PART TWO: M. K. DAVIS Interview and Discussion with BIGFOOT BOOKS

INTERVIEW BETWEEN M.K. DAVIS AND BIGFOOT BOOKS’ STEVEN STREUFERT, CONTINUATION AND... ABRUPT CONCLUSION.

NOTE: THIS IS PART TWO OF THE INTERVIEW. View PART ONE HERE first if you have not yet read it.

Bigfoot researcher and Patterson-Gimlin Film (PGF) expert, Marlon Keith Davis commented on our recent blog entry on the Port Orford Cedars in the Bluff Creek, CA area, and that contact has led to this interview. It was started November 10th and completed December 18th, 2009. It was done via email exchange. You'll find that the ending is a little abrupt, and I suppose the reasons are obvious. Oh well, despite this, MK has been an absolute gentleman the whole way through. Thanks for that, MK!

Images, most courtesy of MK Davis, from the Patterson-Gimlin film. To left above, what MK sees as the bangs of Patty; below, the topknot. CLICK TO ENLARGE and view all of these images independently.

NEWS: BIGFOOT'S BLOG APPEARED RECENTLY ON BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS.ORG, regarding the first part of our MK Davis Interview and Discussion. Check out this cool Happy Camp-centered blog, written by a very cool lady, Linda Martin. Bobbie Short, of BIGFOOT ENCOUNTERS also included us and a link again in her fine monly newsletter. You MUST sign up for it if you want to be in the know. Thanks you two!

NOTE: We are inviting comments and rebuttals to this and the previous MK Interview blog entries. Please feel free to CONTACT US by email, or COMMENT directly below this entry. But please, keep it free of slander and hate speech, OK? We'll perhaps be publishing this in the very near future if the responses are interesting enough.
********************************************************************************

AFTER THE THANKSGIVING BREAK M.K. DAVIS RESUMED ON THE ISSUE OF CULTURAL AND “HUMAN” FEATURES HE SEES IN THE FILM. Here it is: PART TWO....

MK DAVIS (continuing): I mentioned that the ear had been hidden by hair until the wind appeared to blow some of the hair out from over the ear and expose it to the camera for a frame or two. I was able to get a good look at the ear, but I was also able to get a good assessment of the level of hair coverage that it took to cover the ear. I was able to use filtration to boost the level of contrast on the film and reveal quite a bit about the hair. I could see that there was quite a bit of hair on the side of the head and that it was surprisingly long. Long enough to cover the ear and then some. With this same contrast boost, I could see that there appeared to be some type of rudimentary styling of the hair, i.e., that it appeared to be pulled back into a top knot of sorts and then flow down the back in bundle that looks a lot like a ponytail. Not a ponytail that has "all" the hair bound up, but one that has only a part of the head hair bundled back, leaving the side hair still flowing loosely. This arrangement became even more apparent when I was able to examine the transparencies made from the original film. The moving file "Topknotsidehairblowingsmaller" is a filtered file that shows the side hair moving in the wind. [Ed. Note: some of the files MK sent were animated, so we attempted screen captures which are postable on this blog and that hopefully reveal some of the details MK is talking about here.]

The [...] raw image and enhanced comparison shows the smaller ponytail arrangement. The file called "hair swing filtered" shows the moment that the hair blew away from over the ear, and exposed the ear to the camera. I know that your blog does not support animated files, but in order for your readers to appreciate what I'm talking about, they need to see them in motion. In the file "nohairheadhairaftertree2" [see screen capture] the hair arrangement can be seen. Most of the copies of the film are very low contrast, in other words, levels of color and tone, are difficult to discern, and the lines of demarcation between them are indistinct. The better images, however, allow much more to be seen and determined.

There is a rule of thumb, in astro-photography, that applies to this film very well. The rule is: "If you can improve the resolution of an image 1%, then you will likely see ten new things in the image." This has proven to be very true, when working with the Patterson film. When the quality of the raw image is at, or very near the original, then the data that it yields increases exponentially. If the subject has long head hair, as the film seems to indicate, then that is consistent with human, as there are no examples of simians possessing such hair. If that hair is pulled back into an arrangement, no matter how rudimentary, then that is an indication of culture, along with a host of other things as well. The film itself is good enough in its original form, to tell its own story, and does not need to be filtered through the testimony of others.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: And the hand print...?

