chooses to believe the Hodgson version of the story of them coming by after sending off the film, even though that is absolutely impossible within the given time frame, even that given by Al himself (Al says they came by earlier, a little after 6:00) and is contradicted by Gimlin’s own account. Dave also believes in the Bald Hills Route story, by the way, even though that is even more impossible.

Image: The great Al Hodgson, still alive and kickin', presents in front of Patty at the 2007 Willow Creek PGF Anniversary gathering. Photo by Steven Streufert.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: NO, AS THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THEY COULD HAVE MADE IT TO *ANY* POST OFFICE BEFORE CLOSING TIME, AND THE WILLOW CREEK POST WOULD HAVE BEEN JUST AS GOOD. THE *ONLY* REASON TO GO TO EUREKA WAS FOR A SPECIAL AIR DELIVERY FROM THE AIRPORT OR WHATEVER COURIER WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR OFF-HOURS SERVICE. SEE? NO REASON TO GO TO THE EKA POST OFFICE. NO RUSH TO GET THERE BEFORE GOING TO AL'S IF ROGER KNEW OF A WAY TO HAVE IT SENT BY PRIVATE PLANE OR AIR COURIER SERVICE. WHICH STORY DO YOU WANT? DID THEY GO TO THE POST OFFICE OR NOT? DID THEY MAKE IT TO AL'S SHORTLY AFTER THE 6:00 HOUR OR NOT? WHATEVER HOUR, THE POST OFFICES WERE CLOSED, AND THEY COULD NOT HAVE EVEN MADE IT TO THE LOCAL WCK ONE ON TIME. SO WHY EVEN MENTION 9:00??? IT IS AN OBVIOUS MIS-STATEMENT. AL SAYS SIX OR SO--DO YOU BELIEVE HIM OR NOT??? IF YOU BELIEVE HIM THEN THEY WENT RIGHT TO HIS STORE.

YOU: Dave says, after believing absolutely self-contradictory things, that this somehow proves that the film was taken on another day. This is not logically consistent, however. And that it rained later has nothing really to do with anything. But as Dave can’t get the facts straight he comes up with an even more implausible and non-parsimonious theory of what happened. The timeline is NOT impossible, we argue, if you take out the obviously incorrect statements.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: RE. THE 8 0R 9:00 TIME, WELL, MAYBE BOB JUST MADE A WRONG ESTIMATE OF THAT, AS IT ONLY WOULD TAKE ABOUT TWO HOURS FROM THE FILM SITE TO WILLOW CREEK, HENCE A 6:00 ARRIVAL PLUS OR MINUS MAKES COMPLETE SENSE, AND AGREES WITH AL HODGSON'S STATEMENTS. GOING TO THE AIRPORT OR WHEREVER AFTER THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE, TOO. RULE OUT BALD HILLS, RULE OUT EUREKA FIRST, AND LO, IT ALL ADS UP PERFECTLY. DANIEL PEREZ HAS DISPROVED THE SHOWER STORY--THEY MAY HAVE STOPPED THERE THE DAY AFTER, ON THE WAY HOME, APPARENTLY, BUT NOT THE SAME DAY.

Image: Willow Creek Museum's Bigfoot Collection exhibit of some Bigfoot history, this one covering the 1958 Jerry Crew track finds from Bluff Creek.

YOU: Dave argues that we gave Daniel the softball treatment in our interview. Au contraire! That we should have been defending HIS Hoopa Project and Tribal Bigfoot, as if that were our obligation somehow, as if that had much of anything to do with the fact that Daniel was just expressing HIS opinion. He then denigrates and questions Daniel’s investigative talents.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: SORRY, BUT WHAT AMMO NOW DID YOU GIVE ME? BEFORE THE INTERVIEW WITH DANIEL? HARDLY ANYTHING. WE BARELY TALKED ABOUT ANY OF THIS, AND THE THINGS YOU SENT TO ME WERE *AFTER* THE INTERVIEW WAS COMPLETED. BESIDES, IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DEFEND YOUR BOOK, IN AN INTERVIEW WITH A RIVAL RESEARCHER, BUT RATHER JUST TO ASK THE INTERVIEWED SUBJECT WHAT HE/SHE MAY THINK. IT IS YOUR JOB TO DEFEND YOUR OWN POSITION, AND I HAVE FREELY OFFERED THIS TO YOU. YOU SEEM ADAMANT TO REJECT THAT BASED UPON SOME FALSE PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT MY MOTIVES. YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG.

DAVE,  I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE IT, BUT THERE ARE A CLEAR MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE BIGFOOTING WORLD WHO HAVE FOUND REASON NOT TO LIKE YOU OR TO RESPECT YOUR RESEARCH. I MEAN, LIKE THE IMPRESSION YOU MADE IN FELTON THIS YEAR--JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE--A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE FELT GRAVELY INSULTED BY YOUR STATEMENTS, INCLUDING THE ORGANIZER, MICHAEL RUGG. I WASN'T THERE, SO I CAN'T REALLY COMMENT COMPLETELY; HOWEVER, I WISH YOU KNEW HOW DAMN MANY TIMES I'VE DEFENDED YOU AND YOUR WORK FROM CRITICISMS. ALMOST UNIFORMLY BIGFOOTERS HAVE TOLD ME BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU, THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE YOUR ATTITUDE, OR FOUND YOUR WORK LACKING IN SOME REGARD. I, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU DID GOOD WORK AND SEEMED LIKE A GOOD GUY. I HAVE BEEN ALMOST ALONE IN DOING SO, AND HAVE HAD TO DO SO IN ALMOST EVERY CASE YOUR NAME HAS COME UP. BUT LOOK, I AM NOT AGAINST YOU. I WOULD CONTINUE TO DEFEND YOU, SAVE IN THE CASE THAT YOU TAKE A BAD ATTITUDE IN RESPONDING TO ME, IF YOU LEAVE THE NASTY THINGS YOU JUST SAID ABOUT ME, OR IMPLIED, STANDING AS THEY ARE. IF THAT IS THE KIND OF PERSON YOU ARE THEN I WOULD BE FORCED TO ADMIT IT AND AGREE WITH ALL THE OTHERS. I SINCERELY *HOPE* THAT IS *NOT* THE CASE, DAVE.

BEST,

STEVE, BIGFOOT BOOKS

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

OK FOLKS, MAKE OF THE ABOVE RELATIONS AND FRAGMENTS WHAT YOU WILL.

Think of Mr. Paulides as you like--these are just our own current views and experiences. We exercise our First Amendment right to FREE SPEECH in doing so, but in no way wish to claim that you should believe as we do. We are open to a change in attitude in Dave, but somehow feel we should not expect it. We do hope that solipsism and egotism don't cloud his mind forever, and he can get on with the more serious topics wherein he may just contribute something worthy to the field of Bigfoot research. Hoopa Project and Tribal Bigfoot were pretty darn fascinating books. Let's hope he does come around!

Image: The Heat Miser is all fired-up over this! From "The Year Without a Santa Claus," another fine Rankin/Bass stop-motion Christmas treasure.

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

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS:

Me hibernate!!! Get out my cave, hu-man! Me break scrawny hu-man neck. ZZZZ. GRRR. ZZZZ.

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

All words in this blog entry are just the opinons of Bigfoot Books. DISCLAIMER: You might want to investigate the issues and form your own opinions before coming to any conclusions about the subject matter discussed. These are just our personal experiences and views, and are in no way meant to be construed as absolute statements of fact and truth.
Copyright 2009, Bigfoot Books Intergalactic.

Image: One of Shipton's 1950s Yeti snow prints.

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