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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 The good news in all of this is that we have a tremendous amount of unpublished and quite fascinating material coming up for you, and soon, we hope.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

"There can only be one Film Site."

--Robert Leiterman

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

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

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

*******

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

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

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

The Crucial Transitional
Guidebook, by Daniel Perez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louse Camp, on Bluff and Notice Creeks

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

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

PART ONE: LOUSE CAMP TO THE BLUFF CREEK BRIDGE

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

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

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

Bluff Creek Bridge, up 1 mile from Louse Camp

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

Wasson's source:
Rene Dahinden!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning sign of things to come on 12N13H.

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

Once a rock slide, always a rock slide.

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

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

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

Leiterman considers the impact of
man upon nature and geology.

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

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

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

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

SITE ONE: THE PETER BYRNE SITE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SITE TWO: THE CHRISTOPHER MURPHY SITE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leiterman, from his upcoming video release on our trip.

10-29-2010

Daniel,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONVERSATIONS WITH BIGFOOT, Update. The Final Word on the Matter from Its Author, JIM DODGE: It's Fiction.

BIGFOOT'S BLOG: MID-APRIL 2011 EDITION

Last year we started hearing whispered rumors through the Bigfooting grapevine that some folks believed that the story told in the short piece published under the title, Conversations with Bigfoot, was a true story. We looked into the matter after reading the tale, feeling that it could not possibly be a depiction of a real event and encounter. What we found, by way of a little Sherlockian investigation, was that the tale had first appeared in a "street-sheet" published in Humboldt County. One bookseller had listed online the booklet reprint published later, under the authorial name of Jim Dodge, not the ostensible author, one "Gordon Langley Ives." We contacted this seller, and found that they knew the publisher who had reprinted the tale at a later date. This publisher confirmed to us that the author was indeed the well-known novelist, essayist and poet, Jim Dodge. The story purports to have taken place in 1975, a time-frame that also corresponds with the time that Jim Dodge was attending Humboldt State University, and was active in the underground poetry and publishing scene in Arcata. These days, after many years down in the Mendocino area, Dodge is back at HSU teaching English. We contacted him, and he confirmed that yes, indeed, he had written the story, and that it was certainly a work of FICTION.

Still, we found, despite what we thought was a thorough debunking of the tale's "non-fiction" status, that some folks persisted in holding that the story was REAL. Too much was "right on" about it, they said. Or even, they said, "too much was revealed" by the story, things about the Bigfoot People that Native elders and others believed should never have been released to the general  public. This implied some kind of secret knowledge, an esoteric realm of not only sightings and knowledge of Bigfoot, but actual interactions, conversations [in English!], and even spiritual teachings received directly from the Bigfoot by humans. Think whatever you like about these possibilities, which may, after all, be true; we thought it an important matter to establish whether this particular story was in any way "real." Despite our debunking of the "true story" assumption, some continued to hold out, now saying that there was perhaps even a "cover-up" to state that it was fiction, when it was in fact real, or even that the author had "received" this true information subconsciously, without knowing it was indeed real and true. This seemed to us to go too far, so we contacted Mr. Dodge again via email. What follows is his eloquent response closing the case for good (we hope), which also stands as a fine defense of individual imaginative freedom and common sense objectivism in a world where, all too often, "anything goes" in the realms of "reality." Read it below....

Read the text of the booklet. You will find many, many indications that the story could not be true, simply from textual analysis. This is covered in our previous blog entires, listed below. Suffice it to say, there IS NO Gordon Langley Ives. We searched everywhere one might think to find mention of a professional, Ph.D.-holding Ornithologist, and found no mention of him nor any published works or teaching positions held by him. He does not exist. The author was a novelist, Jim Dodge, who made the whole thing up with no prior encounters with philosophizing Bigfoot Beings.

See our previous blog entries for the full background information on this, and if you'd like, find the full text of the copyright-free booklet, Conversations with Bigfoot, a fictional work by Jim Dodge.

RELATED LINKS:

CONVERSATIONS WITH BIGFOOT: A HOAX?