MK DAVIS: The hand on the log in the famous frame 352 is very enigmatic indeed. It only becomes apparent as to what it is in the very best images from the film. It was this hand that drew my attention to the log in the first place; and when a proper insepection is done to the log and its surroundings, using the very best imagery, then some basic facts begin to emerge that could be used to explain the activity surrounding the log.

Images: MK points out these details: the moved log's former depression, next to this the presumed tire tracks.

First of all, upon examination, it became apparent that the log itself had been very recently moved from one position to another. In the film, behind the log, is the imprint of it, in the softer, wetter, and darker sand. It looked as if it had just been pushed or shoved out of its first position by something powerful. This was really an "eyebrow" raiser for me. I went back and searched through my archive of images and indeed, this imprint was found in many of the clearer images. When the ground behind the log was closely examined, to my surprise, there was what appeared to be the imprint of the tire of some large piece of equipment.  [See images]

I was puzzled about the presence of this impression and how the log appeared to have been moved, when the log is clearly too large for a human to move by himself, and probably a Sasquatch, too. I decided to look outside the film for some evidence or indication that some equipment had been actively present in the area, that might explain this. I am aware, from my visits to the film site, that this particular type of sand, holds impressions for a very long time. I knew that there were photos taken by later visitors to the area that might prove useful.
I found a very good wide angle photo of the area, taken from "above" the filmsite by climbing up the bluffs, overlooking the sand bar. This photo can be referenced in Chris Murphy's "Meet the Sasquatch," by Hancock House. In that aerial photo, taken at quite a later date, is the remains of that very same impression, with its full length being much more apparent from above.

Using filtration, I was able to boost the contrast enough to clearly delineate the impression. It meandered across the sand bar in a figure S crook and went straight into the log at exactly where I first noticed it in the Patterson film. Not only was that singular impression noticeable, but there were many more following the exact route, all ending on a rectangular shaped area of much darker sand. Since I was aware that the sand became much darker when it is moist, then this rectangular area was more moist than its surroundings. This was probably due, in my opinion, to different compaction characteristics of sand that has been disturbed.

So...here I had, in the Patterson film, a heavy log, with a hand print on it, that had been moved out of place by something leaving a track that was linear, and encompassed the majority of the sand bar as seen from above, and a rectangular area of uncompacted sand. Note: the photo from "Meet the Sasquatch" has a red rectangle on it to denote the position of Patterson. This is not the rectangle that I am referring to. It is the larger rectangle that is naturally on the sand bar. [See the Filmsite images to left.] This was when it first became obvious to me that equipment had been used at the site and from the looks of it, not too long, in time, from the filming.

Images: The PGF site as seen from the dirt access road just to the south. The color one was taken in 1971 by Rene Dahinden, so far as we know--Murphy credits it to him.

My first impressions, upon discovering the equipment tracks on the sand, were that some logging or mining operation might have been going on there, and that the hand print might actually be related to that activity. I was very surprised when Bob Gimlin told me that there was no way that any equipment could have gotten, or could be gotten, in there to the filmsite. He told me that the only way to get any kind of equipment in there would be to fly it in with a helicopter. This left me with a lot of facts about the filmsite that are unexplained, were that to be true. I was to find out later that this was not the case, and in fact, there were good roads in there, where large trucks and equipment could indeed be brought in to that sand bar at that time. A later examination of transparencies that contained that area in front of the log was to reveal the probable reasons for the hand print itself.

In most of the "copies" of the Patterson film, the sand bar itself has had its details washed out through the copying process, but with the transparencies that were taken from the original film, the subtle tones of the sandbar reveal the slightly divergent tones of a barefoot track in front of the log. There along with the barefoot track is what appears to be a paw print. My feelings right now are that the barefoot prints and the handprint may very well be connected. The hand print is either from a Sasquatch, or a person. If it is from a Sasquatch, it would be significant. If that turns out to be the case then what we are looking at on the log may be the hand outline of a Sasquatch. Another first for the Patterson film, but with more questions to answer at the same time. If the hand print is [from] a person, it is still significant, as to the level of activity that had been going on there preceding the film. Interesting...isn't it?

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Well, MK, I'm starting to feel a bit like Dr. Watson here. I can see you're Sherlocking on the trail of something here. Maybe I should just get out of the way and let you lay out the clues and their meanings for us? Or maybe I'd better question a few things...?

