Cryptic News from the Willow Creek View. Transhuman Sasquatch Strangeness from the Middle of Nowhere.
A Voice Howling out from the Klamath-Trinity-Siskiyou Wilderness. This is the Megaphone of Steven Streufert and Bigfoot Books, a Used Book Store in Willow Creek, Humboldt County, Extreme Northern California.
Pareidolia can be fun. Try it sometime. Just stare long enough at some abstract thing, pattern or setting, perhaps crossing your eyes a little, and you will begin to see forms and things that emerge. Faces will form from wood paneling. Clouds will transform into fleeting dragons. At times these can be truly surprising, even epiphanic; but that does not always mean that they are real.
Just like M.K. and his odd offspring, Mr. Lee Blevins, we are going to take an "in-depth look" at the Patterson-Gimlin film in this expedition into the inner reaches of the mind. SEE BELOW FOR EXAMPLES. Click on the images to view in a larger size, gaze at them long enough, and maybe, just maybe, you will find the deep secrets I have found there. If not, well, there are colored circles drawn around some of these hidden mysteries to guide you.
Bekjord the Grey, ET Prophet
The great Granddaddy of all of this Blobsquatchery is Jon-Erik Beckjord. He was noted for progressively odd theories about the Bigfoot creatures and the Patterson-Gimlin film as a particular example. He was featured in an article called IS BIGFOOT FROM OUTER SPACE. As he aged, so his theories proliferated into the paranormal. There is a possibility that he was some kind of great Visionary, but I think parsimony suggests that there was some kind of mental illness going on as the years went by. Pareidolia may be fun, but delusional mental illness is not, especially for those others subjected to it, like Tara and Loren. He was known to appear at Bigfoot conferences wearing an "ET" grey alien mask in his later years.
Image updated for 2012 PNW Conference on PP. Click to Enlarge,
Here is an example of some of the things that Beckjord saw in the PGF. It would seem that Beckjord was the creator, or at least the primal propagator, of the notorious "Red Circle." Below are some "baby Bigfoots," and other hidden Bigfooty presences he found in the bushes behind the film subject. He seems to have been an influence on MK Davis' work looking into the Patterson Film, as well. Before his website went down after his death, Beckjord displayed many an early MK image on there.
Early examples of the "Blobsquatch." Ignore the humanoid figure in the
right foreground---that is just an alien robotic android being. Click to Enlarge.
Did you know there was a "Blob-Gimlin"? It is only visible in one frame, but it does look a little like a younger Bob... or Elvis. This is the basis of the theories of one Leroy Blevins. However, how could he not see the "red-headed man" whose head is right next to "Bob's" and is actually much more clear than the "Bob"?
Above, "Blob" Gimlin, and Red-Haired Man in Blue Shirt.
Below, the real Bob Gimlin, in flesh and blood.
Even across space, we
See Things like this
"Face" on Mars, or the "Man
on the Moon."
Not all Pareidolia is due to some kind of mental condition or delusion. IN FACT, we ALL have it. It is a natural function of the mind seeking patterns and forms in sensory input. We are, in fact, hard-wired to "See Things," especially faces and human forms. This seems to be one of the earliest and most primal, primary tendencies of the mind, as the infant appears to recognize faces before other objects, and also to make faces to its mother to enhance bonding, and hence to increase chances of survival. Being human, we tend to see the human form projected upon the world. In many cases of blobsquatch identification, or even Bigfoot sightings in "the field," Pareidolia is what is really going on; and hence, the oddities of human perception should always be subjected to skeptical scrutiny before they are taken literally as real.
Sometimes "Blobsquatches" are not pareidolia or "matrixing," but simply mis-perception. Here is an image captured from a recent "Bigfoot video" that was said to "Confirm on All Points." I beg to differ, a little....
Confirms on... REDNECK! Bigfoot... NOT.
Here is an image found publicly posted on Facebook that is said to contain "many" Sasquattles, and even an alien or two...
I dunno, folks. I mean, I see only shrubbery.
In the cover of this upcoming book, BIGFOOT BLUES, there are said to be five Bigfoot hiding in the forest. When I looked I found TEN or more. What is going on here? Pariedolia? Or did the cover artist simply miss the Sasquatch hiding in his/her very own photograph? It is a great mystery!
Can YOU find the five Bigfoot in this book cover?
CLICK TO ENLARGE.
Another form of "blobbing" is the suppositious mis-identification of so-called "evidence." With "Squatch on the Brain Syndrome" just about anything can be a sign of "Bigfoot." Like this kind of thing widely circulated on Facebook Bigfoot groups and walls....
Bigfoot Did It! Yep, that's right. Every stick that falls is a sign....
Here is a CLASSIC: "Bigfoot" AFTER he has dematerialized, from Oklahoma. I was assured that there was a real, physical Bigfoot standing right there just a second before it entered "That Place Where They Go," in another dimension, or something. Rather than a blobsquatch, this is what we might call the "No-Squatch."
De-materializing Bigfoot
You may have heard that M.K. Davis retired. I hope he knows that despite some kidding here, we all wish him the best of health and happiness. Anyway, he's come back a little, drawn by the irresistible magnet of Bigfooting infamy. He's seeing White Bigfootses everywhere! In a recent blog, published just about an hour or two after I took him apart piece by piece live on the air on BlogTalk Radio, M.K. stated,
"It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to go in new directions. My health is declining. I have a few projects to finish I hope…before “I” am finished. I hope that this site and this blog meant something to you. To all the nearly 30,000 people who have visited, please know that you are important to me and your interest in my work is greatly appreciated. I have protected my sources, and I have done right by them and by you. I leave with a clean conscience. I’ll continue with the Bigfoot Central show as long as Don Monroe wants and artistfirst will have me. I thank you one and all."
HIS RETIREMENT DIDN'T LAST VERY LONG, DID IT? Just when you think you're out, they pull you back in! Eh, MK?
