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.
Be sure to SEE BELOW for the last in the first round of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT videos, numbers 31-36 are presented viewable here.
In case you don't know, another Tom Yamarone, et al., production is coming to a town probably not near you. If you dare cross the border into forbidden Canada, home of the sinister wild-Sasquatch-man described back in the 1920s by J.W. Burns, you might just be able to shake the hand of the Moses of Bigfooting, JOHN GREEN, at the SASQUATCH SUMMIT.
Rather than rattle on endlessly about it, let's just say that Cliff Barackman wrote on his North American Bigfoot Blog a good piece on the upcoming mega-convention at Harrison Hot Springs, Canada. Read it HERE. Don't forget to renew your passports.
*******
ANOTHER WRETCHED HOAX!
Bigfoot, on the Verge of Tears.
FIND BIGFOOT on FACEBOOKDeclares a KNOWN HOAX the Number Six Bigfoot Video of All Time!
Watch it HERE. Or view the "updated" version the hoaxer claims he will never take down HERE. Then ask yourself, WHY did anyone believe this crap in the first place?
Shockingly, on the same day, or the day after we got wind of the full-on-viral "tree-pulling Bigfoot" video on YouTube being a full-on hoax, those clever guys at FindBigfoot (or just "Bigfoot") on Facebook declared it to be well-within the top ten best clips of a Sasquatch ever! This video was shot by a dude named Jeff, from Ohio; though why he calls himself "The Squatchmaster" is truly beyond our understanding. From the first time we saw it, personally, we just knew it was fake; and looking closer its fake-ishness became all too clear. Astonishing, even further, were the declarations made by Bigfoot-Facebook of utter conviction of the reality of the film clip, and also some very bizarre interpretations thereof. This went WELL BEYOND saying the thing "confirmed on cone-head" when the figure was actually wearing a hoodie; it went right on into confirming the nature of Bigfoot's culture. This is the last straw for Facebook-Bigfoot, whose complete hubris of assumption, presupposition and pareidolia have been truly fascinating up to this point. Now they have really jumped the squatch.
SquatchCoward's You Tube page with Hoaxed Video, Salt Fork Park, Ohio
We quote from there page (linked above):
"#6 Best Bigfoot Video 6/54 "Sasquatch breaking down tree, voice, track trackway, possible ceremony" Ohio 1/9 to 1/16 2011 Posted by anonymous researcher "SquatchMaster"
This is a compilation of the best of two weekends of expeditions in Ohio. very shaky footage, but contains great data. SM sees two Sasquatch briefly. Flims three alarm knocks one crossing a gap, and one up in a tree. Then SM films the greatest display of strength by a Sasquatch that is clearly under stress. Another Sasquatch is up a tree. Confirms on long arms, coned head, slope to back(trapezoid connections). Voice is heard during the breaking down of tree. Likely instructions to the other Sasquatch, the filmer or possible ceremony in breaking down tree."
"Ceremony," we ask? OMG, as they say. Rather than babble on here we'll just offer the set of comments we left on the video's page on their Facebook site. Be sure to read ALL of the comments in there. You might just find their credibility damaged and your own native skepticism rising up against all of this YouTubing Blobsquatchery.Don't feed the hoaxers. End Blobsquatching Now!
Steven StreufertIf the guy filming it admits he was hoaxed, what does this "confirm"? Bad judgment and Squatch-on-the-brain syndrome here at FindBigfoot.
Thursday at 4:22pm ·
Steven StreufertGullibility and presupposition will get us absolutely nowhere; and in fact, will make us look like pure idiots to the "outside world." The rest of the world is laughing at all of Bigfootery every time one of these stupid videos is released. In fact, I am sure it is for just such a reaction that hoaxers do what they do.
Thursday at 8:53pm ·
Steven Streufert"Ceremony"? Are you KIDDING??? Number Six all-time video? This set of assumptions destroys all credibility for FindBigfoot/FaceBook. I am sure the vast majority of "fans" of this site are only such for the humor value and the cool Bigfoot avatar it adds to one's news feed. HOAX! Proven hoax, guys; and obviously a hoax before it was proven and admitted. Listen to Tim Stover/TCSJR Bigfoot's show on www.blogtalkradio.com .