Let me first just kind of put the "human" issue to rest. I'd say that it is obvious that the Sasquatch is not really quite like us nor the apes. Surely, it is not as close to us as the Neanderthals were. I'm reading a novel now, BROTHER ESAU, about the capture of a Bigfoot-type creature, where one character says, "In a sense this... creature... that you keep... is a man. Or if not a man, a brother." I'd think that this kind of view would come closest to explaining, say, the Native American view of the entity. It is closer to us than the other animals; but then, all the other animals are kindred of a kind, each with a special spiritual force and relation to mankind. In that they are so like us in form and apparent intelligence, and in many ways better adapted, these beings take on a certain special meaning and relation. This, too, would do a lot to explain the mystery of the appeal of the Bigfoot to today's modern-cultured people.

Re. the topknot and all of that: I'm not too convinced yet. I see what you're talking about, but it seems to me that these things are just too fleeting and vague down below the true resolution of the film to be exactly determined. I'd think a braid and styled bangs would be more obvious throughout the film, too, not just in those few frames we've looked at here. And besides, even if those were aesthetic grooming, it would not prove that they are exactly human--there are many animals that show incredible ingenuity and creativity, even if it is instinctual. Think of the bower birds, for instance.

Images: above, US Forest Service map of the Bluff Creek and Lonesome Ridge area, film site right near the middle; below, the author of this blog investigates Bluff Creek just past the PGF site, photo gratefully borrowed from Mike Esordi--read the Believe It Tour blog..

In what you've said about the film site, I would agree about the roads. There were indeed logging roads, bulldozed dirt things, but accessible to a tractor at least, and one in particular right along the south and east bank of Bluff Creek. Parts of this old road are still slightly apparent even now right downstream from the film site. I don't know why Bob Gimlin would have said that to you, as I would swear he's mentioned the roads in interviews before on more than one occasion. Perhaps that was just his memory of the site? I'd doubt he'd lie about something like that. One can even see him riding with the horses up that road on the Patterson film reel, in brief scenic shots they took that day just before they saw the creature and filmed it. There were active logging and access road construction areas throughout the Bluff Creek area back then--one can even see the sawed off stumps of logged trees in the PGF, right behind Patty. I'm not sure what the issue is, though. MK, can you tell us?

It does seem clear from what you show that the film's famous frontal log was moved. But why? What if it was moved by whomever it was who was sawing trees to make those stumps you see in the background, and then hauling the logs away?

I've been on the film site many times. Even to this day there are damp areas and boggy little ponds up on the sand bar where the creek water and springs have caused saturation. That is exactly what those dark areas of gravel/sand appear to me to be. What are you thinking they are? And if that seeming hand print and foot and paw prints are what they seem, how can we presume they are connected in any way with the film of a Bigfoot? What does it mean, MK? Also, that rectangle you speak of is readily visible in the film site photos taken a few years later, but is it there in the original P-G Film itself?

Interesting? YES, you bet! Looking at the film this close-up is just amazing. Would that the whole world could have access to the highest quality version of this film! It would make such a huge difference in convincing people, wouldn't it? Not everyone has as much access to MK Davis' version as they do to The Discovery or History Channels or whatever.

Image: USGS Lonesome Ridge map, containing Bluff Creek. The PGF site is in grid 10, just below the long North-South line of creek below the word "BLUFF." CLICK TO ENLARGE.

MK DAVIS: I'd like to address the resolution issues here if I may. As you can see in some of the transparency images that I sent you, the resolution of those particular images are splendid and are far greater than most of what anyone has seen in the public copies of the film. This has been one of the conundrums that has puzzled me for a long time, i.e. why is there so much disparity in the quality of the many images from the film?. These transparencies are "flat field" images, and are sharp, "edge to edge". This means that it is highly unlikely that these images were created with a Kodak K-100 equipped with a 25mm lens. "Flat field" lenses are designed to be used in portrait photography, or landscape photography. Whatever camera took this, had a different lens than what we have been told that Patterson was using. 