MKD, in current state, after years of "Blobbing"
So, just what is it that is causing this flirtation with retirement? We have inside information and a photo that reveals it.... the rare, but highly contagious condition, Blobbybluritis. The photo seen here shows M.K. in his current state, after countless hours, months, years, spent staring into his computer monitor at overblown-up images from the 1967 Bigfoot film. It is with this sad case that we urge caution and moderation when viewing the images that follow.
******* BLOBSQUATCHING THE PATTERSON-GIMLIN FILM, or, There Was More Than Bigfoot There That Day...
MK found many a thing in the PGF, so so may I. What follows is just the tip of the iceberg of things I've seen in the film, and managed to get screen captures of... it is said that blobsquatches are highly elusive, excellent at camouflage, and of course may simply walk through walls or into another dimension. Perhaps these don't quite live up to Beckjord's "Alien Android" theory, but we still hope you'll enjoy. YOU'LL HAVE TO CLICK THE IMAGES TO ENLARGE THEM, and be sure to stare at each for as long as it takes for your eyes to cross, hypnosis to set in, and the hidden secrets to become animate and real to you. All of these images were found in the REAL PGF, not elsewhere, nor were they Photoshopped into the photos.
The "Gimlin" plus a Howling Clown Skull
Horned Man with Alien and Watching Person
Scary Man and Ape Faces
Monkey, Creepy Alien, and Watching Face
Mothman
Old Indian Face
Star Wars Stormtrooper
Cthulhu, plus "8"
Alien on Butt
Blurry Cartoon Lady of the Trees.
Humanoid Couples and Alien Entity
Ghost Alien Spirit Form Being
Howling Face on Back of Patty Bigfoot
The ONE TRUE CROSS of Bluff Creek
PATTY BIGFOOT DEMATERIALIZING!!!
Standing Rabbit Attacked By Ghost Wolf.
Man Rodeo-Jumping a Beetle or Crocodile
MONKEY MAN GHOST
*******
Another bizarre and totally ridiculous piece of "Bluff Creek Massacre" Pseudo-History has emerged.
READ (but don't believe) MORE HERE...
Who is this "R.V." and who is...Stephen Wagner ?
Info on the publisher or "author" of this story: Stephen Wagner is a paranormal researcher and author.Experience: Stephen Wagner has been an investigator of many aspects of paranormal phenomena for over 30 years. He has written articles for numerous magazines, including FATE, and is the author of "Touched By a Miracle: True Stories of Ordinary People and Extraordinary Experiences". He is also a member of Central New York Ghost Hunters.From Stephen Wagner: This website is your gateway to the fascinating world of ghosts and hauntings, strange creatures, psychic phenomena, lost worlds, other dimensions, and the unexplained. Here you'll quickly learn that there is far more to our existence on this planet than is currently explained by science. I welcome your feedback and your true encounters with the unknown.
BELIEVABLE? I doubt it. A credible source for history? Not. Here are a few excerpts....
"Remember the movie where Bigfoot walks past the screen and looks at the camera?," he said. "For years, when it was shown on TV, it was edited. There's a big piece missing. When they show it on television, it's shown out of context. This guy we hooked up with has a different film. An entirely different thing."
The film starts off very shaky. After a few seconds the subjects come into focus. It starts off with a few of these creatures digging for something. Not just one. I remember him saying distinctly "three". They are also very far away from the camera. They start to walk down a trail or a path and then they stop by a pond or a puddle of water. They separate, but then soon regroup. It seemed like these creatures were just doing a surveillance of the area.
"Surreal" is the word he used because he was not sure what to make of this. The whole time the camera is on them and they don't know it. Then all of a sudden, a hail of gunfire comes from the tree line and blast these things cold. One of the creatures drops and another one bolts into the woods. The remaining one strangely just walks/staggers off. As one of the creatures walked off, someone kept taking pot shots at it from a distance. That's the creature you see in the popular film.
He also said that there was another film, which was shocking as well as disgusting. It shows a bunch of men dragging one of the lifeless bodies and placing it on a tarp or a pool cover and then cutting it up. Obviously, there was no sound on these videos. I told him that if this was lost footage or something, then it would probably be worth something to somebody.
John said that there was a person with money who wanted to have a look at the film and maybe do business at one point. He was a lawyer/businessman type. John also added that an eccentric named Eric Beckord, a researcher, was harassing him at one point. He threatened John by saying he would drag his ass into Supreme Court if he had to. He said that Mr. Beckjord came off with a sense of entitlement and claimed to be the rightful owner of all films related to Bob Patterson. Then he was never heard from again.
BOB Patterson??? A pond on Bluff Creek? I think we can write this one off, folks. The fabricator of this silly story obviously does not know that the full Roll One of the Patterson film material has been recovered by Bill Munns from a copy in John Green's collection. There was NO such footage on the roll, but just some scenery and horseback shots down in the creekbed. There are also no edits from the camera original. This is just... A TALL TALE. That is all this stuff is, just like all of that stuff MK "sees" in the P-G Film, from which tiny suggestions and blurry forms create a whole false edifice of suppositional, fantastical and delusional history.
We have it on the word of one of the very few who was there in the small room after the 2008 Ohio Bigfoot Conference where MK first announced his outlandish theory that MK DID SAY THAT DREADED WORD, "MASSACRE." MK denies ever having said this, so we don't know. I wasn't there. In any case, I believe the word of my witness. The name, "Bluff Creek Massacre Theory" STICKS. Sorry MK.
Me so angry right now. This big boom-boom storm, or as hu-man call it, thunder storm came and blow tent into angry bigfoot cave. Now cave big mess! It take angry bigfoot two week to clean up. It also blow best friend bunny away. Next day, me seed best friend bunny in meat maker, or as hu-man call it, a factory. Me so angry, me think angry bigfoot head go boom-boom like big storm cloud did.
**************************************************** This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2007-2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if 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.
BIGFOOT'S BLOG NEWS FLASH, April 24, 2012 (plus see update, below)
Just a little reminder... yours truly will be on COAST-TO-COAST AM radio TONIGHT, 11:00-1:00 Pacific Time. The subject, of course, will be BIGFOOT.
Stay tuned in the last hour for Lyle Blackburn on the topic of the Beast of Boggy Creek.