The above link contains the first information, plus the text of the booklet.

UPDATE ON CONVERSATIONS WITH BIGFOOT

This link contains our follow-up information, with Jim Dodge's reply.

Also, find below our brief words on the latest controversy over the book, ENOCH: A BIGFOOT STORY. We provide links to Autumn Williams' fine clarifications of the differences between Fiction and Non-Fiction, as well as her debunking of the latest gossip-mongering rumors.

*******

CONVERSATIONS WITH JIM DODGE, AND SOME BIGFOOTERS

JIM DODGE is the author of several books of fiction, some fine poetry, and a book of ecological essays. He teaches Writing and Literature at Humboldt State University, in Arcata, California. He is a long-term resident of Northern California, and an eloquent voice for its land and beauty, and the humorous things humans do to live within it.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Hello Mr. Dodge, Remember me?

Anyway, I thought you'd be interested in the kind of things people are saying about your little piece about Bigfoot. Now they are implying that you are covering up the true origins of the story, that you MUST have had a Bigfoot contact, as the "information" in the story is "too accurate" to be fiction.

Also, if you care to comment further, I'd really appreciate hearing that perspective from you, however briefly or long-windedly, perhaps for publication on my blog. 

Best, Steve Bigfoot Books 

Dodge, back in the "FUP" days.

***

JIM DODGE: Dear Steven, As usual, pardon the tardy reply, but this was one of those instances where I had to do some heavy consideration about whether I even wanted to make the attempt to set the record straight given that approach had already failed. When the truth is taken as some sort of cunning dissembling or strategic cover, in my experience you've entered that realm where accuracy has no privilege, integrity seems to subvert honor, and honesty can be easily perceived as mockery, so it really doesn't matter what you say: people will hear what they're disposed to hear and believe what they want or need. However, I feel impelled to reiterate, no doubt as some romantic gesture to those days of yore when truth was an honorable defense, that my booklet "Conversations with Bigfoot" is entirely and wholly and without exception a work of fiction, a pure product of imagination, and that I have never sensed or seen, much less actually conversed with, a Bigfoot/Sasquatch, nor did anyone or anything in any way contribute to the creation of "Conversations with Bigfoot." 

However, because it annoys me that more than a few commentators whose remarks you forwarded indicated (to quote one) "that no one should have released this to the public [because] it had details that should have been kept secret about the 'foots'" I would like to know whose permission is required before I can publish what I know is a work of fiction? Is there some enlightened council of supreme moralists that decides what should be released to those obviously inferior beings who comprise the public, for whom accurate information is dangerous? I'd also be obliged to know how they justify the imposition of such "prior restraint" as something other than the crudest form of censorship, and who gave them the authority to exercise such powers? Also, I'd love to know if those powers are self-assumed/self-appointed, or if they are awarded by some governing body. I trust they appreciate my difficulty in seeking their approval, or even some guidance, before publishing "Conversations with Bigfoot", when I had no idea such a group existed, much less an address or phone number where I might secure it's permission or at least argue my worthiness to publish. 

For the many commentators who found it inconceivable that an old cracker-ass white writer, no doubt severely dain-bramaged from decades of drug-abuse back in his wildly misspent youth, could possibly make-up a conversation with an allegedly mythic creature that contained ". . .way too much accurate information to be made up" or "the information in this article is more than 110%" (of what exactly isn't clear), allow me, who has made up enough stuff to fill four books and a couple of filing cabinets, to offer an explanation. Kenneth Rexroth, one of the more astute literary commentators of the 20th Century, called the imagination "the organ of communion." According to the psychologist Carl Jung, the human psyche is composed of four elements, all in dynamic interaction and constant change: the sensational (the body and all its sensory information); the intellectual (knowledge and learning); the heart (the realm of emotion); and the soul, or personal spirit, which, like the other three, is embodied energy. At the nexus of these four elements, or "centers," as Jung also designated them, when they are properly balanced/focused/directed, a fifth element, the imagination, assumes enough power to become effective. The particular power of the imagination is to empathize and understand, to enfold and become the other, to voluntarily incarnate that which isn't you, and the more you can relinquish of the self, of ego-demands and attachments, the more you can make yourself available to the other, and to the world. It helps immensely if you can draw energy from what Jung called the "collective unconscious," which are psychic energy forms that humans have in common (and some other creatures), since they are based on "the ceremonies of existence," events--whatever our cultures--that we all share, and all pay considerable attention: like birth, rearing the young, coming of age, courtship, sex, marriage, securing food and shelter, making journeys, gathering and passing along knowledge, and eventually aging and death. Why would it be so far-fetch that a well trained imagination could conjure a Bigfoot and capture a bit of his or her social concerns, particularly when they're likely not that different from other bi-pedal mammals. The reverse is also likely: a Bigfoot imagining a human being. Once contact is made, communion can flow in either direction. And given communion, is conversation so farfetched? 