Here is what Bruce Bonney had to say about the prints that he made from these transparencies: " The maximum limit of anatomical resolution in the three sharpest cibachrome prints, is about one centimeter, meaning that details of the creature's body larger than one square centimeter in area are visible in the prints and are capable of basic identification. Items as small as a marble or grape can be identified". I am in agreement with Mr. Bonney's assesment. The popular paper that was circulating for a number of years dealing with the film resolution, was based upon errant information supplied to Kodak, and does not represent the film, especially the transparencies. Resolution that is smaller than a marble or grape, should and does include extended features such at that of the hair. The major impediment to anlysis in this film is getting images from the original film. With the original film, there are more contrast issues than actual angular resolution issues. There are also lensing defects that can be largely corrected, which I have painstakingly done, such as correcting the chromatic abberration in the images, by using filtration to remove unfocused colors.

The ear is completely obscured by hair, until, for a few brief seconds, the wind blows the hair out from over the ear. The hair is long enough to cover the ear. In the frames that have good detail of the ear, the hair can be seen to be resting over the ear and onto the cheek. It is terminated in a linear tip that is linear for about three to four inches. This is certainly a larger object than a marble or a grape. It is either a braid, or a dread lock, in my opinion. There are no examples of simians with long enough hair to cover the ear and blow in the wind in the manner seen in the film. Could this be a human from long ago? Patterson was of the opinion that it was. I'm only going by what is on the film. I see no simian anywhere in the film.

Images: More from MK's enhancements, above. Below, screen captures from an animation displaying a hair lock. CLICK TO ENLARGE.

MK DAVIS... CONTINUES (after a break of some days): While the film itself is of good enough quality to vouch for its own self, the story behind the filming lacks much to be desired. When I say, much to be desired, I mean that it is not backed up by the film or the known facts about the film. The famous timeline for getting the film developed, and how it was impossible to get it done in that amount of time, has been well documented, but there are other pertinent things as well. When these things are taken into account, I believe that it may be possible that there may indeed be an attempt at rewriting history here about the film. It is clear that the film is a documentary film and not a hoax or a piece of fiction. The principles involved in the production of such an important piece of documentation, do not reserve the right to change it or explain it in such a way as to compromise its integrity.

The bad versions of the film, along with inadequate explanations of it, have sent many down a long, unfruitful road, paved with disinformation, and that mostly doubles back upon itself. The film, in its most pristine form, is a film of enlightenment, that pokes and prods at latent memories in all of us, and for such a brief moment, we are connected with the past. It is a film for the ages. Some have said that I have put myself out on a limb, by taking on this project, but I beg to differ. I am not out on a limb as some suppose, but rather... I am out on Frazer's Golden Bough.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: I'd asked you about the footprints, handprints, etc....? Love the Golden Bough reference! More on that later.

MK DAVIS: The hand print is enigmatic at best, but there are some things that can be determined about it. Presumably, it is not Patterson's nor Gimlin's as they were approaching as he was filming, as the story goes. It is inconceivable to me that this hand print went unnoticed by the two men, as it is in plain sight, and it is not small. The area on the log, under the fingertips of the print, has been smeared in an arc. This would require a "twisting" motion of the hand, with pressure on the fingertips. What I see here is a very short visit by the owner of the hand, who twisted the hand when the subject continued by and the hand still on the log. The final move was a shove off. At that point, the entire length of the fingers made contact and printed on the log what we see there. The medium for the print could have been sand, but after studying it, I now think not. I know that there was moisture involved to make it stick so well to the log.

What I see here is a powdery medium that is highly reflective and pasty when moistened. I was puzzled by this, and decided to go back to the film to see if I could find any evidence of anything there that might have comprised this media. It was in the aerial photo that I found what I think might be the source for the media in the hand print. On the upper end of the rectangle of uncompacted and disturbed sand is the remains or residue of a white substance that remained even after quite a long time. The photo being taken from the high place above the filmstite makes the residue even more conspicuous.

 

BIGFOOT BOOKS: But what IS this powder, if not just drier or differently grained sand? And what is the meaning of a handprint, if it is not just a coincidentally shaped residue of river wash sand/mud or bark remains?

 

MK DAVIS: I think that the print is genuinely that of a hand. Who was present, that had hands? Two men and a Sasquatch for sure. Is the media of the print from those white spots? I can't say for sure, but it is a possibility. It is close by the print location. The film will give me no more information on it. I have to move on.

 

BIGFOOT BOOKS:  Yes, I do agree that the film can only say and show so much. What you point out in it, though, is a lot more than the usual ape-man or man-in-a-suit approach. Where, to what points, are you "moving on" from there, as you say? What other information IS there?