Thursday at 9:01pm
Steven StreufertFar from merely "providing a forum for sharing encounters," FB/FIND BF is claiming to be an AUTHORITY on these matters, an attitude demonstrating hubris. This claim calls into question all of their past work, however good some of it may have been. Over-eagerness in assumptions leads to projection, false conclusions, and outright hallucination. Pareidolia. Look it up. It is a known perceptual aberration.
New methodology: Assume it is a hoax first. Try to eliminate human factors. Know the limits of the video medium. Analyze the full context. Interview the witnesses and go to the site. Gather confirming ancillary evidence. Then look honestly at the figure in form and behavior. THEN ask, does it demonstrate qualities that could not be human or other animal? Then, finally, ask if it "confirms" on previous proposed BF film and sighting accounts. Then question those previous accounts. Accept what remains as possibility, not the final proven truth. Wait for further, better evidence. ELIMINATE the impossible (and the all too probable), and that which remains should be the truth.
Find out more, follow these links: TCSJR BIGFOOT covers THE BETRAYAL and HOAX on BlogTalk Radio HERE.
View the hoaxer, "The SquatchMaster's," Stupid Confession HERE. Or watch it here:
View his full array of videos HERE, under "Uploads, See All," if you can bear it. It seems that he went from serious though frustrated researcher to hoaxer, and then to hoaxer-joker-covering-his-ass, all in one short year. Wow, and some people have spend decades doing this; but Mr. JeffMaster knows all, we suppose. It would seem his goal, in the end, was just to try to trouble and defame Tim Stover and Don Keating. One of the more un-fabulous careers in Bigfooting goes down into the dust of infamy! Good riddance. Hopefully some of the other stinky stuff coming out of Salt Fork State Park will clear up before this year's annual Ohio Bigfoot Conference? Here's hoping!
*******
Can YOU pinpoint the PGF site? Let us Know!!!
FINALLY, here are the last of our first year's BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT videos. We filmed a concluding segment of SUMMARY video of discussion between the main characters at Cinnabar Sam's Restaurant in Willow Creek a couple of weeks back, and these are even now being edited for YouTube by Robert Leiterman. Look for these coming soon, and of course MORE next summer.
*******
Here is PART THIRTY-ONE of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we return to the closed dirt road above the PGF site(s) and try to get glimpses down onto the sandbars. Then we proceed in a treacherous and perhaps foolhardy hike down the near-vertical hillside to one of the more promising gravel bars near Dahinden's marked spot.
Here is PART THIRTY-TWO of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we head down the treacherous hill, trying to coordinate a three-site upper "aerial" view of the proposed sandbar locations within the "General Consensus Site." Making our way down a near-vertical jungle-like hillside and trying to view through the trees doesn't prove too easy to accomplish.
Here is PART THIRTY-THREE of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we reach the bottom of the hill and get a full view of one of the best looking gravel bars. Robert recreates a humorous, plausible walk of the Creature in the part that is not fully overgrown with new trees. Big trees in back, the creek course looks just right... could THIS be the spot?
Here is PART THIRTY-FOUR of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we not only photograph a Blobsquatch, but we also find the best Big Trees yet, ancient stumps in just the right spots, and an old fallen Douglas fir that could have been one of the background trees in the PGF (downed, just like Rene Dahinden said it was in 1983).
Here is PART THIRTY-FIVE of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Nearing the end of the first year's phase! Here we find some nice mushrooms (Bigfoot food!) and look at more stumps. The following discussion finds us agreeing that this location looks VERY GOOD. We may have found the Big Trees; but further study is required.
Here is PART THIRTY-SIX of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Ending of the first year's phase, here we get one last look from high up on the hillside over the Byrne and MK sites. STAY TUNED for our new SUMMATION SERIES, being taped this weekend here in Willow Creek. Have fun!
The BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT series, now at 36 videos, may be seen on YouTube under "Uploads, See All" at BFRO-VIDEOS.
BEWARE! More are coming soon!
*******
BONUS FEATURES: Check out These Hilarious Kokanee Beer Ads with Rene Dahinden!
Click HERE if the player box above does not function on your browser or phone. Hang on until the end, as there are TWO variant videos in this YouTube presentation.
*******
Recent Visitor to Bigfoot Books, Tim Olson, now living in Arcata, Humboldt County:
Long-time Bigfooter, Tim Olson, during his Bigfoot Books Willow Creek visit.