 Truly, Jim

***

JUST TO BE CLEAR, Here Is the First Exchange, with Our First Questions, and Jim Dodge's First Email to Bigfoot Books on the Subject:

BIGFOOT BOOKS:  Hello Mr. Dodge, I hope you are receiving email at this address.

I am Steven Streufert, former HSU student and current owner of Bigfoot

Books in Willow Creek. I'm also a blogger on Bigfoot topics.

What I really would like to ask you is: Are you the author of the

booklet, "Conversations with Bigfoot"? I would sincerely like to know,

not only as a Bigfooter, but also as someone who has appreciated your

writings in the past, and who still plans to finally get around to

reading "Stone Junction."

I spoke with a bookseller who knows Michael Sykes, Floating Island

publisher, and he has said that you in fact wrote this book.

There are some in the Bigfoot world who are claiming this is a real and

true account of an actual meeting with "Bigfoot." They are using this to

advance their theories that these creatures are not only human-like (or

in fact human), but also capable of language use and higher forms of

civilization. My impression of the work is that it is a literary work,

part lark, part philosophical allegory, part elegy to Nature, and part a

satire of the whole "hoax" idiom concerning Bigfoot in the media and

popular culture.

Could you clear this issue up, both for my readers and your own?

Also, there is someone who wants me to ask, Have you ever witnessed

these Bigfoot creatures, or does this story come from an actual account

you may have heard from someone you knew in the area?

Your attention to this ASAP would be greatly appreciated! I'm working on

a blog entry on this publication right now.

I'd love to ask you, too, some questions about Thomas Pynchon; but I

understand you're probably keeping mum on that issue. I've been thinking

of writing a blog entry on Pynchon as "Cryptid Author." That would be

fun, not only because of his elusiveness, but also due to his current

Bigfoot Bjornsen character and other Yeti/Sasquatch references in his

works (not to mention the Humboldt County connection!).

Thanks! Best regards to you,

Steve, Bigfoot Books 

***

Dodge, more in a STONE JUNCTION mood.

JIM DODGE: Dear Steven,

Pardon my hideously tardy response but two things conspired against my usual alacrity: your message came to my HSU machine after the semester ended, and at a time when I was having some odd medical issues. . .odd enough, anyway, that they commanded my attention.

I'm stunned, flabbergasted, and incredulous that anyone--in any world, much less the "Bigfoot world"--would claim this piece I wrote on Bigfoot years ago (originally for a free street-sheet I was doing at the time, along with Jerry Martien, Mort McDonald, and other co-conspirators, called UNJUSTIFIED MARGINS) could take it as a "real and true" account.  They are, at best, poor scholars, as even rudimentary research into the various claims made by the purported author couldn't survive minimal fact-checking; at worst, they are guilty of a willfully deliberate ignorance, as dangerous to good faith as it is damaging to those, like me, who enjoy using the imagination to illuminate reality.

"Conversations with Bigfoot," as you accurately discerned, was a literary lark, a bit of an elegy for nature, and a little tweak directed at

media and American culture.  As to your passed-along question: In my 50 years of roaming the Northern California back country I have never seen a Bigfoot creature, no sign of one (scat, footprints, hair), nor met anyone who has--granted you don't meet many folks out in the wilds.