I'll address the timeline later, after you've finished making your full case.
And have you noted the recent work of Bill Munns on the P-G Film?

MK DAVIS: We (humans) are the drivers of this planet. We are in the drivers seat. We have spread out and over this planet like no other species, but often times, we are guilty of speeding. We drive by too fast to see where we are in relation to the other species that share the planet with us. Perhaps there are other members of the human family that have yet to join us in our fast car. They won't get on... and we won't slow down. So...we don't see anything but an occasional glimpse, or perhaps a blurry photo of a people that seem to be more akin to the animals than us, wearing nothing but the night sky around their shoulders. A second look, and they are gone. They're not going to go with us. They have bought a ticket to nowhere. When I look at the Patterson film, no matter how many times that I have, I look at it with ambivalence. I wonder..." where is she going?" Do I really want to know?

BIGFOOT BOOKS: MK, were you continuing with your answer to this part, or are you done?

Your answer is intriguing, for sure, and I want to address it further; but it left some of my previous questions unanswered.

Images: from Wikipedia and public domain.

MK DAVIS: I've been burning the midnight oil lately, standing in for other fellow employees who have taken off for the holidays. I'll get a break soon and resume.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: OK, I will just respond to what you've said previously without adding a bunch of new questions, and you can answer my questions along the lines you were heading. I hope you don't mind if I push things a  bit here?

Anyway, perhaps it is time to lay some cards on the table? If this is just stuff you won't talk about at the moment, fine; but maybe you could tie up some of these loose ends for the readers? I mean, you're getting at things here, hinting, but not quite explaining them.  What is the reader of this interview to make of handprints, strange powder, rectangles on the film site, etc.? Your human-Bigfoot theories are much more clear. From those I get a lot of sense, and you've moved me more in that direction than I was before (though I still feel they are a different species, just like coyotes differ from wolves). But so far this latest stuff cries out for an explanation. The sense of mystery you get from the film is palpable. I believe you are sincere. The Golden Bough of earlier humanity you speak of rings poetically, connecting us perhaps more closely to the Sasquatch and our own natural human evolutionary past, taking us away temporarily from the cultural fixations of our current human predicament. But what of these other things?

When you and I spoke for about three hours on the phone, back in June 2009, you were quite open about your theories, sending me a lot of photos and animations, and you mentioned a bunch of bloody, gory things that perhaps now you'd rather not get into. But I heard you the other night being interviewed on an online BlogTalk Radio show (Bigfoot Busters, click HERE), and you kept saying that you "couldn't get into those things right now." This seems a drastic change to me--what happened in the interim time? You spoke also of working with others on this theory and research. Who are these folks? Jim Lansdale? Dave Paulides? What is this research about, where is it heading, and why?

Regarding things seen in the film: I'm just not sure at all, in my humble opinion, that the film tells that much of a story beyond the creature in it. Granted, you have better images than I can see on my TV videos and YouTube. But, it seems to me that you are adding a bunch of stuff up that may not even be related. I mean, a handprint, which may not even really be a handprint, one dog pawprint without any others around it, things that look like humanoid footprints but may be months old, moved logs, one tire track without any others around, a pool and wet sand at the start of the film that just look like normal creekside stuff to me--these don't really necessarily fit together, to my mind. It is like a bunch of dots on a page--you can connect them in any way you like, but that doesn't mean that the "picture" they make is a real one.

What I do feel needs to be addressed here, even if you don't want to get into the larger theory, is the issue of the film's making and timeline. You spoke on the radio show of it, and said that others knew the details better than you. Well, I am not the expert as, say, Daniel Perez is, but I can say that there seem to be a few wrong assumptions you're holding on to. Perhaps we could delve into that a bit more? And what of that other film you were talking about back in June, showing Green and others in the Bluff Creek area with the white Alsatian tracking dog?

From all that we know in the recorded history of this period, August to October of 1967, it seems pretty clear what--basically--happened. Granted, there are discrepancies in the tellings, things that seem to contradict. But I'd first adhere to parsimony in viewing these. Remember, even a book like the Bible is fraught with self-contradiction; but that doesn't mean that what it is talking about is a lie, or isn't basically true. One needs to approach the text, as it were, try to see through to what is really in there. Using Occam's Razor we can try to see the simplest things first, and try to see if they make sense that way. Later retellings, still going on to this day in seemingly EVERY book on Bigfoot that comes out, only seem to complicate the issues, as do most new theories. What if it is just as simple as Gimlin tells it in his 1992 interview with John Green?