"In the middle two hours, scholar of Bigfoot history, Steven Streufert, will share both the history of the creature, including the Patterson film, as well as current reports of sightings around the country. In the last hour, cryptozoology advisor to Rue Morgue magazine, Lyle Blackburn, will discuss reports of a strange beast known as the Fouke Monster that have circulated among the locals in southern Arkansas. First Hour: Plastic surgeon Dr. Tony Youn talks about bizarre and botched surgeries."
Be sure to tune in while the show is on the air, as you have to be a Coast Insider subscriber to access the archived stream or podcast afterwards. On some western stations the show repeats again after 2:00 a.m., if you miss the 11:00 live broadcast. This is a broadcast radio show, so find an affiliate station in your area here: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/stations. Some of them stream live online. The I-Heart-Radio app will allow you to listen on your phone. I use 1190 AM out of Portland to listen, myself.
Well, that was fun, and nerve-wracking! George Noory is a true pro interviewer, and kept me moving along in novel ways that my own agenda may not have pursued had he just let me ramble. Some 5,000 hits have come in to this blog in the last couple of days, which is awesome! Thanks to all at COAST-TO-COAST AM, a show I've enjoyed most days since the very early 1990s.
In the middle two hours, scholar of Bigfoot history, Steven Streufert, shared history and analysis of the mysterious creature. He runs a used and antiquarian bookshop (specializing in "Sasquatchiana") in Willow Creek, California, considered the heart of the historic "Bigfoot Country,"-- the location is near where giant tracks were found in 1958, and "Bigfoot" subsequently became a household word. Willow Creek is also near where the famed Patterson-Gimlin film was shot in 1967, and Streufert has been involved in the Bluff Creek Film Site Project, which has traced the exact location of where Patterson filmed, in order to verify details about the creature, and its environment. He also participates in a Facebook group that seeks to promote the spirit of rational thinking and evidence-based Bigfoot research (in reaction to some of the more fantastical, insubstantial, or promotion-based claims made about the creature).
Streufert spoke about some of the ancient Native-American lore regarding Sasquatch, such as the beings speaking a language, as well as trading with, abducting, and even mating with humans, and producing offspring. One theory, he noted, is that Bigfoot are actually hybrids between humans and proto-humans. He also discussed the current Bigfoot DNA Project, spearheaded by Melba Ketchum, and a controversial case from last year when a hunter claimed he killed two Sasquatch in the central Sierra Nevada mountains, and now has "Bigfoot steaks" stashed in the freezer.
Last hour guest, cryptozoology advisor to Rue Morgue magazine, Lyle Blackburn, discussed reports of a strange beast known as the Fouke Monster that have circulated among the locals in southern Arkansas. In 1971, a family was reportedly attacked by a "big hairy monster," and within a year, there were around 50 more sightings, with descriptions of an adult creature with a narrow build. The creature became popularized as the 'Beast of Boggy Creek,' when the low budget film The Legend of Boggy Creek was released in 1972, and became a hit. The movie was indeed based on some facts, Blackburn said, who added that he considers the creature to possibly be a cross between the foul-smelling Skunk Ape and a Pacific Northwest-type Bigfoot. In 1991, a large skeleton (missing the skull) was found in the woods near Jefferson, Texas that some believe could be a Bigfoot, he added.
Strange Surgeries
First hour guest, plastic surgeon Dr. Tony Youn recounted bizarre and unusual medical procedures. For instance, one plastic surgeon claimed he used the fat extracted from liposuction operations as biodiesel to run his car. Youn also touched on "body transmogrification" in which people have strange modifications such as the lizard-like tongue bifurcation, as well as a new weight loss strategy in which a doctor stitches a mesh patch on the tongue in order to make the act of eating uncomfortable.
Lyle Blackburn shares two images in tandem with his4/24/12 appearance. On the left is an illustration by Dan Brereton of a young hunter encountering the Fouke Monster in the 1960s. The other illustration, by Justin Osbourn, depicts the Beast of Boggy Creek, which the Fouke Monster was later called.
Click on images to view larger.
*******
QUESTIONS I SUBMITTED TO C2C...
Before the show the producers give the guests a chance to submit a range of topics and questions that they would like to cover. You can see from below that George Noory took his own direction in the interview. Here's what I sent them, in rough form....
"Here are a few topics I'd be happy to have George ask me about when I'm
on the show. I like discussion, though, so I'm totally open to whatever
he wants to bring up for the two hours.
1) Life in Willow Creek, CA, the "Bigfoot Capitol of the World," or
"Gateway to Bigfoot Country." What is it like here, and why does this
little town in the middle of nowhere get such recognition. It is the
"Mecca" of Bigfooting. How did Steve end up living there, and was it
because of Bigfoot??
2) How was "Bigfoot" born, and how did it become a household name. In
1958 tracks were found up in the Bluff Creek basin, while they were
building a new logging access road into virgin timber. How far back in
history does this phenomenon really go?
3) The Patterson-Gimlin film. What is its history and how is it
connected to Willow Creek. What controversies surround it? Why is it so
central and important to the study of Bigfoot? How did they manage to
capture the creature on film when so many others have failed? Was it
really a hoax?
4) The Bluff Creek Film Site Project. What is it, and why was the PGF
site "lost" for all those years? How was it found again and documented?
Why did we receive the "Bigfooter of the Year" award for that process?
Why is Bluff Creek so important to Bigfooting?
5) What kind of store is BIGFOOT BOOKS, and how does Steve get any work
done while being constantly distracted by those curious about Bigfoot?
6) Weird Willow Creek, in other words, Bigfoot is not the only strange
thing here. We've had many UFO reports, legends of underground caves and
tunnels and even cities (up in Mount Shasta), and strange cryptid
creatures everywhere, it seems. The local people report seeing black
panthers, river serpents, "Little People," mer-creatures in the rivers,
giant six-foot salamanders, and yes, even a few believe in werewolves
out there. Reports of grizzlies have become somewhat common, and a wild
wolf was reported just north of here.