Me wonder why hu-man need hoax. You ever see Bigfoot make hoax of hu-man? Why would me WANT to? Why me want be scrawny, stinky, sickly looking, shoe wearer naked ape? It boggle me brains. If me hoax, it only to wear hoodie, sneak in camp, and steal hu-man beer.
****************************************** This blog is copyrighted, 2011 Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert, aside from materials presented from others for "research purposes only," though you may borrow and quote if full citation is given, preferably with notice to us and a kindly link to this blog. Thanks!
The first year's phase of THE BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT videos are nearly completed. Please find another run of them viewable below. This weekend we worked on a SUMMATION SERIES filmed here in Willow Creek, among the hunting trophy heads and hides and historical artifacts at Cinnabar Sam's restaurant. Hopefully these last few will tie things up with our PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS and NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS for next year, making it seem as if we did something more than wander aimlessly through the creek and over the woods. These new videos will appear soon, as soon as Robert Leiterman gets over the burn-out of editing over six hours' worth of videos for YouTube. Damn, we could have made a European Art Film! What follow are videos 22-30 in the series. Look to the upper left sidebar of this blog to find links to the previous ones.
The Bluff Creek Film Site Project Crew, Bigfoot nerds in action!
*******
Here is PART TWENTY-TWO of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Yet another day, here Robert, Ian and Yours Truly start the hike up from Bluff Creek Bridge to the P-G Film site. Herein we explore the old ford that preceded the current bridge, look for old road cuts, and think we have stumbled upon the real Patterson-Gimlin base camp site, marked with a rebar rod, perhaps by Rene Dahinden.
Here is PART TWENTY-THREE of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Could THIS be the PGF site? Here we encounter the first plausible sandbar area downstream from the general consensus site. This one looks very, very plausible, and corresponds with dissenting views we've heard from Al Hodgson, Bobbie Short, and others. This one matches the old photos and diagrams, too.
Here is PART TWENTY-FOUR of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Heading upstream we see clear signs of the old creekside logging road, strange old stumps and Douglas fir optical illusions. Also, here we see our first red-leaved vine maple, the sure sign of true Autumn in Bluff Creek--just as seen in the PGF.
Here is PART TWENTY-FIVE of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Heading upstream farther we go through the MK Davis-proposed site up to the Peter Byrne-proposed location. Nothing seems quite in the right place to be the real PGF Bigfoot film site, but we keep on looking.
Here is PART TWENTY-SIX of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Heading upstream farther we hit the "Gulch" where we have identified the "Christopher Murphy Site" as seen in his book, KNOW THE SASQUATCH/BIGFOOT. Some nice big trees are in the back, but they're sitting up on a steep hill. We see that the creek has eaten away a portion of the original sandbar.
Here is PART TWENTY-SEVEN of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Heading upstream farther we come to the gravel bar most closely matching Dahinden's "aerial" photo from 1971. Ian gets in some digs against "Google Earth Armchair Investigators," and we speculate as to what could have caused the creek to change direction over the years.
Here is PART TWENTY-EIGHT of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we speculate on what current features of the creekbed might be similar to what MK sees in his Bluff Creek Massacre Theory. One very good looking potential track way is analyzed, as well as root balls "as big as a room." Where the creek splits in two courses we find a feature identified by Murphy, Perez and John Green.
Here is PART TWENTY-NINE of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we start to head back downstream, measuring with a laser pointer to the MK Davis site. See me drinking a beer while doing research in the field. Great! Just from hillside height we are basically able to rule out the MK site from our list of authentic locations.
Here is PART THIRTY of our BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT on BFRO-VIDEOS on YouTube. Here we finish our hike downstream, with a lengthy stop-over at the MK Davis site. We locate what we think is MK's flagging tape on a tree branch, sitting over an old rotten downed log... clear markings. STAY TUNED for our final day's videos and a coming new set of summation sessions. Then, on to next summer!
*******
The BLUFF CREEK FILM SITE PROJECT series, now at 36 videos, may be
seen on YouTube under "Uploads, See All" at BFRO-VIDEOS.
Customers brought this odd skull in for examination the other day. What do YOU think it is? They thought it might be some kind of monkey, an "Indian Devil," or even one of the "Little People" said to live around this region. One look at it had us thinking CHUPACABRAS; but we soon found out thanks to our trusty Facebook friends what the skull really came from. Check it out... it is still very strange looking.