Here, the basics of the Gimlin timeline:

* They filmed it around 1:30, or a bit earlier, tracked the creature a bit, made and removed track casts, etc.

* Left the Louse Camp area around 3:30 or 4:00.

* It was starting to get dark (assume no daylight savings time)

* They drove into town and saw Al Hodgson, apparently shortly after 6:15

* Assuming two hours from film site to town (Willow Creek!) this makes sense.

* They then drove the film into Eureka (no post offices open after 5:00--if so, they could have just mailed it in WCK)

* "Mailed" it means sending it--in this case it had to be by plane, but Gimlin says he doesn't really remember. Murray Field, outside EKA? ALL POST OFFICES WERE CLOSED, so it doesn't matter what the nit-picky semantic interpretation is of what Bob says are here.

* They returned to the mountains and drove back to Louse Camp area after talking to Eureka newspaper, etc.

* Talked, slept a bit, then rain starts lightly; Patterson shrugs it off and goes back to sleep, but Bob rides up to the film site (2.5 miles), he covers a number of tracks with bark to preserve them; early morning hours now

* Gimlin returns to camp; full rain now; they barely escape the full creek and muddy flooded roads.

Christopher Murphy tells it this way:
"Leaving their horses tethered at their campsite, the two men started out in their truck for a local airport, probably Murray Field in Arcata. On their way, they stopped at Hodgson's store in Willow Creek to talk to their friend, Al Hodgson. As it was after 6:00 p.m., however, the store was closed. Patterson therefore telephoned Hodgson at his home. Hodgson and other friends, including Syl McCoy, thereupon met with Patterson and Gimlin, presumably at Hodgson's store."

So Murhpy's timeline: Film Site-->Willow Creek route-->
see Al H.--->to airport

There is NO way they would take the Bald Hills to see Al H. FIRST!

 

Now, MK, I've tested this basic outline, and it COULD be done. That is, if they didn't go over Bald Hills Road. I believe that one is just a mis-statement or misunderstanding between Patterson and Hodgson. I've tested that route (after all, I live in the area) after reading Daniel Perez' accounts, and found it to be impossible. Also, it is non-parsimonious. There is NO reason they would go that way. They weren't idiots. Patterson had been in the area before and knew the roads. It seems clear, too, that they were not rushing to a post office. Obviously, Roger must have known of a way to send a parcel by air to Washington. See? Take out inconsistencies which obviously cannot all be true, and the timeline makes complete sense. That is what Sherlock Holmes would do. What remains is the truth.

You are probably right, being the expert on such things here, that there would have been difficulty in processing the specialized Kodachrome film that quickly. But then, Roger DID rent that camera earlier and took a bunch of footage up in Yakima for his documentary project. Perhaps, just maybe, he may have known someone in the Yakima-to-Seattle area who knew how to do the Kodak developing process? Not all patented methods are kept utterly secret, you know. Right? Anyway, I'd agree about one thing--it is a real mess, all of these recountings of the events. I can only say that  perhaps it can be blamed on two basic things: human memory and story telling are not perfect, witnesses vary widely in their reports, stories change with the telling over time; also, perhaps they were just excited after filming the thing, and maybe didn't keep very good track of the timing of the thing (did they even wear watches?), or mis-stated some things along the way out of pure adrenaline-fuelled distraction? I mean, how clear would your mind be if YOU were the one who'd just filmed a creature such as that, basically proving its existence (they'd have thought) for the first time?

And, regarding that other film you spoke of in June--that is WELL KNOWN as coming from the late August to early September expedition that Rene Dahinden and John Green did. The earliest recounting of Patterson and Gimlin's presence in Bluff Creek before the filming places them there after they left Yakima on October 1st. They were in the Mt. St. Helens area when the Blue Creek Mountain tracks were found. Roger found out about this from his wife upon returning to Yakima. Meanwhile, Green and Dahinden had returned home to Canada, taking the white tracking dog with them. Titmus was up in Canada, and did not get to the film site until nine days later. Patterson and Gimlin prepared for another trip during September and didn't arrive until October (though the times of their arrival vary in the telling in the various books, we know they weren't there earlier). Dahinden was in San Francisco when the film was made, talking to the press about the Blue Creek Mountain tracks. So, unless you think ALL of those guys are life-long liars (and WHY would they lie?), and that basically EVERY book and article and documentary ever written or made on Bigfoot is wrong, then Green, Titmus and Dahinden were NOT in the same places at the same times as Patterson and Gimlin until the film's first showing, back in Yakima, WA, on Sunday the 22nd of October, 1967.