7) The "Bigfoot Scenic Byway"? What is it? Also, the Bigfoot Collection
at the Willow Creek-China Flat Museum. Is tourism a big factor or
motivation for the spread of the Bigfoot idea?
8) FINDING BIGFOOT on Animal Planet. What is its impact on the Bigfoot
and mass popular culture, and what is it like seeing your friends on TV
(Steve is friends with Matt, Bobo and Cliff from the show). What was it
like to see ONESELF on TV? How will it influence the future of the quest
for Bigfoot? Will it create problems with hoaxers, amateurs and newbies?
9) "THE BIGFOOT WARS"... why does the Bigfoot Community suffer from such
combative egos, theories, and conflicting regional groups? Why is
everything so controversial? Can they ever agree on anything? Is there a
"gold rush" to be the first to "discover" and prove Bigfoot?
10) Will they ever be able to prove Bigfoot? What would it take? WHY has
it not been proven with over five decades of active searching, not
counting the previous Yeti expeditions in the Himalayas?
11) What IS Bigfoot? Is is an ape of some kind of human? WHY is this
even controversial? Does it present problems for Religion or civil
rights if it is "human"?
12) NATIVE AMERICAN background. What are the origins of "Sasquatch," and
how does it relate to the American Bigfoot? What is it like living in an
area with so many native tribal groups (just up here we have the Hupa
from Hoopa, Yurok and Karuk)? What do they REALLY believe about Bigfoot?
13) Bigfoot mysteries? Telepathy, interdimensional travel, "zapping,"
infrasound, curses, taboos, underground civilizations/lairs, and UFO
contact are all associated with Bigfoot. Is it real? Are we looking for
a flesh and blood creature, or something mystic or mythic, either
in/from another world or else generated by some archetypal need in the
human mind? Some even claim to have a Bigfoot as a spiritual TEACHER or
guru, and to receive mental messages from them.
14) What was the necessity for founding the Facebook discussion group,
The Coalition for Reason, Science, Satire and Sanity in Bigfoot
Research? Perhaps this link could be mentioned on the air:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/smartbigfoot/
15) THE BIGFOOT DNA PROJECT... Will it really be published in a
scientific journal in two weeks?
Will it prove Bigfoot???? How did it get started, where did the samples
come from, and what have been the controversies along the way. One
strange aspect of this is a rumor that the head of the project believes
in "ALIEN DNA," that something "out of this world" was found in the test
results.
16) THE SIERRA KILLS. Last year one large controversy was the supposed
killing of two Sasquatch by a hunter in the central Sierra Nevada
mountains. What happened, did it really happen, and how is it connected
to the DNA project? Supposed "Bigfoot Steaks" were obtained, and samples
have been tested for DNA.
17) Is there only ONE Bigfoot, or a whole species? Are the MANY
subspecies of this unknown primate? How do we account for regional
variations like the southern Skunk Ape? Why do they seem to be present
all across the globe, and in human historical legend?
18) How do we deal with the rise of hoaxing on YouTube and the
phenomenon of the "blobsquatch," poor quality photos and films showing
blurry and dubious supposed Bigfoot creatures? Shouldn't the rise of
cell phones and digital cameras help prove Bigfoot? Why haven't they?
What are the motivations of someone faking a Bigfoot video or sighting
report?
19) Public Ignorance: WHY do so many assume that Bigfoot is a Hoax or
just a joke? Without really studying the evidence or after hearing or
reading a poorly researched news article many assume that Bigfoot is
fake, or just a delusion. WHY? Why is this field of study and its
phenomenon not taken seriously, and why do so many false things creep
into the documentation and public understanding of it?
20) HOW do sane, normal people see something that cannot be proven but
was utterly real to them? These include every day rural folks, police
officers, forest rangers, Native Americans, etc. The sightings are often
not at all extraordinary or "weird." These people are simply seeing an
everyday kind of creature, but one that they know darn well is not a
bear or a human. Not all Bigfoot sightings are mere shadows and
phantasms. Some are clear as day, and in fact many have been
face-to-face. I have met these people here locally. What is that like?
21) HABITUATION: Do people really have Bigfoot living in their
backyards, and are they really interacting with these creatures/beings?
Why has so little evidence emerged from them, if so?
22) How did your background in Literature, Critical Theory and
Philosophy, and your profession as a seller of used books, somehow lead
into the strange world of "Bigfoot Studies"? How did that background
prepare you for what you are currently doing.
24) WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF BIGFOOTING? What can we expect?
I hope those are a good start. Let me know if I should send any further
details. Browsing my blog a bit should help George get a handle on what
I've been doing and what my perspective on this mystery is.
Best,
Steve
*******************************************************************
Steven Streufert, Bookseller
Bigfoot Books
P. O. Box 1167
40600 Highway 299
Willow Creek, CA 95573 USA
(530) 629-3076 store
EMAIL: bigfootbooks@gmail.com
That's a lot to try to cram into the less than two hours on the air, after commercial and news breaks are taken out of the picture!
If you missed it... Don't forget, you can get access to the vast archive of past shows by subscribing as a Coast Insider. It's worth it if you can't catch the show on a nearly nightly basis as I do, nightowl that I am.
Someone DID post it on YouTube....
Try clicking the link below, and then clicking the forward button in the video player to
advance to hours two and three, or four.
Me tell hu-man friend, "Break a Leg" for radio show, and guess what? He actually DO it. OK, me help a little....
****************************************************
This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small
elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes
only, 2007-2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for
non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry
Bigfoot, if 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.
Me and My Friend, the Kodak Cine K-100,
the same camera used by Roger Patterson for the PGF.
BIGFOOT'S BLOG, LATE MARCH 2012 EDITION
Before the next season of Bluff Creek adventures begin, I thought I'd better gather up some of the last loose ends from the previous season's efforts. Season Two of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT is now completed (view the last episodes below), and we are working on plans for a major pow-wow of new investigations once the area up there is open again. Snow on the ridges and locked road gates usually keep us out until late June, and then lock us out again in late October. Loads of new information has poured in since we proved and verified the PGF site location, some of it very odd and confounding aspects of the Bluff Creek history. We've been told that Bob Heironimus was in Willow Creek in 1965, which is just too odd to blog about without further data. The investigation continues....