That doesn't mean I dismiss the possibility that a Bigfoot might exist, but just that I'm one of those flinty old-school realists who only believes half of what I see and nothing of what I hear without reliable verification from a few trusted informants.

I hope this unequivocally clears up all questions of fact regarding "Conversations with Bigfoot" for your readers.  Again, my apologies for the tardy response.

Truly,

Jim Dodge

***

BOOKS BY MR. JIM DODGE, along the left hand margin. Click caption for more information on the Amazon site.

FUP

***

Sample Dialogue from the CONVERSATIONS WITH BIGFOOT discussion on Facebook, identity and words of interlocutors removed:

Steven Streufert: I would suggest you first go to my blog and drop the book title into the search box: http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/. The book/story is fictional, a literary hoax if you like. I talked with the author and publisher.
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/conversations-with-bigfoot-hoax-plus.html

  Anonymous: I am very interested when you talked to the author and why he say's it is fictional??? There are some things that are written in that article only someone with knowledge of them would say anything like this. I investigated this article and determined somethings about the author. This article has also been show to some people that know about the "foots' very well and ....well were amazed that people are calling it a hoax. Interested to hear what you found out. All respect intended.

NOT FADE AWAY

Steven Streufert: I've posted the links. I'd be very curious to hear what you found out about the author and this booklet. I have gotten to the bottom of it, I believe, unless they are now trying to hoax me by claiming it is fake. I'd be very interested in hearing REAL stories like this!

TO PRESERVE PRIVACY, FROM THIS POINT WE HAVE EDITED OUT ALL OTHER PRIVATE WORDS SAVE OUR OWN:

Steven Streufert: I hold no judgment toward anyone claiming these kinds of encounters with and things about the Bigfoot. Rather, I am only saying that this particular case is fiction, and was meant to be so. I am VERY curious about the experiences people have with these beings, and am VERY open-minded about them. I do not think of Sasquatch as a "monster" as in the movies, or just a "mere ape" as in so many common views today. If they are a form of human that would mean they are the most important thing going on for us now currently on the planet. So, that is very interesting, indeed. I'd love to talk to you, A___, P___ or anyone about all of this. It would be great if this page [a private group on Facebook] could be a forum for discussing what all of our experiences are and have been. So many are so private about this stuff that it is often kind of frustrating to not be able to hear the full stories. Hence, knowledge and understanding can thereby suffer.

STONE JUNCTION

I am all about seeing the world AS IT IS, and to me that means a world alive, mysterious, strange, beyond our current conceptions.
Best to you, Steve

Steven Streufert: T___, that is fascinating. However, I know of the author well enough, as he lives here in Humboldt, and as I know a lot of folks who know him better than I do, and as I know his other writings to a certain extent... and he is definitely telling the truth. He wrote the book as fiction, made it up completely. Unless, of course, you think he received it via psychic channeling, and wrote it totally unknowing that he was getting it from a Bigfoot. It is fiction, but if it strikes you powerfully that is nothing more than a good book, poem, or movie will do. If it is accurate it is only through the imaginative process thinking what a sentient, intelligent Bigfoot MIGHT be like.

RAIN ON THE RIVER

Steven Streufert: What do you mean, "something come to him about it and put it right on the money"? No, I say, he simply made it up, and told me the truth about it when talking to me about it. I do not doubt him for a second when he says he has NEVER had ANY contact with a BF. Not only him, but everyone else involved from that long-ago time when it was first published has said that the thing was fictional, published in a literary journal. It was simply a made up story. Like Dances with Wolves, the film, as an example: It is NOT a true story, but it contains some true stuff about Native American culture. The thing is, the film makers and novelist who wrote the movie could do RESEARCH on the subject. However, Jim Dodge did not do any BF research. He just imagined it, pure and simple.

Steven Streufert: Here is the author's full letter to me... http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/oregon-sasquatch-symposium-2010-day-one.html down a bit in this blog post. Read and you will see he has never seen Bigfoot nor heard reports of them. Also, I found zero, zilch, no evidence that Gordon Langley Ives ever existed. The author, Jim Dodge, lives around here, and I have met him personally.