*******
OK, we have indeed been a bit lazy about blogging lately. Sorry about that. We've been leaving comments on other people's blogs, putzing around on the JREF Forums, and generally drowning in a sea of email. We'd like to recommend the fairly new arrival of THOM POWELL'S blog, THOMSQUATCH. He is not afraid to cover some of the more strange and interesting aspects of the Bigfoot phenomenon (as evidenced by his fine book,
THE LOCALS: A Contemporary Investigation of the Bigfoot/Sasquatch Phenomenon). The comments we left on his posts are a good clue to our own thinking these days, so check them out; but do go to Thom's blog to see what we were responding to, eh? These little snippets offer a touch of what we've been thinking about lately. We promise, we WILL be back with more ideas and incisive analysis. Just let us get free of this Bluff Creek stuff, OK?
~ ~ ~
Steven Streufert said...
Unless, that is, someone brings in some bones or a body tomorrow. Then at least we may do anatomy. From that point our attempts at behavioral studies would at least be taken seriously, and there would be more proper funding for endeavors aiming to document how the crafty critters live. If existence were proven, but they were still exceedingly difficult to study in the field, then that *absence* could at least be taken as a proof of extreme intelligent adaptation.
Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying we should kill one (as if we could!).
Great start on the blog, Thom!
...and then this...
Steven Streufert said...
Just because "crazy" things happen, and you are there with an open mind to observe them, does not make one crazy. Right outside of our consensus version of reality the universe is "totally insane." Well, surely it obeys "laws," but much of what is going on is not yet fully understood. We are biologically predetermined to experience a certain range, a slice of perceptual reality, and really not much more once our culture gets in there and restricts it further. Much of what we now call "paranormal" will one day be understood by science; but human subjective experience runs way ahead of what now may be empirically proven. Likewise, much of what science now knows runs way outside of normal human physical experience. The problem is in sorting through "the unknown" to find "the real," the provisionally real, at least. Science may be a "candle in the dark"; but we should always remember that the scientific has a liminal edge where it bleeds into the as-yet-unproven and mysterious realms.
...and then this...
Steven Streufert said...
If one pays attention, EVERYTHING is "paranormal." Also, what is paranormal or supernatural to one creature may not be so to another. If we humans were suddenly able to utilize the perceptual apparatus of, say, a bat, we would be utterly stunned by the influx of bizarre and incomprehensible stimuli. There are clearly levels of causation that we do not or cannot (yet) understand or perceive, but nonetheless exist; and these synchronicities are just the odd glimpses of this that we are able to, stumblingly, pick up.
****BOOKS****
EXCITING READING ON ITS WAY TO OUR BRAIN!
*******
This little conversation was started by famous Russian hominologist, Igor Burtsev, on Facebook. We commented there, too. We post it here as a reminder to all of us Bigfooters... be nice to each other, cooperate, don't be a turd, think like a Sasquatch!
I see, so many BF researchers and just their friends are in the USA, and so many encounters happen.
Why don't all of you unite and set up the public movement/society "For Recognition of Bigfoots" and demand such a recognition?
****************************************** ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS! Angry Bigfoot is still hibernating, though it looks to be a warm winter out here in Willow Creek, CA. However, at one point as he thrashed about in his sleep he was heard to grumble and mutter and then exclaim, "Dag Nabbit, hu-man! Pool of blood it not. Me plant bone on wrong film site. Me trick MK hu-man. Me hypnotize, whisper Sci-Fi story in him ear! Truth be, ME do Massacre on yer ass you not shut up. Let me sleep."
****************************************** This blog is copyrighted, 2011 Bigfoot Books and Steven Streufert, aside from materials presented from others for "research purposes only," though you may borrow and quote if full citation is given, preferably with notice to us and a kindly link to this blog. Thanks!
(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:
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...
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.
ANGRY BIGFOOT SPEAKS!
). The comments we left on his posts are a good clue to our own thinking these days, so check them out; but do go to Thom's blog to see what we were responding to, eh? These little snippets offer a touch of what we've been thinking about lately. We promise, we WILL be back with more ideas and incisive analysis. Just let us get free of this Bluff Creek stuff, OK?
, by Linda Coil Suchy.
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.