*******
An anonymous (for now) "R.K." sent me a vintage sixties Kodak Cine K-100 16mm film camera, just like the one used by Roger Patterson in 1967. It is an identical model, save that it has a front-loaded lens turret. It is in apparently functional working order, so it may come in handy for research this summer. Here are some nifty photos of that...
The K-100 with the three-lens front turret. Patterson had the single-lens setup.
Ahm a gonna film me one a dem sum-bucks!
Little Bigfoot walks behind the K-100.
Interior of the camera. Click to Enlarge.
*******
The continuing drama of the BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT, Season Two, Episodes 63-67
This is Season Two, brand NEW. Back to the Creek Again! Here you will find the "Checking the Grid and Site Draft Map, and Measuring the Big Trees" episode. Part 63. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Measuring the Big Trees and Making Test Footprints" episode. Part 64. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Robert Survives Solo Camping on the Film Site and Does the Tree Bores" episode. Part 65. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Aftermath Discussion at the Old Bigfoot Motel" episode. Part 66. Check it out!
Here you will find the "Robert Interviews our Mathematician/Geologist on the Film Site Math Proof" episode. Part 67. Check it out!
*******
Before he awarded us the BIGFOOTERS OF THE YEAR award, Daniel Perez sent Robert Leiterman and I some questions. Here is that email interview....
QUESTIONS FROM DANIEL PEREZ, the Full Text.
(Parts of this were published between the December 2011 and January Issues of THE BIGFOOT TIMES. Click the name to visit Daniel's site and subscribe.)
Robert and Steven: some questions for a write up in the Bigfoot Times newsletter.
PEREZ: 1) Who made the decision to create The Bluff Creek Film Site Project?
STEVE: It was Ian and I who started this research project by obsessing over small details in the history of Bluff Creek. There were a lot of unanswered questions, and many outright contradictions. This included five main opinions as to the location of the PGF site, and many more minor locations proposed or hinted at by others. As explained below, the official “Project” was started in 2010, when Robert joined us and started filming our research and investigations, and releasing the results on the BFRO YouTube page. I’ve been blogging about it, too, on BIGFOOT’S BLOG. It has been a long personal process for each of us, but our collective work took the last two summer-fall seasons, with preliminary stuff between Ian and I before that in 2009.
PEREZ: 2) When did this project begin?
STEVE: Ian and I were separately heading up to Bluff Creek in the early to mid 2000s, and began working together on this history after meeting at the Yakima Bigfoot Round-Up in 2009. In 2010 we began working with Robert, who wanted to document the process. Three summer-fall seasons, then, went into this Project. I first looked for the film site, using John Green’s sketch in his first pamphlet/booklet, in 2001. Green’s map was rather vague and imprecise. Questions lingered until I was back up there in 2007 with Cliff Barackman, James “Bobo” Fay, and others. From their opinions, guided in part by what Gimlin had said in 2003, and the marked maps found in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK, we tried to find the film site. It was a strange place, at once familiar, and yet very alien. No clear indications were found anywhere of the scenery familiar in brief glimpses in the PGF itself. The following years were a slow and sometimes agonizing process of trying to pull the real information from the word-of-mouth and presumptuous statements made by various researchers. Ian was there in 2006, where he met Daniel Perez and Richard Henry. His outdoors and navigational experience gave rise to a parallel interest in discovering the site. Ian and I met in Yakima, Washington, but were able to conveniently meet and head to Bluff Creek as he lived nearby in Redding. I’d known Leiterman for a while, and when he heard about our research his own curiosity to find the site was ignited. He became a driving force to get us to apply our research on-site, rather than just hike around and theorize.
Perez, 2007, Willow Creek. Photo by Streufert
PEREZ: 3) Who was part of the project?
STEVE: Ian C., Steven Streufert, Robert Leiterman, with part-time participation of Rip Lyttle, and then Rowdy Kelley toward the end of it. We were aided immensely, of course, by the remaining older locals from the general Willow Creek area, like Al Hodgson and Jay Rowland, as well as many of the old-time Bigfoot researchers like John Green, Jim McClarin, Bob Gimlin… and yourself Daniel Perez, among many others.
PEREZ: 4) Many other parties claimed to know where the filmsite was but nothing bore fruit. Do you think they were doing it to attract attention to themselves rather than the subject?
STEVE: Before what I like to call the “Great Confusion of 2003" (when many major researchers along with Gimlin himself tried to find the site and could not), I think many just assumed that the site was “known.” We found, living here and having the time to try to actually find the spot, that it was NOT known. As it turned out, the spot found in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK was correct, but the trackway course was not found, nor the big trees, nor frankly any of the things actually seen in the film. The last positive ID of these features that we’ve been able to determine was made in 1983, by Thomas Steenburg, who had help from Dahinden. After this it really seems to have become overgrown and lost to time, with Green and Titmus not being able to find it at all by around 1998.
The many researchers who have made the varied claims of “their own” filmsite location seem to have suffered either the confusion of faded memories, or else a certain arrogance that their own “information” and “knowledge” were sufficient, despite a nearly total lack of verification and validation. Those like MK simply made up their own location, with no substantiation whatsoever save that the spot “felt” right to them, and they had heard some snippet or rumor that they felt must be accurate. We found, in trying to investigate this stuff, that there were MANY such snippets, and NONE of them could prove anything. What we saw was an oral history disintegrating into legend. We sought to correct that, and it truly was not easy to do. We sought to establish truth and reality, a real history, which are rare things in the field of Bigfooting, I’m sorry to say.
I have to say that the biggest enemy in this endeavor has been the presupposition of unfounded claims made by some researchers who never even bothered with proof and documentation. Just saying something is so is never enough. As in the case of MK, one false conception can lead to a thousand others following. Attention-getting? YES. It seems to be what drives Bigfooting the most, as we generally can’t seem to produce very good evidence of the phenomenon it give more weight to individual declarations, egotism, and imaginary and unsubstantiated claims to truth without real evidence. Everyone in this likes to call themselves “researchers,” but it is stunning how few of them actually bother to document and really study anything.