Steven Streufert: However, having proved this a literary hoax with no basis in reality as far as its story, I DO NOT claim that these things are impossible. I have not experienced a Bigfoot speaking to me in English, but I've heard very convincing accounts of "habituation" and had odd experiences myself which incline me to say we should keep very open minds on this subject.

Steven Streufert: Yes, and those who scoff at it simply do not know what they are talking about. They have not experienced it, or faced a Bigfoot anywhere other than on TV, so who are they to speak?

T___, I am a former college Literature major. I do believe that literary works have value, and bear upon "real life" quite strongly, however fictional they are. They're based upon life, so they reflect it and are part of it. Jim Dodge, the author, has never met Bigfoot, and denies ever hearing reports of it. He has lived in rural Northern California for decades, and loves the outdoors, so I find it a little strange that he says he has never even heard of a Bigfoot report from a friend. I hear them ALL the time here in my shop in Willow Creek. The work is, however, wholly fictional, according to him. It may just be that he imagined Bigfoot correctly by figuring what it MIGHT be like were he to meet one.

Steven Streufert: Why would you feel anything "harsh," T___? I am not scoffing at the possibilities, but only pointing out what I know absolutely to be the facts about this story.

Steven Streufert Well, he clearly declares that he is a Bigfoot skeptic, has never seen one or heard reports of them, and that he wrote the book out of his imagination. His imagination of Bigfoot may have been correct, or not; but the book is fictional, made up, a story. That is all there is to it, though of course, just like with poetry, one may take meaning and inspiration from it nonetheless. Literature is an expression of the human response to reality, and so embodies both us and It.

Yes, there is more to reality and the universe than is known or dreamt of in our philosophies.

Steven Streufert I hold no judgment toward anyone claiming these kinds of encounters with and things about the Bigfoot. Rather, I am only saying that this particular case is fiction, and was meant to be so. I am VERY curious about the experiences people have with these beings, and am VERY open-minded about them. I do not think of Sasquatch as a "monster" as in the movies, or just a "mere ape" as in so many common views today. If they are a form of human that would mean they are the most important thing going on for us now currently on the planet. So, that is very interesting, indeed. I'd love to talk to you, A___, P___, or anyone about all of this. It would be great if this page could be a forum for discussing what all of our experiences are and have been. So many are so private about this stuff that it is often kind of frustrating to not be able to hear the full stories. Hence, knowledge and understanding can thereby suffer.

I am all about seeing the world AS IT IS, and to me that means a world alive, mysterious, strange, beyond our current conceptions.

***

Some other comments we made on the group site:

Steven Streufert

12:24pm Mar 17

A poem, say, may be true, in the sense that it depicts to us things we feel are real and right, and beautiful; however, in its origin, it may be wholly fictional, made up in the mind of the author. In this sense, we need to distinguish between what is objectively true and what is subjectively "True." To address what T___ said, I would argue that a "spiritual" or "mystical" experience is an INTERNAL one which nonetheless connects with reality. There is a sense wherein we experience illusion while looking "outward," but true reality when looking inward. It is odd, and contrary to "common sense," but the senses and the mind are only REPRESENTATIONS of reality. In Hindu-Buddhist thought this is the realm of Maya. The true nature of reality is beyond the "represented" realm.

Steven Streufert

12:13pm Mar 17

Is there a limit to human potential? The mystics say there really is not. However, what we have to go on is a natural logic based in our evolutionary past. In some ways this is an asset; in other ways it is a detriment to our greater understanding of true reality. There is a need for logic. My "common sense" told me there was something odd about "Conversations with Bigfoot." It appealed to me as an interesting book, a story with ideas; but I questioned its veracity. Investigating the situation, I found the real author, and he confessed to me that it was wholly fictional, and based in his imagination, not on a real experience. Hence, though the poetic and philosophical imagination may penetrate "true reality," this particular instance, and many other instances of it, are wholly imaginary or speculative.