I hope we can talk about some of these things, and that I'm not alienating you by bringing them up. I still have a bunch of questions on the film site, its location, your work on the Redwoods film, your thoughts on the Freeman and other footage, and surely many more things that could come up. I hope you can hang in here with me, and have the time to respond.

Images: Above, the cover of ARGOSY Feb. 1968; following, historical Bigfooters:John Green with White Lady on Blue Creek Mountain; Bob Gimlin and Roger Patterson with their tracks; the Lyle Laverty photo from the PG film site; Bob Titmus with his casts; Roger Patterson Bigfoot drawing from his book; one of the Blue Creek Mountain footprints; Rene Dahinden with the Willow Creek statue. Below, yours truly at middle just downstream from the film site on Bluff Creek, taken by Brad Pennock (see link below).

MK DAVIS: There is currently an independent party, or parties that are going to consider the film, based upon some of my findings. This is not someone that I'm familiar with. It was arranged for by a third party. I feel that this should be completed first. You have asked some very good questions, and I will answer some of them here, but I may not all of them due to the aforementioned investigation. I'll respond tomorrow, if you don't mind, I'll have some time then.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Is this third party associated with NABS and Paulides? That's another thing I want to ask you about as, recently, Dave was talking about some of your earlier theories as if he'd discovered them independently, in a film and materials he got from the Ray Crowe archives.

MK DAVIS: Hey Steve. I thank you for your inquiries. From this point on, I don't think that it would be prudent for me to publicly discuss any more. This should move outside the Bigfoot arena where it belongs. I would like to say before closing, and I say this emphatically...I did not utter in any way, the word "massacre". That did not come from me AT ALL. The conference in Ohio was duly recorded and is available. I encourage anyone to get a copy and listen for themselves. At the private gathering later that night, I discussed possiblities, with some seasoned researchers, which I almost always try and do. I learn a lot that way. No one is required to agree with me. I did not say that word there either. It was coined by people that were not in attendance and these same ones continue to fan the flames. Thanks for everything. M.K.

BIGFOOT BOOKS: OK, MK, I understand. I suppose this stuff is all just too hot to touch these days. If you have any further comments on the other things I raised do let me know. I'm publishing what we have now for my more-or-less weekly posting. I can add any last words you might wish to add. We could always do a Part Three which I'd promise would have nothing to do with any "Massacre" issues. I'm told that Henry May was the one who came up with that term. I'd been advised by others not to call it that with you, but heck, I don't know what else to call it, really. It's a strange theory, in my opinion, but I guess anything could be possible. I mean, we are talking about Bigfoot here. Thanks for your time--I know it is in short supply these days.

By the way, I've received already several comments and rebuttals to the Part One we did. I am thinking of publishing them in my next blog post. If you'd like to reply, rebut, or issue your own comments I'd be completely willing to let you reply. I'd even send you the various opinions of others (anonymously) if you'd like to view them before composing your. In any case, I do look forward to hearing what the results of this investigation you and the third party are doing turn out to be; even though, to me, there seems to be very scant evidence indeed to prove such things as you've implied. All the best to you! Steve

Image at left: An example of the stuff that MKD sent to the author of this blog back in June. Here the image is borrowed from Bigfootsightings.org. Make of it what you like. I don't see  blood, I see mud.

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

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

Me say last week what me what say this one. All week same to me, Bigfoot no care but if it cold or hot. Go see last blog. Me still mad at NABS Dave. He still think he more cool than me, not answer any email. He wrong, just because he wear cop sunglass and mustache. Me fur all over. Me no need shades to be cool, hu-man. Me dump him from my fACEbOOK page. No want police snoop on my life. He He He! Ha!