PEREZ: 5) Are you confident that after 40+ years you have located the exact spot?
STEVE: Yes. Indeed. Well, we still have to prove it absolutely to the world. Proof, in a scientific and surveying or optical/photographic sense, is a whole other order of business. The history is ambiguous and contradictory, too. I am satisfied, though, that this is the site, and I see absolutely NO evidence for any other location we have investigated. ALL of the evidence and history, such as it is, points to this one single sandbar on the long course of the creek. There is no doubt in my mind, as I walk on the very course of the trackway on that site. It is big enough, with all the landmarks and proportions in order. Once understood, the site becomes clearly visible (conceivable, at least, though one cannot really see in the way Patterson’s camera did back then), despite these 44 years passed and new forest growth since the filming event.
PEREZ: 6) Of the team, who had that Eureka moment of pinpointing the "big tree?"
STEVE: The “Eureka” moment was really a gradual process realized as a group over a few years. It was I, Steve, who began insisting on that particular big tree and area, and seeing the sandbar and the angle of view in the film toward the “right” side of the sandbar. But I'm not claiming credit for it personally. It was group research, and no one of us alone could have brought this project to fruition. That is why we go by "BLUFF CREEK FILMSITE PROJECT."
We’d looked in that area before, but always felt that the trees were just way off too far toward the end of the film. We had decided that we would focus on that spot and do a site survey last year, but we ran out of time with the seasons and weather changing. Robert and I were even more convinced when we heard that it was Gimlin who had identified the spot of the first sighting. Ian remained skeptical, thinking the site and big trees were not big enough, and so forth.
I found my way to that tree again this mid-summer (during a time when we were unable to get the group together up there), and gave it a serious new look. I had to change my whole mental image of the film site around to realize it was the correct tree in the right spot. In many ways the image in the film is an optical illusion of perspective, with a moving subject and camera position. We had to think around “square” models such as seen in Murphy’s diorama of the site. I began pointing out that tree to the others, the biggest one down there in that general spot. Robert agreed, but reserved judgment until we could do the site survey grid. Robert was very determined to get to that level of documentation before concluding anything. Ian wasn’t able spend much time at the spot with us in the one time we were all of us together there this summer. He still has reservations, but I think we’re making a little headway convincing him.
When we did our survey with Rowdy we saw things in greater depth and focus, and the landmarks began to emerge from the “jungle.” We saw the trees for the forest. So many had assumed that that area was just not big enough, but when we measured it the known film distances fit in there perfectly, with all the right pieces of the puzzle. Next to that big tree there were others in what appeared to be exactly the correct locations. When we were there as a group surveying without Ian I showed that big tree to the guys again. Rowdy then insightfully spotted the maple next to the big tree, with a slightly bent trunk. I then identified the spiky snag, which I'd never thought before could still be standing. The "ladder tree" and middle tree were obvious, once the big tree was found. The other background big tree clusters are notably similar, but we have yet to fully study and measure all of them. Measuring anything on that hillside is very difficult.
Robert gets loads of credit for conceiving of and managing the site survey. It was Robert who was most fixated on the stumps, which are other lasting features that will help prove this location with finality. Rowdy helped out in huge ways at that point, in organizing and conducting the site measurements. Rowdy, who has a degree and works in film, has already contributed many new views and analyses that hadn’t occurred to us before he got involved.
Ian’s skepticism and rationalism have been constant guards against false assumption.
The Process: The arrow in the Perez booklet identifies the end point of the film, pointing specifically to the upper sandbar zone. Gimlin identified the crook in the creek downstream as the first sighting spot in 2003, and more decidedly this summer on site. In 2010 Perez, upon being asked to pinpoint Rene's exact mark on the map, marked this very spot. We had already ruled out all locations downstream, and focused on the upper sandbar when Gimlin arrived here. We had to try to conceive of that sandbar without the new tree growth, trying to see again what Dahinden saw in his "aerial" shot from the hillside. We realized that the big trees had to be farther toward the end of the sandbar, and that the film was shot diagonally across the apparent north orientation of the sandbar. Munns put out an animation recreating the motion of cameraman and subject within the setting, and this was instrumental in our revisualizing the site. We drew a magnetic north axis on site and found it oriented perfectly with the biggest tree there, one we'd previously thought was way too far to the "right" to be the big tree. Upon close inspection, all the other main trees were found, and in our site survey the old stumps and debris piles were amazingly still there.
PEREZ: 7) In the blog site, it is stated, "Though the proof is not officially final..." Who makes it official?
STEVE: “PROOF” cannot be had by mere photography, as the site is a totally overgrown jungle now. Each detail needed to be analyzed by itself, and put into location on our site grid map in order to be seen and understood in context. This was the real, full “Eureka” moment, when Robert finished his map. There was so much more correspondence than we’d ever imagined we’d find.
We have shared our results with Bill Munns, and he has confirmed preliminarily that we’ve gotten it correctly. We are hoping to continue this work on-site in 2012, hopefully with those who have expert knowledge in surveying, cameras and optics, not to mention geology and natural history. We have found innumerable ways in to this subject, and have had to learn much in order to be able to understand what we were seeing and finding. We are all of us amateurs, so we did our best, and at this point we are hoping that others will be able to verify our findings in a fully convincing and professional way that will leave no doubt lingering into the future.
PEREZ: 8) About how many man hours did it take to produce your quadrant map?
STEVE: Ask Robert about that one. We spent three days the first trip, myself one day and Robert two days the next trip, in the map/survey process. Robert spent countless hours working on the maps once he got back from the site.
ROBERT: Daniel--Steven, Rowdy and I had spent approximately 60 man hours of actual work time on the film site gridding the gravel bar for the map during October, 2011. This included compass work, some brush clearing, tree boring (determining ages of trees), gridding and flagging the site with north/south (Y) and east/west (X) axis points and lines, also drawing in the stumps, logs, trees, debris piles and root balls (artifacts) and double-checking our data on the ground (searching/walking/confirming/correcting). See the hourly breakdown by researcher below.