Steven Streufert

12:33pm Mar 17

If one opens oneself too far to "possibilities" that is what is called "crazy." There needs to be some basic ground of reality we walk upon, and one that we share. Else all is chaos. Not everything everyone experiences is real or true. There are, indeed, actual states of delusion and misapprehension. Our minds are hard-wired to function within a certain reality, one that in the past enhanced our survival. This in turn influenced our evolution, as we gained new abilities. The ability to live in "abstract" reality, as apprehended by the mind (or "soul"), may indeed be part of the future of our species; in fact, it may be the most necessary next step for us if we are to survive. However, we must be careful as to how we proceed, and what we allow for as being real. The laws of Physics and the findings of Science are a good basis for this, and we should have faith in them as we go forward into the Unknown.

Steven Streufert

1:07pm Mar 17

I'd just like to ask: if a Bigfoot is a materially-based, physical creature, if Bigfoot leaves footprints and poops in the woods, leaves hair and other artifacts, then WHERE do all of those atoms go when it dematerializes [this ability was actually proposed, with a photo "showing" it happening]? Does its poop go with it into that other realm, and then come back again? What about the food it eats? Why would it need to eat if it is living in this incorporeal state? It just makes no sense to me at all. Sure, there could be "spirits," but these don't have living biological bodies, as proposed, and as logic would dictate.

Steven Streufert: Yes, C___s--that is why I advocate logic and at least a reference to Science, even as I argue that the world (universe, and all in it) is larger than any given current definition point of it. Even the yogis argue caution when dealing with the manifestations of the spiritual pursuit, as these "siddis," the oddities along the way, and the potential strange abilities of the mind (or body) are also just manifestations of relativity or "Maya." And we are ever prone to false apprehension, errors in judgment, and delusions of grandeur. A humble approach, one conservative with conclusions, is the most useful tool when exploring unknown and mysterious new things, or things deeper and older than our modern sense of reality. There will come a time, and soon, when that which we regard as "real" will be seen as primitive, limited, and silly, even though we now think of ourselves as at the pinnacle of understanding.

CASE CLOSED? WE HOPE SO!

***

Read another example of a Bigfoot story that may be fiction. This one is THE CREATURE, by Jan Klement (click link to read the whole book online). The existence of the author as claimed, or the real author behind the pseudonym, has never been verified. Hence, this story remains a curiosity. Could it be non-fiction? Who knows? But in any case, it is a fascinating read about human-Bigfoot interactions

***

In somewhat related news, Autumn Williams, on her OREGON BIGFOOT BLOG, clarifies the differences between Fiction and Non-Fiction, and shows how her book, ENOCH: A BIGFOOT STORY, is NOT Fiction. Read more here:

OREGON BIGFOOT BLOG: FICTION OR NON-FICTION?

Whether you believe the story told by Mike in the book, or not, that is not the question. The book is about a researcher and a witness, and the process both of them go through to establish trust and to understand not only Bigfoot, but each other. The book is non-fiction, regardless of whether the things told by Mike actually happened.

Also, just so you know, the recent BFRO Blue Forum post claiming that her Mike was the same "homeless bum" telling tall tales to Bigfoot researchers in Florida is spurious and false. Read HERE and HERE to find out that, yes, IT WAS NOT THE SAME MIKE. We're sure there are many fellows living in Florida with that same name. So far, no one on the BFRO Forum has come forth with any corroboration or verification beyond pure and simple rumor.

Loren Coleman has added a corrections/clarifications update to his original post on Cryptomundo. Read the whole fiasco here, with a grain of salt added before you assume any of it is true: BFRO QUESTIONS ENOCH. 

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

Me pissed, too, hu-man!

Me say case closed. Yep! Me know. It closed because this Dodge hu-man come out in woods and find my writing under rock where I hide it. He take it and publish it for hu-man to read. Me write! It just story to tell how me see hu-man, how hu-man just silly ape, and hu-man not know nothing. We Bigfoot know. You hu-man get every thing good about you from us, but you not have nice hair and big foot. You need house and car and clothes. We not need. We free,  you just live in cage in zoo called city.

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

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