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

OTHER FILM SITE PHOTOS. These were taken in the years shortly following 1967. The first is by John Green, featuring Jim McClarin, the second is by Peter Byrne, and the third is by Rene Dahinden. They show, at least, that the actual location of the site was (and is) WELL KNOWN.

Images, historical--sourced from the Munns Report site (see link below). As always, CLICK TO ENLARGE.

RELATED LINKS:

If you are wondering what MK and I are talking about here the basic answers can easily be found through the links below, or in our previous part of the interview. Check it out. The Truth Is Out There!

Christopher Murphy's History of the PGF HERE on Bigfoot Encounters.

MK Davis PGF stabilization links found on Bigfoot Encounters. These are animations showing details not available in this blog.

THE MUNNS REPORT is a great study of the film using professional and reliable optics done by Bill Munns. It's also a great resource for its digital film site modeling. Look around in the Table of Contents and Index.

Bigfoot Encounters has a great page on the REDWOODS FILM, mentioned by MK above.

Blogtalk Radio show THE GREY AREA had researcher Bill Miller on, talking about the theories of MK Davis. For a critical view on the "Bigfoot Massacre" theory listen HERE.

LARRY BATTSON'S WILD on Blogtalk had a very interesting show with both JOHN GREEN and BOB GIMLIN interviewed regarding certain current controversies regarding the PGF. LISTEN ONLINE HERE.

BIGFOOT'S BLOG on BIGFOOT SIGHTINGS.ORG, regarding the first part of our MK Davis Interview and Discussion:
http://bigfootsightings.org/2009/12/04/m-k-davis-have-you-seen-the-new-interview/

BIGFOOT BUSTERS show on BlogTalkRadio, featuring MK Davis Interviewed on Dec. 11, 2009.

SQUATCHOPEDIA's Patterson-Gimlin Film Timeline of Key Events.

BELIEVE IT TOUR's page for their PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM SITE PANORAMA image. Actually, that is me in the image, but I think the actual film site starts upstream just a tiny bit from where the photo was taken.

********************************************************************
Text contents of the blog are copyright Steven Streufert, Bigfoot Books, 2009, save where otherwise credited or quoted. MK's words are his own. Please notify us for permission, but quote freely with citation, and post a link to this blog on your site if you'd be so kind.

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

BIGFOOT'S BLOG, EARLY-MID NOVEMBER 2010 EDITION

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

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

This is 

Part Two in our Preliminary Information Series

 for the upcoming blogs on our recent 

BLUFF CREEK FILM PROJECT. 

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

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

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

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

A gaze seemingly from another world.

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

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

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

A BRIEF TALK WITH JOHN GREEN

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

BIGFOOT BOOKS (OUR LETTER):

"Hello again John,

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

Could you tell me:

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

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

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

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

* did you find the "big tree"?

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

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

Best regards, Steve, Bigfoot Books, Willow Creek"

JOHN GREEN:

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

BF BOOKS: Hi again John,

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

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

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

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

Green on Blue Creek Mountain, 1967

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

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

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

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

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

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

A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH PETER BYRNE


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

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

Hello again Peter,

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

Could you tell me:

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

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

PETER BYRNE: LAST THERE? LAST WEEK.

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

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

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

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

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

* did you find the "big tree"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The old map from Byrne's book,

strangely out of correspondence

with any known landscape features.

Or, was Peter keeping the location 

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

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

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

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

*******

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

STEVEN ONE LAST NOTE...

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

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

OUR SUMMARY OF P-G FILM SITE LOCATION THEORIES:

The Heart of Bluff Creek, and Lonesome Ridge

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

PGF General Consensus Site Area, Detail, MK to Barackman

In studying this so far we have found the following.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TALKING WITH SEAN FRIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TALKING WITH CLIFF BARACKMAN

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

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

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

BIGFOOT BOOKS: Howdy Cliff (and Daniel), 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOING BACK TO CALI,

VIDEO OF PG SITE 2010, and

BLUFF CREEK 2009.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DANIEL PEREZ INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

PGF BIBLE, no doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!

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

****************************************************
This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2010, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings will be tolerated for non-commercial research purposes without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if notification, credit, citation and a kindly web-link are given, preferably after contacting us and saying, Hello, like a normal person would before taking a cup of salt. No serious rip-offs of our material for vulgar commercial gain will be tolerated without major BF stomping action coming down on you, hu-man.