October 22 nd. 2011 total combined 22.5 hours
Robert - 7.5 hours
Steven - 7.5 hours
Rowdy - 7.5 hours
October 23 rd. 2011 total combined 22.5 hours
Robert - 7.5 hours
Steven - 7.5 hours
Rowdy - 7.5 hours
October 30th 2011 total combined 9 hours.
Robert - 5.5 hours
Steven - 3.5 hours
October 31st 2011 total combined 6 hours.
Robert - 6 hours
Approximately 6 + 9 + 22.5 + 22.5 = 60 hours of field work and another few hours transferring the data to the final map.
The lower bend and root balls at PGF site area.
Photo by Steven Streufert
PEREZ: 9) When I told Robert in 2007 I believe it was a waste of time to look for the filmsite because I thought it was all changed forever, you didn't buy into that idea. Was this the result of training as a forest ranger and schooling and general experience about the woods and longevity of trees?
STEVE: Leaving this one for Robert…
My comment: We knew that the geology and history of the Bluff Creek area could be understood. We sought to discover all we could that would bear upon the stories told about the events from 1958 to 1967 that involved Bigfoot. What we saw in the creek area were the remnants of the 1964 Flood. We then understood that the sandbar, established by that 500-year event (or whatever it was) should still be there in some form. We found no evidence of logging having been done since 1965-66 salvage work post-Flood. Hence, we refuted the things people had been saying, such as: “It’s all been washed away,” or “The trees should be stumps now.” We showed that with persistence reality may be discovered and history documented. We showed that it is idiotic to just assume things as these people did, without any clear evidence for such assumptions.
We were determined not to just say, for instance, that we knew how to get to the Los Angeles urban area. We wanted to get to Norwalk, and then to a certain address, and eventually find the spot of a specific location, like finding Daniel Perez’ house there. Many said that it could not be found, or that it did not matter; but we found many clues along the way, and it was fun playing Sherlock Holmes with these Bigfoot-related mysteries.
ROBERT: Steven covered some good stuff already. I will add to it. I find that few people have the patience to get down and get dirty in the field. Very few of us have the ability or take the time to double-check what others say about things. Sometimes we find it easier to assume the obvious and go with the flow, giving some statements credence. If three people agree it's got to be fact right? And let’s face it, we’re no longer a society of outdoorsmen and women whose very existence had depended on the ability to read the signs and predict the weather.
As a park ranger, spending time in the forest is my profession. Being able to read my surroundings can be an essential skill. Though not all park rangers live and work in forests, I do. I spend a considerable amount of time in the outdoors and have taken it upon myself to feel more comfortable in them. I have also tried to better understand my home area.
Back to the film site.... I realize a lot of change can happen on a gravel bar in 44 years, but I also realize that certain landscape features like trees, stumps and logs will take time to totally disappear. Much of that is dependent on insects, fungi, the weather, topography and other factors. Nature has its way of making sure of that. If there were once big trees, then there should be the remains of either the big trees themselves or stumps, and some stumps can hang around for a good bit of time. If the downed logs and stumps were no longer visible, then there should be debris pile remains in their place, possibly in the form of logs and stumps. Stumps last longer than most logs. Different tree species break down faster than others. As an example, alders and cottonwoods will break down faster than firs. Determining the age of trees on the floodplain could also help us see the forest despite the 40-year-old newer trees. For the most part, the positions of the artifacts (logs, stumps, trees) shouldn’t change unless they were washed away, buried or hauled away by salvage loggers. All we needed were clear pictures, a good aerial view of the P.G. Film Site (compliments of Rene Dahinden's 1971 overview) to match some artifacts, as well as patience and time. With the photographs in hand, and a little determination, we were bound to find something. As it was, we did find something... a whole lot of somethings that looked an awful lot like the Rene 1971 overview.
PEREZ: 10) The big tree, what is the present diameter and circumference of it? And is it in your opinion still the largest tree in that immediate vicinity?
STEVE: It is the largest tree in the upper sandbar area. Downstream from there we found two other trees of that huge size, but they are of course in the wrong places. Unfortunately, time and the mass of things to do somehow overwhelmed us, and we didn’t get to measure the diameter of the tree. You can see in the photo of it with me in front how large it is. I’m standing right at its base, so rough measurements of my size and the tree behind me may be made. I’d say the tree is about five feet in diameter. It is an old growth Douglas fir, of the top size found in that climate, soil and terrain, but it certainly is not the largest fir I’ve ever seen. I think it is big enough indeed to be the one seen in the film. Hopefully an optical expert like Munns with be able to tell us this with certainty, based upon our measurements.
PEREZ: 11) Was the Eureka moment derived by association of other items that made a match from 40+ years ago?
STEVE: That is explained above mostly. All the factors of history that we could find played into this. We talked to all the witnesses of the site and area that we could find, and investigated some six miles of the creek watershed. We were frankly astonished to find how much STILL remained, however much others assumed it would all be changed. I mean, stumps and big trees, yes, were there, but we also found the debris piles rotting away but still in the same places. We have over two dozen clearly identifiable matching features outlined in Robert’s comparison map done with the 1971 Dahinden “aerial” photo. And there are many more possible ID points to be found with further analyses. Even the empty spaces on the sandbar are positive data points, as it is quite unlikely up there for something NOT to grow on a spot. Hence, if there is no stump or tree over 40 years old on the site now, and the same state existed in 1967, that is another correlation and correspondence. Finding the big tree was great, but it was astounding to find the other trees along the line, one by one, and to see that their layout was a perfect match for what is seen behind the creature in the 1967 film.
PEREZ: 12) Did the two of you have a physical advantage over the Bigfoot community because you live geographically closer to the area than most others?
STEVE: Of course! For some it is a lifetime Mecca journey to get up there. For me it is an easy day trip. Hence, we were able to return again and again to answer lingering questions and to explore new information, and finally to check and re-check data.
PEREZ: 13) To Robert, are you surprised that this area, once relatively clear, is an "overgrown jungle" today?
ROBERT: You mean young temperate forest? No. We’re talking successional growth, part of the natural cycle. The flood waters gave that bend in the river a clean slate. Sunlight, nutrients, organic debris for shelter against the harsh elements, the proximity of water, all of these were factors. The new layer of sand and silt was a seed bed for the successional plants. After they established themselves, the trees were soon to follow. What we’re looking at now is a forest reestablishing itself in a prior habitat right in the middle of the P.G. Film Site.
PEREZ: 14) Do you think you ruffled feathers with discounting Murphy's location and his physical filmsite model?
STEVE: Well, when I questioned Christopher Murphy about this stuff he was always open and helpful. When I contacted him before his Sasquatch Summit presentation he listened to my points without defensiveness, and then changed his talk to reflect parts of our research. He did a very fine job in making his site model diorama, but we found it ultimately limiting as it created a predisposition to view the perspective and motion in the film wrongly. It was just a recreation of frame 352, based on Dahinden’s measurements. When we cracked our minds out of those shells we were able to look at the actual locations in new ways.
The site location found in Murphy’s books was based on only one visit there in 2003, for only a few hours, so he cannot really be blamed for getting the location wrongly. It was really pretty close, but inexact. In any case, he was getting cues from others there, so any confusion in his books or internet statements only reflects the difficulties that PGF site location research faced at that point. It is not his fault, really, and he’s been a gentleman about it… unlike many others who have acted as if this were a PERSONAL ISSUE. It is not, and it should not be. It is about facts, not egos.
PEREZ: 15) Where many of the stumps noted in the original P-G film and noted by later researchers still there?
STEVE: I’ve answered this above. We need to get someone with high-level optical photo-analysis skills and software to look at this, but from Robert’s comparison work we’ve shown, I think, a level of correspondence that goes way beyond randomness and is in the highest level of certainty. This is just eyeball work, though, done while constantly having to adjust one’s assumptions trying to approximate the true film perspective in comparison with the site map and overview hillside photo. It isn’t easy to do. As far as we can tell at this point essentially ALL of the bigger features of the film are still present there, and are to be found in more or less exactly the same position and similar condition now as they were in 1967.
PEREZ: 16) Did the woodpecker holes that Peter Byrne said where there in 1972 on the big tree something that strengthened the case for the correct site?
STEVE: Well, Byrne’s memory of how to get to the film site seems to have faded over the years since he was there and it was recognizable. We know from his photos that he was there on the right spot. He took the best photos documenting the site. But since then he has been taking people or guiding them to the spot right at the road bottom, at the bat boxes. This is wholly implausible, much like the MK Davis location, for near-total lack of corresponding features and a landscape that is totally different from that in the film itself. One thing he DID remember was the pock-marked bark of the Big Tree. This is EXACTLY what we found when we identified the tree. Apparently these are holes made by woodpeckers trying to get at bark beetles and other insects infesting the tree. This may indicate weakness in the tree, so it may be quite aged and on its way out sometime in the not too distant future.
We are going to try to get a core-bore of the tree’s rings next summer, and of course this time we will have the required two people and time enough to get a diameter and circumference measurement of it. That is the funniest aspect of this research: just as we think we’ve discovered something or the solution to some mystery, we find that a dozen new avenues of research open up requiring further investigation. Something tells me this Project is not over, and will continue on for many more years.
One thing I’d like to say here is that Bob Gimlin was RIGHT. After all the researchers had become lost and confused, Bob, who had only been there once before 2003, was able to re-identify the site. This is a real kick in the pants of those who constantly want to say that Gimlin has poor memory, or that he is confabulating. ALL ALONG THE WAY we found that Gimlin’s accounts of the locality, the scene of the filming event, and the features found down in that creekbed were essentially CORRECT.
We have to give credit to Rene Dahinden, especially, as it was his memory and research dedication that were preserved in BIGFOOT AT BLUFF CREEK. To you, too, Daniel, we are very grateful in that you actually bothered to document that recollection before the site was lost entirely to time. The clues preserved added up to enough for us to find the site again.
PEREZ: Anyway, those are my questions. Should you have additional comments, just jot them down as I would like to go to press with this soon. Best, Daniel Perez
Daniels 2007 table at the Willow Creek PGF 40th Celebration Conference.
There in the middle is Daniel's K-100 Kodak movie camera, very similar to ours.
We had NO idea that he was thinking of giving us the "Oscar" of Bigfooting at the point of this interview. Do keep in mind that this was done before we had final mathematical confirmation of the site geometry. We have that now, such that we now have absolute proof that we have found the correct location. What will follow is further measurement and hopefully more useful perspective on the film itself, and its strange, hairy subject.
*******
Recently Bobo, from FINDING BIGFOOT, stopped by BIGFOOT BOOKS. Though he is a friend, I couldn't resist getting him to sign a promotional card for the show for display in my shop. Here it is:
James "Bobo" Fay signed this card for Bigfoot Books.
Kids visiting the shop LOVE this thing, as they love the Bobes.
Unfortunately, Bobo was recently mauled by a Bigfoot on The Soup, but somehow survived to continue filming episodes of Season Three of the show. He is in Louisiana now, and we have word that they are heading to Australia for the Yowie, and to Southeast Asia as well. Wow! Here is the video of the attack:
And listen to a podcast episode from SAVAGE HENRY, a Humboldt humor magazine, to hear the "real" Bobo, complete with drinking games, here: Episode 10 of SHIT Talkin'.
Until next time, SEE YA!
**************************************************** ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS! Me Mute.
No Me No Speak.
**************************************************** This blog is copyright and all that jazz, save for occasional small elements borrowed for "research" and information or satirical purposes only, 2007-2012, Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert. Borrowings for non-commercial purposes will be tolerated without the revenge of Angry Bigfoot, if citation and a kindly web-link are given, preferably after contacting us and saying, Hello, like a normal person would before taking a cup of salt. No serious rip-offs of our material for vulgar commercial gain will be tolerated without major BF stomping action coming down on you, hu-man.
Who is this "R.V." and who is... Stephen Wagner ?
ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!
